WHY should we assume/suspect that the Christian doctrine is true?

[PJM]

Thank you,

REALLY Prudent advice

Blessings

Patrick

 

[PJM]

That is RUBBISH!

Scientist have endeavored to determine without ANY success how the image appeared and has maintained it’s original luster all this time and FAILED.

If it was paint it could be chipped off; the IMAGE id permanently embedded in a STRANGE & Beautiful Mysterious way

God Bless you
Patrick

 

[PJM]

My dear friend in Christ,

In REPLY to your Op QUESTION

WHY should we assume/suspect that the Christian doctrine is true?

My dear friend in Christ; by “Christian” I hope you mean “Catholic”? …You seem to imply singular tense “Doctrine”

For 2,000 years now the RCC Catholic Church has defined God’s OWN UNCHANGEABLE Truths, that theologians later termed DOCTRINES & Dogma. Both are Holy Spirit Inspired & unchangeable:2 Tim 3:16-17 [EITHER THE ORIGINAL CATHOLIC BILE IN TOTAL IS TRUE OR NONE OF IT IS TRUE… AND THE BIBLE IS A CATHOLIC BOOK.

YET the Protestant reformation .led by Martin Luther choose to change many of them; THEN Calvin, Knox and other choose to change BOTH the Catholic Originals HS Inspired truths and even the new innovations of Luther. And this individualistic endeavor has now produced in a mere 500 years THOUSANDS of differing “christian doctrines”

SO THE ANSWER TO YOUR WELL WORDED QUESTION IS IN A WORD: TRUTH

BENEDICT XVI
Benedict says: “If we omit the truth, what do we do anything for?”
“Their cannot be your truth and my truth or there would be no truth”
FATHER HARDON, one f the most esteemed theologians of the 20th Century} taught this about TRUTH:
“Truth is the condition of grace, it is the source of grace, it is the channel of grace, it is the divinely ordained requirement of grace.” ….Father was a friend and occasional mentor of mine.
Ps.145 Verses 17 to 18 “
[17] The LORD is just in all his ways, and kind in all his doings. [18] The LORD is near to all who call upon him, to all who call upon him in truth.

Dictionary Definition of “Truth”

1. The true or actual state of a matter:
   conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement
2. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like mathematical truths.
3. the state or character of being true.
4. actuality or actual existence.
5. an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude.
6. honesty; integrity; truthfulness.
7. (often initial capital letter) ideal or fundamental reality apart from and
   transcending perceived experience:
8. agreement with a standard or original.
   9… accuracy, as of position or adjustment.
9. Archaic. Fidelity or constancy. End quotes

SEEK The singular Truths of our God and you’ll find what you’re seeking.

PRAY very much
God Bless you,
Patrick

 

[AlNg]

Scientist have endeavored to determine without ANY success how the image appeared and has maintained it’s original luster all this time and FAILED.

The painting has been retouched.

 

[PJM]

Ok Friend,

Your allowed to believe what YOU choose to believe; your also allowed to choose hell over heaven.

May Our GOD guide your path

Patrick

 

[rotlex]

do you already have some faith? a bit like doubting Thomas?

Good thread, and this simple post really describes me. I have similar feelings\issues, at least I believe, as the OP. I’m what I consider a fairly devout Catholic with a daily Bible reading plan, daily rosary and a host of other things. My problem is I’m easily swayed when I start to “think” too much, if that makes any sense.

One prime example someone discussed earlier in this thread is the whole resurrection itself. I find it all too easy to believe that the body could have easily been taken or moved. Honestly, the fact that the Bible text itself tries to make you believe otherwise by telling you how heavily it was guarded makes me doubt it even more at times. Mathew 2 62-66 as example, and then again Mathew 28 11-15. It’s almost as if the author is trying to hide what could have actually happened. (Hoping I remembered those chapter and versus correctly for reference).

Don’t get me wrong. I’m a believer. But honestly, sometimes I really start to wonder about all this. Is it all just wishful thinking, the hopes of a being that really does not want his or her life to ever end?

 

[eddietoo]

i have never read or heard of a more plausible explanation of reality than roman catholicism. however, in the end, while my belief is founded upon my best understanding of reality, it remains a belief.

