Why? Why must God exist? Honest, even handed questions

[Arizona_Mike]

By the way, Muslim fundamentalists have long been demonstrating their willingness to die for their beliefs. As I’m sure you’ll admit, this is no compelling argument for the truth value of their particular claims. It just makes them strongly convicted idiots.

That’s a common misconception. The power of the testimony of the apostles is not dying for what they believed in -even the atheists of the Soviet Union did that - it is that they died as martyrs for what they witnessed, the resurrection of Christ.

It is also a fact that the saints and martyrs of the Church did not die blowing themselves up with a suicide vest in a crowded mall because of their beliefs. They died as witnesses to a truth, without recanting under almost unimaginable pain.

If you read the writings of American POWs in Korea or Vietnam, who were amazingly good, strong, courageous, and honorable men, almost all of them will say that they held out under torture as long as they could, but ultimately agreed to sign false confessions or provide military information. Our military recognizes this in the revised Code of Conduct, which now says that a soldier is required only to hold out as a POW to the best of his ability. The combination of psychological pressure, beatings, and threats of castration and sexual assault would cause most of us to do the same as those POWs, if in a military POW camp.

The martyrs of Rome endured incredible agonies without abandoning their faith, when told that swearing allegiance to the Gods of Rome would save their lives.

Even in later times, St. Edmund Campion was repeatedly hung and revived, drawn and quartered, disemboweled, and castrated for the sin of saying Mass and taking confession in Elizabethan England. He knew what the punishment would be under English law, and was repeatedly offered the chance to bend a knee to Elizabeth, renounce his faith, and accept wealth and a position of honor in the Anglican Church. He declined repeatedly, and after torture and winning a series of apologetics debates with his tormentors (after spending the nights being tortured), finally went to his martyrdom.

I don’t regard that as proof that the Catholic Faith is correct, but I consider it as strong evidence.

 

[JDaniel]

JD, I came here with the purest of intents. I’m forty years old with a family and in the last semester of a graduate program and I’m currently working on my thesis. I assure you, I have much better things to be doing than be here specifically for trolling.

That being said, did I possibly come off as gruff or ignorant? Yeah, I’m sure I did. But that being said, when I did attempt to debate (which in my mind is a search for answers), most users here chose to respond not only with their view (which is totally cool), but they did so with forked tongues. I may not be a philosophical wizard, but I’m far from stupid and refuse to be talked to as such. Especially by those who’d claim it is their duty as Christians/Catholics to spread the word of God.

As far as not doing my homework, okay, again I may not be the best debater out there, but what I bring to the table is what I know. There’s no law against ignorance. I know I’m ignorant in many things and I strive to fix that on a daily basis. But again, I’m not stupid and I refuse to be talked to as such.

Everyone here can think what they will of me. The suffering I have posted about is real. As a matter of fact, here is a link to my brother’s page at the funeral home: newcomersyracuse.com/obituary.asp?src=value&obitid=53027&name=Brandon+William++Smith&city=Syracuse&st=NY

I never believed that God did anything to me, I only questioned why he allowed me to suffer so. Did not Christ ask his father why he was forsaken in his time of grief/need?

I’m done debating. I’m not saying I’m right or wrong. But it wouldn’t matter anyway, because if I choose to stay an atheist, you here have no more of a chance to convert me than I to convert you over to atheism.

Thanks for responding. I’d like to stick around and explore what it is I’m going through and where it may take me, if that’s okay.

Boss:

I was hoping you would.

God bless,
jd

 

[BOSS10L]

My friend, please note that I came from a similar mindset as you, although not as developed. I was raised Catholic, I had a falling from the Church in my early 20’s to the point of agnosticism, then I found my way back home, through the studies of Atheism/Scientology, to Agnosticism/Hinduism, to Pantheism/Buddhism, to Orthodox/Judaism, to Polytheism/Protestantism, to Catholicism, and to Roman Catholicism. to the point of knowing Jesus Christ and His Universal Church are Absolute Truth. However, the main method of knowing came from the study and practice of achieving greater peace, happiness, and energy in my life and relationships. So, I recommend doing the same. Resolve to formulate what is required for every individual and relationship of your family to experience an unbreakable peace, limitless happiness, and unstoppable energy given the natural free will and ignorance of human nature. I assure that when you formulate the rules for such a society to exist, you will be in alignment with the way God Loves. Please know that I still have quite a ways to go, but with every step closer I get, my relationships and I gain greater peace, happiness, and energy.

Thoughts?

Thanks for your kind words. I have (and to some extent still do) tried to reconcile myself with the teachings of the church. No matter what I do, I just can’t. I can’t believe in:

A God or church that would ostracize an entire portion of the world’s population simply because they happen to be gay or lesbian.

