Why Should I Come Back to the Church?

[DJgang]

I think you should attend Mass if you wish, but please do not receive the Eucharist.

You can not “return to the church” unless you believe.

God Bless and Good Luck.

 

[Evan]

Yes but what reason do we have to believe that events recorded in the Old Testament are actually true? The consensus of most historians seems to be that the books of the Old Testament were written long after the events that they purport to describe, and are often filled with inaccuracies.

How would you, or historians, know if they are filled with inaccuracies? The historians I have read indicate that when they find evidence relating to the Old Testament, it supports what is told there.

Oral histories have been found to be very accurate, but the writing taking place when a people have settled a land and it does not introduce errors, it simply puts down in writing what was told to each generation.

The events are not the main concern, but the prophetic teachings that were fulfilled by Christ and the amazing events surrounding his life.

 

[Aloysium]

I don’t see the need for God to exist in order to make sense of the world

because there is God:
there is existence,
there is a world,
a world that has an order that can be made sense of,
a world that contains us,
we who are able to make sense of things
we who are here communicating today
reaching out to one another

 

[adf417]

As a general rule, I try not to simply “accept” that something/someone speaks truth. My usual approach is to weigh the evidence and arguments that they present and try to determine what the most likely conclusion is.

Based on what?

 

[bearcat9276]

How would you, or historians, know if they are filled with inaccuracies? The historians I have read indicate that when they find evidence relating to the Old Testament, it supports what is told there.

It depends on which book of the Bible/timeframe we’re talking about. But the book of Exodus, for instance, seems to purport things which are at odds with the historical record, such as a massive group of Israelites, numbering in the hundreds of thousands, traveling through the desert, despite the fact that the archaological finds do not support this. Or battles that occurred at cities which did not actually exist during the timeframe that the author purports to describe.

Oral histories have been found to be very accurate, but the writing taking place when a people have settled a land and it does not introduce errors, it simply puts down in writing what was told to each generation.

You say that oral histories have been found to be very accurate, and I am curious what you mean by this. Do you mean that all oral histories should be taken as mostly accurate? What is your evidence for this statement?

The events are not the main concern, but the prophetic teachings that were fulfilled by Christ and the amazing events surrounding his life.

You’re assuming here that the Bible accurately recorded the events of Christ’s life. But of course, if we knew that, we wouldn’t need prophecies, because we would already know that Jesus came back from the dead, performed miracles, etc. The accuracy of the Biblical stories is precisely what is up for discussion.

 

[bearcat9276]

Based on what?

A variety of things, including logic, past experience, scientific discovery, etc. An intro to logic course could explain it better than I could, but there are a variety of tools at humanity’s disposal when it comes to reaching truth that have been shown to have a relatively high success rate. The natural sciences, for instance, are one of humanity’s most successful initiatives for discovering new facts about the universe.

 

[Aloysium]

A variety of things, including logic, past experience, scientific discovery, etc. An intro to logic course could explain it better than I could, but there are a variety of tools at humanity’s disposal when it comes to reaching truth that have been shown to have a relatively high success rate. The natural sciences, for instance, are one of humanity’s most successful initiatives for discovering new facts about the universe.

you previously posted :

“(I) try to determine what the most likely conclusion is.”

ADF 417 responded:

“Based on what?”

I interpreted his question as being a personal one.
That you should reflect on what you consider to be truth.
What is it that you truly believe in? What is it about that belief that makes you hold it higher than another?

What I get from your reply is that you value your own ability to think and that you favour the views of hypothetical writers of Intro to Philosophy texts, and scientists who have discovered facts about the universe. From my experience, I would actually have more faith in my parish priest.

It sounds like you may have already embarked on a detour in your journey.

 

[joshvanrad]

You should come back because you believe in God and want to grow in faith.

If you do not believe in God and do not care to grow in the Catholic faith then there is no reason to come back at this point.

Ite in pace,
Joshua C.

 

[adf417]

A variety of things, including logic, past experience, scientific discovery, etc. An intro to logic course could explain it better than I could, but there are a variety of tools at humanity’s disposal when it comes to reaching truth that have been shown to have a relatively high success rate. The natural sciences, for instance, are one of humanity’s most successful initiatives for discovering new facts about the universe.