God became man in the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. that is my belief.

if you have something that makes more sense, is more reasonable and has more evidence to back it up than roman catholicism, you should provide it to everyone. otherwise, given the enormous amount of evidence underlying, the enormous number of reasons supporting, and the inherent reasonableness of, roman catholicism, you should abandon your pursuit of doubt and disbelief.

there are literally thousands of writings and examinations of the truths of our roman catholic faith. they are available to everyone. this idea of yours that on a discussion forum all of these writings and examinations can be provided to you is erroneous. you must seek them out and study them.

you want a synopsis of them all and expect that to convince you. that is not reasonable. all of the support forms a single faith. different knowledge about our faith informs each of us. however, ultimately, it still comes down to faith.

either believe that you are created, your Creator loves you more than anyone or anything else, your Creator wants you to have eternal life, and that He became man to give you the opportunity to overcome the obstacles we humans have placed in our path to eternal life; or, not. the choice is yours and yours alone.

 

[kepha1]

This is Modernism, the synthesis of all heresies. It began just after the Enlightenment era. It’s bogus scholarship with an agenda.

 

[Marcgal]

Guys, sorry for not replying that long, I was busy AND tired AND ill. Too bad this means now I gotta post another wall of text Also, Quack the 3200 character limit!!

I kind of like the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Yes, and I know I got to read it throroughly finally. I have been reading it selectively though. So let’s see what it has to say:

32 The world: starting from movement, becoming, contingency, and the world’s order and beauty, one can come to a knowledge of God as the origin and the end of the universe.

To this I can only reply in a manner similar to this post of mine: link to post

 

[Marcgal]

33 The human person: with his openness to truth and beauty, his sense of moral goodness, his freedom and the voice of his conscience, with his longings for the infinite and for happiness, man questions himself about God’s existence. In all this he discerns signs of his spiritual soul. the soul, the “seed of eternity we bear in ourselves, irreducible to the merely material”,9 can have its origin only in God.

Possibly. But I became doubtful of such reasoning. You see, I used to treat the fact that humans feel joy, feel pain, have consciousness, as a proof of the existence of human soul. My reasoning was that no robot, no machine, no computer can ever feel - they can receive information and reason from this information, but never feel. So, I thought that soul is this part of a human person that is not from this world and this exact part that makes a human person a person rather than a thing, granting him consciousness, the ability to feel and free will.

I gave up such reasoning after talking to Catholic theologians. One could not even understand what I was talking about because apparently he thought that to feel pain is exactly to receive information that the affected tissue in the body is damaged. To me pain is more than information because it is felt, and not only received, and I thought that no one who has ever felt physical pain can miss the difference, but apparently I was wrong. Another theologian told me that I mistook the soul to be similar to a “dumpling on a plate”, while it is rather the “form” of the body, and that I presented “Platonic dualism”, a doctrine whose compatibility with the Catholic theology was questionable. Also I learned that Augistine after Plato held that there was a spiritual, supernatural part of the human nature, but Aquinas after Aristotle held that there was no such part in the human nature and that human is really no different from an animal, only God has granted this particular animal His grace, and that it is Aquinas’ view that is most popular among theologians, not Augustine’s.

Therefrore I’m not sure how can all of this that is presented in the CCC “discern sign of a man’s spiritual soul”. I’m even more confused by the fact that I suppose all of this “openness to truth and beauty, his sense of moral goodness, his freedom and the voice of his conscience, with his longings for the infinite and for happiness” could be explained by the theory of evolution, except perhaps freedom which, according to scientists, may only be illusionary.

 

[Marcgal]

146 Abraham thus fulfils the definition of faith in Hebrews 11:1: “Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen”:

This seems to me to be one of the weirdest arguments supporting faith I’ve seen. Like, I feel, it is blatantly circular. It exactly says: “My word is the proof of my word”. I can’t help but I feel that this website might have its point: Your logical fallacy is begging the question

156 What moves us to believe is not the fact that revealed truths appear as true and intelligible in the light of our natural reason: we believe “because of the authority of God himself who reveals them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived”.28 So "that the submission of our faith might nevertheless be in accordance with reason, God willed that external proofs of his Revelation should be joined to the internal helps of the Holy Spirit."29 Thus the miracles of Christ and the saints, prophecies, the Church’s growth and holiness, and her fruitfulness and stability “are the most certain signs of divine Revelation, adapted to the intelligence of all”; they are “motives of credibility” (motiva credibilitatis), which show that the assent of faith is “by no means a blind impulse of the mind”

The only problem is that all of those argument need quite a strong support themselves.