A church that refuses to admit that evolution is more than a simple theory. Anyone who can’t see that it is (at least in a major part) fact, I don’t know what I can say to them.

A God or church that says that birth control is wrong, yet there are families like the Duggars out there who use their uteruses as clown cars. Or people getting pregnant and having babies who have no way of providing for them. To me, bringing a child into this world that you can’t care for is much more grievous of a ‘sin’ than using contraceptive is. It’s not my job to subsidize people who do nothing but sit around all day and procreate.

A God who created something as wondrous as the universe (in 6 days, no less), yet is petty enough to care what some creatures that are 98% chimp are doing on one of the far-out arms of a spiral galaxy.

A church that is based on a religion that was formed when man had no idea about disease, thought that the earth was the center of the universe, and that the universe itself was no bigger than the inner solar system. And still tries to base public policy and even laws based on this bronze-age belief system.

A religion that cannot reconcile itself with things that have actually happened in the formation of the universe, this solar system, and this planet. It’s even hypothesized that life didn’t even begin on earth. While that potential fact does not preclude the possibility of a divine creator, the Bible and church itself is so rigid that it is inflexible at best and harmful at worst.

But mainly I’m unable to reconcile with a God/church/religion/belief-system that refuses to acknowledge other people simply because they are not of the same mindset or hold the same values.

Giving other people the same rights that (insert religion of choice here) enjoy do not take away what (insert religion of choice here) have. It just makes it so (insert religion of choice here) are unable to perpetuate their prejudice and hate.

And I’m not meaning for this to become a debate again. I was asked, and answered. If someone can provide proof to some or all of my points (and not philosophical mumbo-jumbo), I’m definitely willing to listen.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Thanks for your kind words. I have (and to some extent still do) tried to reconcile myself with the teachings of the church. No matter what I do, I just can’t. I can’t believe in:

Boss10L, I’m not sure if your issues are with generic Christianity or the Catholic Church. Each of your issues could probably be a separate forum thread. I see that a lot of atheist threads provide a whole laundry list of objections to religion, based on history, theology, ethics, science, etc. and then ask someone to refute them. The questions you raise have been discussed (at length) in numerous other threads on this forum, and you would be well-advised to use the Search function to read more in-depth responses.

Off the top of my head, though:

A God or church that would ostracize an entire portion of the world’s population simply because they happen to be gay or lesbian.

Catholics don’t do that and require that all those who may be attracted to the same sex be treated with love and compassion. Homosexual acts are a sin in the eyes of the Church, and marriage must be between man and woman. If one disagrees with this, there are numerous Protestant sects that have abandoned this viewpoint and will marry you (or even ordain you) if you are gay. If you are gay, Boss10L, the viewpoint of the Catholic Church may disappoint you but is what it is. You can still be Catholic and gay, but are called to a life of chastity.

A church that refuses to admit that evolution is more than a simple theory. Anyone who can’t see that it is (at least in a major part) fact, I don’t know what I can say to them.

Again, the Catholic Church allows individuals to believe in Natural Selection, as long as one does not believe we evolved a soul. Belief that the soul, or consciousness if you prefer, is an evolved artifact of the brain is both philosophically unlikely and a philosophical viewpoint that is not supported by the theory of Natural Selection, nor, frankly, part of that theory. As Plantinga has shown, a strictly materialistic view of an evolved cognitive system gives us substantial reason to doubt the reasoning process itself.

“Evolution is a good example of that modern intelligence which, if it destroys anything, destroys itself. Evolution is either an innocent scientific description of how certain earthly things came about, or, if it is anything more than this, it is an attack upon thought itself.”
G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy

The concept of evolution of life did not begin with Charles Darwin, BTW. From “Darwin: A Life in Science” by by Michael J. White and John Gribbin:

Gregory of Nyssa (331-396) taught that the Creation was potential - that God imparted to matter its fundamental laws and properties, but that the objects and completed forms of the Universe then developed gradually, under their own steam, out of primordial chaos.

Saint Augustine (353-430) painted an even clearer picture. He taught that the original germs of living things came in two forms, one placed by the Creator in animals and plants, and a second variety scattered throughout the environment, destined to become active only under the right conditions. He said that the Biblical account of the Creation should not be read as literally occupying six days, but six units of time, while the passage `In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth’ should be interpreted:

As if this were the seed of the heaven and the earth, although as yet all the matter of heaven and of earth was in confusion; but because it was certain that from this the heaven and the earth would be, therefore the material itself is called by that name.