Greetings bearcat, I think everything you come across here on CAF will be faith based not logic based. As someone has already pointed out Augustine’s famous phrase something to the effect of “I have faith so that I may then seek understanding”. You are clearly seeking understanding solely based on logic and imperial evidence.

I believe these conversations (faith based answers to questions of logic) are much like two people from different lands trying to speak to each other and neither can understand the others language.

If you are truly seeking understanding, I suggest you steer your thoughts more to the “what is faith” questions before you continue trying to make sense out of the sciences. BTW there are not a lot of tools needed for this discovery of understanding.

Peace brother!!!

 

[Kal2012]

Faith: Belief in the unseen.

After a certain point, you just have to trust. We can read books and see videos and learn all the talking points, but in the end, it’s still taking the step to believe in something that can’t be seen.

I’ve never doubted the existence of God. However, I have doubted my faith. I’ve questioned some of the things I’ve been taught and realized that I wasn’t being taught whole truth. Just parts of the truth.

Reason isn’t the opposite of faith. One of the reasons why I love the RCC is because Catholics aren’t afraid of using the intelligence God gave them. They don’t go around saying stupid things like the world was created in 7 literal 24 hour days.

God created the world, but we have plenty of evidence through carbon dating and fossils that the Earth wasn’t created in 7 literal 24 hour days.

Facts are nice, but humans are also spiritual creatures. We aren’t just robots w/out a soul or purpose. Mind + Body + Spirit…the Catholic church addresses all of these a lot more reasonably than other churches I’ve found.

As for whether the stories in the OT are true. Some people believe the stories are true. Others believe they are metaphors.

I’m in the “I don’t know” camp. I’ve learned to be okay with “I don’t know.”

Maybe Jonah really ended up in the whale for 3 days? I don’t know, I wasn’t there. It makes an interesting story and an even better one, if it’s actually literally true.

I’d like some more definitive answers too; however, part of faith is trusting in God whether or not I have all the answers to all my questions.

 

[fred_conty]

Hello all,

hopefully I’m posting this in the right place.

I left the church almost four years ago, when I was a freshman in high school, as a result of research and questioning that I was going through at that time. I no longer identify with any religious group or belief system. However, I’ve maintained a real interest in religion, religious debates/discussions, etc. and am very open to different beliefs.

This forum seems to be a great place for discussion of these religious issues, so I would like to pose a question:

As an ex-Catholic, now a non-believer, why should I return to the Church? What reasons are there to convince me that the claims made by the Catholic Church are true?

Bearcat,

It is good that you are trying to think about this issue and we are glad to have you with us.

I would like to ask a favor of you. You mentioned that you were still receiving the sacraments which means Holy Communion. If you don’t believe that Communion is the real body of Jesus Christ, then you shouldn’t receive it for you would be receiving it unworthily, that is, not discerning the body of Christ. I ask this for your well being, to avoid evil.
This is the first step in finding God.

From your other posts, it seems you are not a believer any more, but you seem to want a way to figure out what is true, to believe or not to believe. And you indicated this by still functioning in catholic activities and being with your family. I want to help you.

There was a nice sister in Paris France in 1840, who saw our blessed mother Mary appear to her. Mary told the sister to have a green scapular made, and Mary made pledges to those who carried or wore this scapular:

… Conversion of those who do not have the faith
… Reconciliation to the Church for those who have lost/strayed from the faith
… Assurance of a happy death
… Strengthening of the faith for those already in the Church
… Protection from Satan for those who wear or promote the scapular

The scapular should be blessed by a priest.
It may be carried, as in a wallet.
And this prayer said each and every day:
“Immaculate Heart of Mary pray for us now and at the hour of our death.”

That prayer may be said by you, or the one who gives it to you, or both.

Wouldn’t you agree that this is what you want but don’t know how to go about it?

If you agree to this to carry it on you, I will mail you one free.
I will also pray that prayer for you as well.
Just PM me with your mailing address.

This scapular has a good reputation. You have everything to gain.

Wishing you peace.