157 Faith is certain. It is more certain than all human knowledge because it is founded on the very word of God who cannot lie. To be sure, revealed truths can seem obscure to human reason and experience, but "the certainty that the divine light gives is greater than that which the light of natural reason gives."31 "Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt."32

Sure! FIrst, though, we need to be sure that these claims (a) really are founded on the very word of God (b) who cannot lie and ( c ) actually exists.

 

[Marcgal]

161 Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation.42 "Since “without faith it is impossible to please (God) " and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life ‘But he who endures to the end.’”]

This is one of the most disturbing arguments I’ve seen. If understood literally it means that those who are really convinced that the Catholic religion is false and really, really think that, for example, Islam is the true religion instead - that all such people are doomed to go to hell, even in spite they have been pursuing what they considered to be the Truth throughout their whole life.

TO be fair, however, I must admit I was being repeatedly told that this is not the case and that according to the teaching of the Catholic Church someone who, in goodwill, deviates from the teaching of the Church because he is convinced that Truth lies elsewhere can still obtain salvation. Even in spite of that, this argument is still disturbing. Many religions, dangerous cults including, hold that every and any one who does not join their church or denomination or cult must go to hell. Therefore a person who is concerned of his salvation should carefully examine all those cults! Which is an impossibility. I, for example, am really somewhere in between of Catholicism and agnosticism. I’m not seriously considering radical Islam, or your dangerous cult next door whose self-appointed “prophet” says that only these few who join his sect can ever go to heaven. What if any of these cults proves true? Am I doomed to go to hell because I was a Catholic or an agnostic?

 

[Vonsalza]

My precise idea for a topic is to ask You to outline me the reasons why it should be believed that the Catholic doctrine is, simply, true. I’m sorry but I will play the Devil’s advocate in this topic. But my intention is not to attack the faith. Honestly, this topic is, rather, more of a plea for help.

Probably because “scientism” is an excellent tool for providing facts, but an it’s not a very good tool at providing meaning.

There is this thing called “culture” which is the basic medium through which the immediate group of humans interact with one-another. Part of culture is the concept of morality - the rules that govern what we do. As these things are not measurable, science can do very little to determine some sort of optimum for either in any way that actually helps you make immediate decisions.

“God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. Yet his shadow still looms. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives; who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves?”

By this, Nietzsche predicted the death of religion and the rise of fascism (the over-man) that was required to replace him. Since then, we have mostly replaced fascism with ideological radicalism of some stripe.

Either way, you need some sort of cultural glue to give you and your immediate community some sort of meaning. Science cannot do this. At least, not in a scientific way.

 

[Marcgal]

Do you really believe the idea that the apostles stole the body is plausible? Because it’s not.

Is the claim that Jesus has risen from the dead any more plausible? Again: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Also please take a look here: history - What evidence is there for the Resurrection of Jesus? - Christianity Stack Exchange and here: history - Did Jesus live? - Skeptics Stack Exchange For the sake of time I restricted myself to the upvoted answers there only. It seems that, as I said, there is little evidence for Christ rising from the dead but what His followers say. I’m not sure if the word of His followers (or cultists?) is credible. If we believed everything cultists say about their “prophets”, we woulnd’t get anywhere.

Do you believe in Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle? How about Julius Caesar?

I believe all those people existed. And I believe Jesus also existed. Believing the existence of historical figures is, however, something different that believing their alleged miracles that would be dismissed as legends if not the large group of followers who would rather die than forfeit their beliefs. And, as I said, it might be plausible to believe that a person can really believe in bogus claims that hard.

 

[Marcgal]

At the end of the day, it’s is your personal choice to believe.

Sure, but I’d like this choice to be reasoned… rather than random or based on a “blind impulse of the mind”.

Anyone who says they can convert you is wrong.

We go through our own conversions. But first, we have to ask God to open our eyes.

When you seek God, who all good and pure love, He will be there for you.