Augustine likens the Creation to the growth of a tree from its seed, which has the potential to become a tree, but does so only through a long, slow process, in accordance with the environment in which it finds itself. God created the potential for the heavens and earth, and for life, but the details worked themselves out in accordance with the laws laid down by God, on this picture. It wasn’t necessary for God to create each individual species (let alone each individual living thing) in the process called Special Creation. Instead, the Creator provided the seeds of the Universe and of life, and let them develop in their own time.

In all but name, except for introducing the hand of God to start off the Universe, Augustine’s theory was a theory of evolution, and one which stands up well alongside modern theories of the evolution of the Universe and the evolution of life on Earth.’ His views were influential throughout the Middle Ages, and followed by such important thinkers as William of Occam (in the fourteenth century) and, most importantly, by Saint Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century. Aquinas simply quoted Augustine’s teaching on the subject of the Creation and the interpretation of Genesis; but as he was one of the highest authorities in the Christian Church at the time, and has been one of the most influential since, this amounted to an official seal of approval for the idea that God had set the Universe in motion and then rested.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

This is why from the earliest times, the Church has taught that God is the Creator and Shaper of the Universe." He may use natural processes to shape the world and life, but he acted to create the universe, to begin life, and to create the human soul - the three instances in the biblical account of Genesis when the Hebrew word for “create” is used, instead of the word for “to shape” or “to fashion”.

Of course, Catholics are free to hold a literalist view as well. I personally think Genesis is a true account of the creation of the universe, described in a metaphorical style. The word for “day” (Yom) used in Genesis can also be used for “Era” or “Epoch”, BTW.

A God or church that says that birth control is wrong, yet there are families like the Duggars out there who use their uteruses as clown cars. Or people getting pregnant and having babies who have no way of providing for them. To me, bringing a child into this world that you can’t care for is much more grievous of a ‘sin’ than using contraceptive is. It’s not my job to subsidize people who do nothing but sit around all day and procreate.

The Church teaches that we should be open to life but use the appropriate family planning to provide for our children. Or, if one is not married, one should not be having sex/children. It amazes me that women who are obsessed with eating free-range, hormone-free chicken or eggs at the Whole Foods Market nevertheless flood their bodies with artificial hormones through much of their lives, then wonder why they find it difficult to have children in their thirties, when they have decided that they are “ready” to have children. Again, if you are not gay and desire to use the Pill, condoms, or what have you, there are many Protestant denominations who said artificial contraception was a sin until the 1920s, then changed their doctrine.

A God who created something as wondrous as the universe (in 6 days, no less), yet is pet[ty enough to care what some creatures that are 98% chimp are doing on one of the far-out arms of a spiral galaxy.

Again, you seem to be confusing the Catholic Church with a denomination that practices biblical literalism. As St. Augustine of Hippo (354 - 430 A.D.) wrote in “The Literal Interpretation of Genesis,” the 6 days of Creation had a symbolic meaning rather than literal, and he argued that all reality was created by God at once (which is probably accurate, based on the Big Bang theory of cosmology). I don’t think caring about what we 98% chimps are doing is “petty,” I think it’s endearing. If I care about what my kids in out-of-state college are doing, is that “petty”?
[/quote]

 

[Arizona_Mike]

A church that is based on a religion that was formed when man had no idea about disease, thought that the earth was the center of the universe, and that the universe itself was no bigger than the inner solar system. And still tries to base public policy and even laws based on this bronze-age belief system.

If that Church was formed not through human conception but by revelation, why would any of that matter?

I think even those poor, benighted Bronze Age yokels knew what disease was, BTW. Many of them suffered from it. Although the Jews seemed to have known, or been told, that eating Pork in a hot desert climate and practicing sex with animals, both common practices at the time, could make you sick. Hospitals, which were created by the Catholic Church, would remove a lot of the pain and suffering from disease, and the actions of the early Catholic Church to stay behind in the cities during Roman pandemics and care for the suffering, dead, and dying, made the world a slightly better place. And it would have to wait a while for Louis Pasteur, a Catholic, to discover germ theory, and Ignatz Semmelweis, a Catholic, to use it to save women from dying in childbirth. Although the Jesuit Athanasius Kircher was the first to observe microbes in a microscope, and proposed that the tiny organisms like the ones he saw could be the cause of the plague and suggested ways to prevent their spread - waaaaay back in the 1600s.

A religion that cannot reconcile itself with things that have actually happened in the formation of the universe, this solar system, and this planet. It’s even hypothesized that life didn’t even begin on earth. While that potential fact does not preclude the possibility of a divine creator, the Bible and church itself is so rigid that it is inflexible at best and harmful at worst.