 

[ericc]

At this point I remain skeptical of the existence of God. What particular arguments do you find convincing?

I left because I felt that the Church did not provide adequate reasons for me to believe what they said. I considered it unlikely that the Bible was the Word of God, rather than a purely human text, and I considered it unlikely that the Church truly spoke infallible truth rather than simply being an ordinary human institution.

Peter Kreeft, a philosopher, has a website filled with useful information peterkreeft.com/home.htm. I find his speech on “Why I am Catholic-7 Reasons” particularly enlightening. youtube.com/watch?v=qAu5VL6mImA. There are 5 parts.

If you are a seeker of truth, you will find God. Kreeft has a logical way of putting his view across, no fluff.

You said you left because you felt the Church did not provide adequate reasons for you to believe. Could you elaborate which part you feel is inadequate for you? There are many brothers and sisters here on CAF who may be able to enlighten you on your journey to seek truth. Perhaps the environment that you found yourself in previously not conducive to determine what is truth and perhaps you have resorted to finding “stuff” yourself. Again your environment may condition you to think in a certain way and hence limit your scope to think in other ways.

CAF has many resources you can reach for. Many posters here could have walked the same journey that you find yourself now walking and can provide you with “tips” and share their experiences. It would be useful to list down the areas which you find particularly disturbing or as you put it “not enough reason” for you to believe and let the bros/sis at CAF have a go at addressing each of your issues. Some of them are better and more researched in certain topics than others . Hence you have access to a wide choice of possible answers that you find adequate to your quest.

I already saw 3 questions that you have posed:

1. Inadequate reasons. Please clarify. What is your standard to achieve “adequate”.
2. Why do you think that the Bible is unlikely the Word of God. How did you come to that conclusion and on what basis are you able to determine that is a fact and not a personal “feel” opinion.
3. You considered it unlikely that the Church truly spoke infallible truth. Similarly as 2 above, how did you arrive and determine that is true? Why unlikely? Which part do you think Church didn’t speak infallible truth and in fact spoke error. If you know something that we don’t , please share.

Give us some bones to chew at and I think you will be surprised at the wealth of experience and knowledge these folks at CAF have. I come here frequently to get myself educated so to speak. I come from a small town and the local priest may not be the best person to speak on certain topics. If you are genuinely interested to seek the truth, you will find you have plenty of companions here. They won’t stop bugging you till you are contented.

 

[Ignatius]

As an ex-Catholic, now a non-believer, why should I return to the Church?

Here’s why: youtube.com/watch?v=q-jBacBbNT4
God bless you on your journey.

 

[bearcat9276]

you previously posted :

ADF 417 responded:

I interpreted his question as being a personal one.
That you should reflect on what you consider to be truth.
What is it that you truly believe in? What is it about that belief that makes you hold it higher than another?

What I get from your reply is that you value your own ability to think and that you favour the views of hypothetical writers of Intro to Philosophy texts, and scientists who have discovered facts about the universe. From my experience, I would actually have more faith in my parish priest.

It sounds like you may have already embarked on a detour in your journey.

Why in particular would you trust a priest more than a scientist or philosopher?

 

[bearcat9276]

Faith: Belief in the unseen.

After a certain point, you just have to trust. We can read books and see videos and learn all the talking points, but in the end, it’s still taking the step to believe in something that can’t be seen.

But how do you decide who or what to trust?

Reason isn’t the opposite of faith. One of the reasons why I love the RCC is because Catholics aren’t afraid of using the intelligence God gave them. They don’t go around saying stupid things like the world was created in 7 literal 24 hour days.

Well, a surprising amount of them do say things like that, even on this very site, but I understand your main point.

 

[bearcat9276]

Peter Kreeft, a philosopher, has a website filled with useful information peterkreeft.com/home.htm. I find his speech on “Why I am Catholic-7 Reasons” particularly enlightening. youtube.com/watch?v=qAu5VL6mImA. There are 5 parts.

If you are a seeker of truth, you will find God. Kreeft has a logical way of putting his view across, no fluff.

I’ve read Kreeft’s work before and ultimately find it unpersuasive. Which of his arguments do you find persuasive?