True, but (1) in this case, what apologists are for? (2) If faith wasn’t true, this would be a great way to delude oneself into believing it is

Well, why do you assume that scientism is true and Catholic doctrine is not?

I don’t assume that Catholic doctrine is not true. However, plausible reasons are required to assume it is true. So I’m asking for those reasons.

@MonteRCMS :

Oh sheesh. That old canard. Jesus was never married to Mary Magdelene.

I’m out

I’m sorry but this kind of stuff makes me very skeptical here. If we were to believe Jacobovici, we’d have to believe that Jesus was married to Mary Magdelene, which contradicts Catholic faith. So, kind of, this makes Jacobovici untrustworthy.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

Well, why do you assume that scientism is true and Catholic doctrine is not?

Ok. There are many.

First and foremost, it feels right. It feels right to me that there is a God and He loves me. It feels right that since we are created by this benevolent God, we should also, love the rest of His Creation.

Especially our brothers and sisters in the Faith because we share a common outlook. And also, to love all others whom God has revealed are made in His Image.

Second, because God loves us, He has revealed Himself to us in ourselves and in the universe around us. For example. God has revealed His is a Blessed Trinity. When I consider the universe, I see that Time is also a trinity, past, present and future, seamlessly melded into one thing. Space is also a trinity. Height, length, and depth, seamlessly combined into one thing.

Every single thing on earth has these dimensions.

Third, there are so many things in this world which can not be explained by natural causes. They must be supernatural.

For example. Science has very recently discovered that this universe should not exist. There are to many anti-matter particles. The anti-matter particles should have destroyed all existing matter. They can’t figure out why the universe exists amidst in conjunction with these destructive forces.

And, there are the pre-existing laws of physics. These tell us how the all matter behaves. Thus, the universe is ruled in an orderly fashion by these laws. And if there are laws, there must be a Law Maker who put them in place.

But we don’t have to go very far to be stunned to silence by the wonder of our world. Just look at yourself. Even the least of any creature is superbly made. Who could have done it, but God?

Is that enough? Or do you need more?

 

[Marcgal]

The Fallacy of Placing Faith in Science Rather than in God - Catholic Stand

Let’s see the article…

is to understand the logic of St. Thomas Aquinas Five Ways to Demonstrate the Existence of God.

I don’t know, admittedly these are pretty difficult for me, and I can’t help but notice that many people consider THomas’ reasoning to be flawed. Basically, my answer to all those proves may be similar to my initial answer to Britanny, except that sometimes Thomas seems to make claims that seem arbitrary for me, like for example why “perfectrion” can’t be completely subjective, in contrary to objective existence? (Way fourth)

Since science does not hold all the answers or the answers found are rarely the final and complete truth, then believers in science are actually believing on faith, alone. This is the very thing that they criticize about Christians. Believers in science insist upon facts and proof. But in this instance their beliefs conflict, because these outcomes are just a small portion of what can be known by research. It’s not possible for researchers to reveal all possible facts about all of creation.

That is why the idea of falsibility came to scientific word.

Those who develop scientific theories to use in research studies often have an have an agenda beyond simply proving or disproving their theories. While many are looking for cures or ways to help humanity, others want to prove their own foregone conclusions. Formal, grant-funded research, may offer a variety of personal benefits to the researcher or his funders. The approach referred to as the “scientific method” can be biased in its choice of study methods, variables, or any number of pertinent considerations. This is evidenced by some of the scathing peer reviews that criticize the methods used. The following examples need to be considered, especially in light of two human weaknesses: “what’s in it for them” and “follow the money.”

Then future experiments should disprove these bogus claims

By its own nature, science is a work in progress

So it can correct its errors, unlike the Church that must believe it has never erred

Anyway, again, I am inclined to believe that it is true that by its nature science cannot explain everything. But why should we believe that the Catholic Church can, that’s a different question.

 

[Marcgal]

Fufilling of most Old testament prophecies

As far as I’m aware the Jews, now and at the times of Christ, are and were of a different opinion. Why, if I recall I’ve read a Catholic! commentary to the Scripture, which implied that in the times of Jesus they were SINCERILY convinced otherwise, since a totally different interpretation of the prophecies was believed by them!

He left a visible Church, that for 2000 years hasn’t in the slightest fallen apart.