Well, the Big Bang theory of the origins of the universe was created by the brilliant astrophysicist (and Jesuit) Georges LeMaitre, and it is generally accepted by most scientists and educated people. Atheists like Fred Hoyle opposed the theory in favor of the now-discredited Steady State Theory of the universe, largely because (as they admitted) it avoided the need for a Creator. The predominance of Catholics in lunar science (look up how many craters on the moon are named after Jesuit astronomers, it may surprise you), planetary studies, astrophysics, and even space exploration. (Gene Kranz, one of the leading figures at NASA (and a Catholic!) even based NASA’s mission statement on the works of Catholic monastic founders. (Ed Harris played him in APOLLO 13, BTW). The actions of the Church in formulating the scientific method (thank you, Roger Bacon), the science of genetics (thank you, Gregor Mendel), the creation of the university system, the research and promulgation to humanity of practical science such as horticulture through the monastery system, the protection and preservation of ancient knowledge through the monastic orders…Hard to argue that the Church is inflexible. Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam.

But mainly I’m unable to reconcile with a God/church/religion/belief-system that refuses to acknowledge other people simply because they are not of the same mindset or hold the same values.

Giving other people the same rights that (insert religion of choice here) enjoy do not take away what (insert religion of choice here) have. It just makes it so (insert religion of choice here) are unable to perpetuate their prejudice and hate.

I apologize, but I’d need more details about your objections here, as they relate to the Church.

And I’m not meaning for this to become a debate again. I was asked, and answered. If someone can provide proof to some or all of my points (and not philosophical mumbo-jumbo), I’m definitely willing to listen.

I hope that I tried to answer your questions in a spirit of hospitality and charity, and didn’t use any “philosophical mumbo-jumbo” (What do you mean by that, incidentally? As far as I know, “logic” is part of philosophy, as well as the issues of what constitutes “proof” and “evidence” and “semantics” and so forth. Both Dennett and Dawkins and Hawking and Krauss hold doctorates of philosophy (Ph.Ds) in their respective fields, but I notice that Larry Krauss and Stephen Hawking have made it fashionable in atheism to deride “philosophy” and elevate science…even as they proceed to make philosophical claims and use philosophical tools to practice their respective occupations. Just an observation.)

 

[ASimon]

That’s a common misconception. The power of the testimony of the apostles is not dying for what they believed in -even the atheists of the Soviet Union did that - it is that they died as martyrs for what they witnessed, the resurrection of Christ.

I see it as a distinction without much difference. What the apostles witnessed is basically irrelevant, because their persecutors did not share this belief in the truth of the resurrection. Had they, then it’s absurd that they would go on murdering decent men for the crime was knowing Jesus and seeing him risen from the dead.

It is also a fact that the saints and martyrs of the Church did not die blowing themselves up with a suicide vest in a crowded mall because of their beliefs. They died as witnesses to a truth, without recanting under almost unimaginable pain.

And for their agonies, they were supposedly awarded an eternity in God’s blissful paradise. (The ones who did recant are presumably still burning in hellfire for their heresy). Be that as it may, the Iranian children sent out by their mothers to clear hidden minefields during and following the Iran-Iraq war also gained paradise for their sacrifice. As did (supposedly) the 19 hijackers on 9/11. As do their close family and relatives, per Islamic law.

The fact is, martyrdom is not, nor has it ever been, the exclusive domain of Christian believers. It says nothing about the truth of anyone’s faith that they’re willing to endure torture and painful execution for believing what they do - especially given the reward offered for not recanting, and the punishment looming for those who do.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

I see it as a distinction without much difference. What the apostles witnessed is basically irrelevant, because their persecutors did not share this belief in the truth of the resurrection. Had they, then it’s absurd that they would go on murdering decent men for the crime was knowing Jesus and seeing him risen from the dead.

And yet, it helped fuel the growth of the Church. It was not designed to convert every enemy of the Church, but for those who would not only observe, but see, and not only hear, but listen. And, one of those persecutors, at least, who did not share the belief in the truth of the resurrection, and who held the coats for the men who stoned St. Stephen to death, did eventually, did stop his persecution of the early Church and convert on the way to Damascus. You may have heard of him. Weird how that worked out.

And for their agonies, they were supposedly awarded an eternity in God’s blissful paradise. (The ones who did recant are presumably still burning in hellfire for their heresy). Be that as it may, the Iranian children sent out by their mothers to clear hidden minefields during and following the Iran-Iraq war also gained paradise for their sacrifice. As did (supposedly) the 19 hijackers on 9/11. As do their close family and relatives, per Islamic law.

The fact is, martyrdom is not, nor has it ever been, the exclusive domain of Christian believers. It says nothing about the truth of anyone’s faith that they’re willing to endure torture and painful execution for believing what they do - especially given the reward offered for not recanting, and the punishment looming for those who do.