You said you left because you felt the Church did not provide adequate reasons for you to believe. Could you elaborate which part you feel is inadequate for you?

I simply mean that I was never really given adequate reasons. For instance, many apologists told me to believe that Jesus really performed miracles because these miracles are recorded in ancient texts, (the Gospels). But it seems to me that there are a variety of ancient texts that purport to describe all kinds of fantastical, ridiculous things, and we don’t take those books seriously, so why should I take the Bible seriously?

1. Inadequate reasons. Please clarify. What is your standard to achieve “adequate”.

Adequate reasons would be arguments/evidence such that the truth of Catholicism was more likely then it being false.

1. Why do you think that the Bible is unlikely the Word of God. How did you come to that conclusion and on what basis are you able to determine that is a fact and not a personal “feel” opinion.

Here’s what I wrote about this above:

A) Simple probability says that even if we knew that God had inspired a particular book, the odds of any one book being that book would be remarkably low. And we certainly don’t know that God inspired any books in the first place.
B) I find what I read in the Bible to be inconsistent, both with itself and from what I would expect from a perfect God. This might be a subject for a whole other thread though.

To put it simply, the church claims that the Bible is the word of God, but I haven’t seen any reason to believe that that is true. What reason do I have to believe that?

1. You considered it unlikely that the Church truly spoke infallible truth. Similarly as 2 above, how did you arrive and determine that is true? Why unlikely? Which part do you think Church didn’t speak infallible truth and in fact spoke error. If you know something that we don’t , please share.

I simply have no reason to believe that the Church is infallible. The church makes that claim but I haven’t seen any evidence to that effect.

 

[Aloysium]

Why in particular would you trust a priest more than a scientist or philosopher?

• a priest would be helpful regarding moral decisions, meaning of life, how to find strength in difficult circumstances, how to live with oneself, getting closer to God: things like that, things that are important
• a philosopher would be interesting to talk to, but that’s about it; if the particular philosopher were a devout practitioner of their religion, since I believe there is one God that everybody can know, it could even be enlightening - I would probably trust that this person could have my interests at heart
• a scientist you can trust when they talk about their particular field of expertise, unless their work hasn’t been published, in which case they will not trust you

 

[bearcat9276]

• a priest would be helpful regarding moral decisions, meaning of life, how to find strength in difficult circumstances, how to live with oneself, getting closer to God: things like that, things that are important
• a philosopher would be interesting to talk to, but that’s about it; if the particular philosopher were a devout practitioner of their religion, since I believe there is one God that everybody can know, it could even be enlightening - I would probably trust that this person could have my interests at heart
• a scientist you can trust when they talk about their particular field of expertise, unless their work hasn’t been published, in which case they will not trust you

I think you’re assuming that the meaning of life is the domain of a priest. But it seems to me that that would only be true if we already knew that the priest was representative of a true religion, which is precisely the subject that is up for debate.

 

[Aloysium]

I think you’re assuming that the meaning of life is the domain of a priest. But it seems to me that that would only be true if we already knew that the priest was representative of a true religion, which is precisely the subject that is up for debate.

there’s a real dilemma here

you have to have faith before it makes sense; how can you have faith if it makes no sense

but, if you want to know Truth, you will

some ppl end up not knowing because they didn’t actually want to;
they just wanted to argue their point

 

[Evan]

I simply mean that I was never really given adequate reasons. For instance, many apologists told me to believe that Jesus really performed miracles because these miracles are recorded in ancient texts, (the Gospels). But it seems to me that there are a variety of ancient texts that purport to describe all kinds of fantastical, ridiculous things, and we don’t take those books seriously, so why should I take the Bible seriously?

If you are just looking at the Gospels, there is a lot of evidence that they are accurate reports of people trying to honestly express what they witnessed (see Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony by Richard Bauckham for scientific treatment)

Contradictions between the Gospels ADDS to their credibility because eyewitness accounts usually hold contradictions UNLESS there was collusion between the witnesses to get their stories straight beforehand.

The Gospels differ from other ancient texts with ridiculous things in that it has real historical people (Pilate, Augustus, Herod) where (for example) the Illiad has no person found in history outside of the story (Achilles, Helen).