My first reply to pianistclare covers this

I think the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas also helps.

Maybe, though as far as I’m aware Catholic scientists like Michał Heller the Templeton Prize winner think this philosophy was obsoleted by modern science.

But once again, what I see in christianity is a religion that has had frequent revalation, in the past public and now more private revalation.

As far as I’m aware according to Catholic theology the Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle and private apparitions that happen since then cannot add anything new, but rather they can only help people understand the Revelation and apply it to their contemporary times. Granted, this might not invaluate your argument, though. Still, each private apparition needs to be proved itself

Jesus claims to be God and proves it with his ressurection.

Likely, though this resurrection also needs to be proven

In the end I think I would say this all adds up to my main point : Extreme consistency.

You may be right, though the Trads would prob disagree with you. Well granted it seems true that the Church was shifting its position on certain subjects throughout its history, not only during VatII. Arguably though it didn’t ever shift its position over what it considered to be infallible teaching

Also sometimes people ask why does prayer not seem to work. Its pretty much a big supposition in todays time to think that God is some type of sugar daddy. He isn’t.

I agree with you completely

 

[Marcgal]

do you already have some faith? a bit like doubting Thomas?

Something of this kind, I guess.

dear Lord please gift Marcgal faith in abundance, to glorify you.

Thank you!

Almost every act in nature can be seen to bear the cross. A plant grows up, overcoming its’ cross of gravity. A raindrop falls into the sea and is malformed by the friction of the wind, its’ cross. Everywhere there is friction somewhere… The only religion to give us this natural sign of struggle and difficulties is the Catholic one. Buddha comes on elephants and with fanfare. Jesus comes to us bearing the sign of even a natural struggle, made supernatural. The Cross is unbeatable.

A nice argument, however: (1) Why does friction have to equal cross, suffer? Intuitively I’d always argue otherwise (2) “The Cross is unbeatable” - how so? AFAIK according to Catholic theology the suffering is not a good, but a grave disorder, and good is self-sufficient and needs no evil

KEEP IN MIND THAT SPACE IS VERY RESTRICTED HERE ON CAF SO ASL ONE QUESTION AT A TIME

You’re right this is what I prob should be doing. But then I wouldn’t be able to, simply, ask for reasons to believe. Granted, my idea for a topic was probably bizzarre. Now I’m thinking what I should be doing instead probably is to ask for reasons to believe and then start a different topic to question each particular reason. My bad.

Also with a topic that broad, I must admit, discussing it with You has become pretty time and energy consuming on my part. So, sadly, the quality of my answers seems to decline.

 

[Marcgal]

Take a risk, drop your objections and go to a tabernacle, spend some time in front of the Blessed Sacrament. Ask Christ to reveal himself to you with a sincere and humble, open heart.

If Christianity is real, Christ will return your initiative.

I did try it, though admittedly I prob should invest more energy in this.

The result is clear: Being a Catholic helps me maintain my… psychological wellbeing. But this, still, says painfully little about its truthness. Or, more generally: Granted, I had experiences that would fit pretty well into the Christian worldview BUT they still don’t prove it.

My dear friend in Christ; by “Christian” I hope you mean “Catholic”?

Mostly. You see, even though I’m not seriously considering any other positions than agnosticism and Catholicism, I believe that to reach Catholicism (to say that Christ has given His Popes His authority), we first have to reach Christianity (that is, to say that Chris is God in the first place), and to reach CHristianity we first have to reach Abrahamic religons (that is, to be able to say that there is a personal God in the first place), and to reach even Abrahamic religions we first have to go past scientism (that is, to find out there is a supernatural world in the first place). Each phase, or step, requires convincing foundation. So I think I can justly ask for grounds of reaching Christianity before Catholicism.

Is it all just wishful thinking, the hopes of a being that really does not want his or her life to ever end?

Describes me perfectly well! Thank you! Although, granted, I’m a noticeably less devout Catholic than this:

I’m what I consider a fairly devout Catholic with a daily Bible reading plan, daily rosary and a host of other things.

But I don’t miss Sunday masses, at least.

this idea of yours that on a discussion forum all of these writings and examinations can be provided to you is erroneous. you must seek them out and study them.

That may be so, but again, in this case why do apologists exist