As far as I can remember, I am not here to defend Islam or Islamic teachings. This is a Catholic website, right? And again, killing innocents, whether by sending children to die in minefields, or by hijacking aircraft, is not what the Christian martyrs did. Yours is a category error. I am not here to defend simple Theism, but Catholicism.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Boss10L - incidentally, I didn’t read all your previous posts on this thread. I’m sorry things aren’t going well for you and I hope things work out for you. Many of the incidents in your life parallel ones in my own (to a surprising degree), and like you, I fell into agnosticism for many decades. It wasn’t a good thing. It took me a long time, and help, to climb out. You provided a whole scattershot passel of atheist objections throughout the thread, but if you honestly think it would help you for me to try to address them (and not just be another pointless debate), others have given you good answers already but I’ll try.

 

[ASimon]

And yet, it helped fuel the growth of the Church. It was not designed to convert every enemy of the Church, but for those who would not only observe, but see, and not only hear, but listen. And, one of those persecutors, at least, who did not share the belief in the truth of the resurrection, and who held the coats for the men who stoned St. Stephen to death, did eventually, did stop his persecution of the early Church and convert on the way to Damascus. You may have heard of him. Weird how that worked out.

As far as I can remember, I am not here to defend Islam or Islamic teachings. This is a Catholic website, right? And again, killing innocents, whether by sending children to die in minefields, or by hijacking aircraft, is not what the Christian martyrs did. Yours is a category error. I am not here to defend simple Theism, but Catholicism.

Again, the point was argued that the fact that so many early Church leaders and Christians were persecuted, tortured, and killed without them recanting their beliefs should stand as evidence of their faith’s truth. I don’t think it does, and I gave my reasons why. But further, the fact remains that you see similar behavior among Muslims today - men and women dying for their beliefs and gaining an eternal reward for their efforts. During the Afghan/Soviet War in the early 80s, the mujahideen would make camp out in the open, completely exposed to the Soviet airforce, because if they knew they couldn’t defeat their enemy, they wanted to be martyred for their faith. Martyrdom is a central tenant of Islam - to die in defense of the faith is considered perhaps the greatest thing that could ever happen to you.

So in defending Catholicism, you’re ignoring a pretty wide, gaping hole in your own argument. It’s simply illogical to make the case that your faith is more likely to be true because believers have died for it. People dying for what they believe in happens all the time. The mere fact of it doesn’t make those beliefs true, or even lend them any real credibility. Nor does the fact that the faith enjoyed an uptick in growth during this early period, as the Muslim population is currently growing at a rate twice that of the non-Muslim population.

 

[BOSS10L]

Mike,

Thanks for your time and kind words. You’ve posted far too much for me to respond to without giving you the short-shrift, and I have no intention of doing that. I will, however, attempt to address what I feel are your main points.

Honestly, at this point, I don’t know. As you can see I’ve taken the liberty of changing my religion from strictly atheist to something that opens the door for the possibility of something else. If that’s religion, then so be it, but at this stage I’m not holding my breath.

Umm, where to start…First, I’m very much a heterosexual male with a wonderful wife of nearly 12 years (boy wouldn’t she be surprised if I was gay! ) and two wonderful sons. While I do have some gay and lesbian friends, it goes beyond that for me. I just can’t reconcile in my heart that same-sex relationships are wrong and a sin. Considering how dysfunctional so many supposedly committed heterosexual relationships are in America, I see those committed relationships of same-sex partners and are very happy for them. Love is love, and no matter what, I can’t see how a God can be angry or condemn someone for being who they are, regardless if it is really genetic or simply a lifestyle choice.

Along that same vein, you mentioned a few times that Protestantism does have some more lenient rules if you will regarding certain things. You’ll have to forgive my ignorance, but I thought that there was one view of God’s word and that was that? I mean, doesn’t it water down what God supposedly put forth as Truth (capital T for emphasis)? Almost like a game of good cop/bad cop wouldn’t you say? My youngest comes to me and asks if he can have a pudding 30 minutes before dinner and I tell him no, but then goes and ask my wife and she says yes. I guess what I’m trying to ascertain here is if the “rules” are able to be bent (or broken) so easily by one sect of the religion, doesn’t that put all the rest of the religion and sects into question?

So as far as evolution is concerned, to me, the idea of a soul is basically consciousness. To know that one exists, to be aware of death, right from wrong, to understand suffering, to be empathetic towards other’s plight. We humans aren’t born with this. When I was a baby, I was here, but I did not now that I existed. I was not aware that I would one day die. And I surely didn’t know right from wrong or that there were other babies in third-world countries that were starving to death. I had to build, or evolve that. Even in the Bible (whether taken literally or allegorically), Adam and Eve did not become truly conscious until they ate from the Tree of Knowledge. And it’s been a long time since I read Genesis, but there was no mention of humans going to Heaven or Hell when they died, right? That’s one of those things that I take issue with. If it’s really all that important and the crux of the religion, wouldn’t it be wise to have it emblazoned in red ink and large font in the very beginning of the Bible?

I know that evolution didn’t begin with Darwin. I’m not even saying that evolution as it is currently posited, is 100% infallible. I just find it to hold more merit than what is being taught through the Bible, again whether literally or allegorically.

As far as the 90% chimp “petty” thing, that came out wrong. What I meant was that it seems very egotistical of us, mere humans on some speck of a planet in some far corner of a nondescript galaxy that’s nowhere near the center of the universe to feel that we’re the sole worry of the (supposedly) most powerful, most awesome thing (and I use thing because there’s no category for God) that’s ever been and will be. And that’s assuming that we’re the only sentient life in the entire universe. There could be thousands of worlds out there just like earth with people on their version of the CA forums having this exact discussion right now, just 300,000 light years away. What makes us so special?

I’m sure there’s more I might think of, but I’m tired and it’s late. Thanks again for your time and your honest and polite answers. I really do appreciate them, even if it seems as though it’s not the case.

And as far as the philosophical mumbo-jumbo comment, it was me being a butt-head. I keep looking for irrefutable scientific proof that I know (even subconsciously) will never come. And that’s not a knock on religion. That’s me wanting something that can’t be provided because it either doesn’t exist or God doesn’t want it that way because he wants me to get there through faith or not at all.

Believe me, nothing would make me happier to be proven wrong. I would revel in it. I just don’t know if it’s possible. I’m trying, but I just don’t know if I can have that strong a faith in anything, let alone something I can’t see or prove.

 

[Qoeleth]

Mike,

Thanks for your time and kind words. You’ve posted far too much for me to respond to without giving you the short-shrift, and I have no intention of doing that. I will, however, attempt to address what I feel are your main points.

Honestly, at this point, I don’t know. As you can see I’ve taken the liberty of changing my religion from strictly atheist to something that opens the door for the possibility of something else. If that’s religion, then so be it, but at this stage I’m not holding my breath.

Umm, where to start…First, I’m very much a heterosexual male with a wonderful wife of nearly 12 years (boy wouldn’t she be surprised if I was gay! ) and two wonderful sons. While I do have some gay and lesbian friends, it goes beyond that for me. I just can’t reconcile in my heart that same-sex relationships are wrong and a sin. Considering how dysfunctional so many supposedly committed heterosexual relationships are in America, I see those committed relationships of same-sex partners and are very happy for them. Love is love, and no matter what, I can’t see how a God can be angry or condemn someone for being who they are, regardless if it is really genetic or simply a lifestyle choice.

Along that same vein, you mentioned a few times that Protestantism does have some more lenient rules if you will regarding certain things. You’ll have to forgive my ignorance, but I thought that there was one view of God’s word and that was that? I mean, doesn’t it water down what God supposedly put forth as Truth (capital T for emphasis)? Almost like a game of good cop/bad cop wouldn’t you say? My youngest comes to me and asks if he can have a pudding 30 minutes before dinner and I tell him no, but then goes and ask my wife and she says yes. I guess what I’m trying to ascertain here is if the “rules” are able to be bent (or broken) so easily by one sect of the religion, doesn’t that put all the rest of the religion and sects into question?

So as far as evolution is concerned, to me, the idea of a soul is basically consciousness. To know that one exists, to be aware of death, right from wrong, to understand suffering, to be empathetic towards other’s plight. We humans aren’t born with this. When I was a baby, I was here, but I did not now that I existed. I was not aware that I would one day die. And I surely didn’t know right from wrong or that there were other babies in third-world countries that were starving to death. I had to build, or evolve that. Even in the Bible (whether taken literally or allegorically), Adam and Eve did not become truly conscious until they ate from the Tree of Knowledge. And it’s been a long time since I read Genesis, but there was no mention of humans going to Heaven or Hell when they died, right? That’s one of those things that I take issue with. If it’s really all that important and the crux of the religion, wouldn’t it be wise to have it emblazoned in red ink and large font in the very beginning of the Bible?

I know that evolution didn’t begin with Darwin. I’m not even saying that evolution as it is currently posited, is 100% infallible. I just find it to hold more merit than what is being taught through the Bible, again whether literally or allegorically.

As far as the 90% chimp “petty” thing, that came out wrong. What I meant was that it seems very egotistical of us, mere humans on some speck of a planet in some far corner of a nondescript galaxy that’s nowhere near the center of the universe to feel that we’re the sole worry of the (supposedly) most powerful, most awesome thing (and I use thing because there’s no category for God) that’s ever been and will be. And that’s assuming that we’re the only sentient life in the entire universe. There could be thousands of worlds out there just like earth with people on their version of the CA forums having this exact discussion right now, just 300,000 light years away. What makes us so special?

I’m sure there’s more I might think of, but I’m tired and it’s late. Thanks again for your time and your honest and polite answers. I really do appreciate them, even if it seems as though it’s not the case.

And as far as the philosophical mumbo-jumbo comment, it was me being a butt-head. I keep looking for irrefutable scientific proof that I know (even subconsciously) will never come. And that’s not a knock on religion. That’s me wanting something that can’t be provided because it either doesn’t exist or God doesn’t want it that way because he wants me to get there through faith or not at all.

Believe me, nothing would make me happier to be proven wrong. I would revel in it. I just don’t know if it’s possible. I’m trying, but I just don’t know if I can have that strong a faith in anything, let alone something I can’t see or prove.

I think you are taking the wrong approach to the problem. Don’t even worry about whether God exists or not, etc. All you need to think about is Jesus. Do you like Jesus and what he stood for? That’s the only thing that matters. If your answer is yes, you’re a Christian. And if your answer is yes, maybe you will think about gather with other people to remember and think about it at Mass.

What matters is what we do, how we live, the crosses we have born.

The fact is an atheist may be a better Christian than a ‘Christian’.

 

[karlaa]

hi there, my answer is because otherwise mankind would have been considered a lost entity moving from nowhere to nowhere…that is my simple answer…as for other comments i do not agree

ideas for a wedding shower

 

[Rosatus]

(1/2)

Thanks for your kind words. I have (and to some extent still do) tried to reconcile myself with the teachings of the church. No matter what I do, I just can’t. I can’t believe in:
…

I’m happy to see that you have come back, and are continuing to search for some meaning. Keep it up, and you will not be dissapointed. I will try to be as straightfoward as possible, since you are not looking for philosophical answers, but something more practical. I give you a lot of credit for this, because belief in God based on a feeling or mystical revelation does have its limitations, and they are by no means infallible.

1. Based on its teachings, the Catholic Church would not ostracize people who identify as homosexual. Individual people may do that, but the Church actually teaches her members to treat such persons with compassion and respect (this can be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, although I would not be able to give you the reference number off the top of my head). Homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered, and are therefore sins. This is because they are contrary to the intelligent design that distinguishes between the two sexes for reproductive purposes. A person’s design, however, does not prevent them from having homosexual inclinations, which, based on design, are in themselves disordered, because they go against what is provided in nature. Without getting too philosophical… Now why would God even make someone who was inclined to homosexual acts in the first place? Again, the affects of Original Sin, and the call to sacrifice, which, in the case of persons who have exclusively homosexual attractions, means chastity. I recommend a web search on “homosexuality and the catechism of the Catholic Church.” The catechism itself is based on numerous other authoritative writings, so it isn’t just “made up.”
2. I’m sure you are aware that there are parts of the Bible that aren’t meant to be taken literally. The Bible, in reality, is not one book, but many (73) books (“bible” comes from Greek “ta biblia” which means “the books”). Naturally, then, there are different generes, and not all of them will express God’s truth in the same way, and it could be said that it reveals God’s truth in a progression, from the beginnings of human history (theologically speaking, that is) all the way to heaven and eternity, which is why the Bible doesn’t lay out all of the Church’s most important, doctrinal beliefs on the first page, although careful investigation of even the first few pages of the Bible can reveal a lot more theologically than meets the eye. Science and religion are not incompatible, but are complementary, so the Church, including the scientists that work for her, will receive scientific knowledge with gladness, for the mere fact that such knowledge reveals to us the workings of God as they are observable to us.
3. Birth control, contraception, abortion, etc. are considered evil because they hinder life. The Church teaches of the high value of life, even something that is sacred. Anything that seeks to destroy it, or that is contrary to it, is evil. This would include those who reproduce without the material means to support a family of such size; because life is so valuable, great care and responsibility must be used to make sure that it is brought into a good environment. Pro-life is not so much about reproducing like rabbits, but it is the love and value of life for what it is, which includes the protection of it at all costs, and this can take many different forms depending on the situation. This is why the Church esteems chastity, the means by which people, living according to their state of life, engage (or do not engage) in the marital act in a healthy and morally responsible way.
4. The universe may well not have been created in six days in the literal sense. Again, there is a distinction between theological and scientific knowledge. Here is just a dab of philosophy to explain why God cares about what we do (I will probably do a very poor job at this, because I am now taking my first Intro to Philosophy class , but here it goes) :

Love seeks to share of itself. — Love is not disinterested.
Eternal is beyond the boundaries of space and time.
God is Love. God is eternal.
God creates the universe and everything in it, out of nothing, because God is eternal (He is beyond the boundaries of space and time, while we are bound by it, and before the existence of space and time, only that which is eternal could have existed). We know that the universe exists because we can observe it with distinct perception. We know that spiritual things (that which exists but is not extended in space, i.e. “invisible”) also exist because there are substances such as the mind and its various thoughts and concepts that have no real existence in space and time. (Picture right now in your mind, the concept of “justice.” What is justice? What color is justice? How much does justice weigh? Can I see its shape? Could I catch it if you threw it to me? … But it exists, nevertheless, because we can perceive it, although not in the same way that we can perceive material bodies that are extended in space.).
God seeks to share of himself with His creation.
Truth is what is. Falsehood is what is not. God is Truth.
God cares what what we specks of dust do, and how we do it, precisely because He is Love. And while it seems downright boggling to say that He is interested in human affairs, it would seem that this is, in fact, the case. (The Bible even says something along the lines of "what is man that You are mindful of him, or the son of man that You visit him?) When He shares of Himself, He shares and imparts to us what is true, i.e. His commandments and His Word.

^^^(I wonder how my teacher would grade this )

 

[Rosatus]

(2/2)
5. Christian beliefs are not superstitious. In fact, they are incredibly rational. I think, perhaps, that you would really enjoy studying Catholic theology, because it is all incredibly rational. To subject ourselves to anything else would be absurd. Although the Christian religion was born in a time of comparatively primitive scientific advancement, the faith, theology, and moral system it proposes are all rational. “Theology for Beginners” by Frank Sheed is a very good introduction to what the Catholic Church teaches, and it builds up in a very logical, rational way. Don’t let the title fool you: it is an excellent book and I would highly recommend it for those who really want to search for God, and what the Chuch teaches in regards to the soul, the spirit, sin, heaven and hell and purgatory, the sacraments, etc. with a rational mind.

1. Again, scientific and theological knowledge are two seperate, but complementary kinds of knowledge. What we can observe as that which took place within the course of universal history does not necessarily contradict with the truths we have about ourselves and God. Nor can the Church answer all of these questions we have in regards to our scientific observations, since that is ouside the realm of theological study.
2. The Church does not refuse people of other creeds, nor does it reject those things of other religions and beliefs which are morally and theologically sound. There is, however, only one truth (i.e. truth cannot be “relative”). Based on intense study and inquiry into who this “God” is, we have every reason to believe in the truth the Catholic Church teaches, if only those who have questions about it are willing to learn what she says.

I hope this was of some help to you.

 

[mike_ogan]

BOSS10L asked, “- I don’t have links to proof, but it’s long been pointed out that Jesus is nothing more than a literary/astrological hybrid, and that many of the Christian doctrines were adapted from Jewish ones, which were all but lifted from ancient Egyptian belief systems. Where’s any proof that he was real?”
To help him in his search for truth, I pointed to a book by Freke and Gandy, “THE JESUS MYSTERIES: How the Pagan Mysteries of Osiris-Dionysus Were Rewritten as the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” I pointed out that Jesus was not recorded in history and that all of the gospels are a rehash of pagan mythology.
I am attacked to “do your homework.” But the fact remains, other than an obvious forgery in Josephus, Jesus does not appear in any historical accounts of the first century. Don’t just call me stupid; give an example of a first century record of Jesus. There aren’t any.
And don’t use Richard Dawkins to bolster your argument, saying that he believes in a historical Jesus. It would be easy to prove. Just give me a book and page number where he wrote of a historical Jesus. In fact, just the opposite is true. Check out his book, The Magic of Reality: How We Know What’s Really True. He specifically calls Jesus a mythological god. It is a book written for young people, 12 years old and above, so you probably could understand it too.
What are you afraid of? Jesus being mythical does not invalidate the beauty of his teachings.

 

[BOSS10L]

Sorry I’ve not been on much. Had a lot going on with working on my graduate thesis and some other stuff, plus still dealing with the grieving process over my brother’s death. I’m no closer to faith now than I was last time I posted, but I’m just surviving the best way I know how.

 

[empther]

I read post #1.

It’s an atheist list of excuses for not believing in God.

I don’t call them questions because every topic has already been thoroughly discussed on these forums and many other places if somebody wants to look for them, and the writer says he’s 40 so he’s been around long enough to encounter the answers. Yet he lists all of these topics as if they’re brand new.

That’s not “questions”. That’s excuses.

Of course, they’ll have powerful impact on the young for whom they really are new.
That’s the real purpose of this thread.

 

[S.J]

It is worth pointing out some of the trappings of atheism that creep into threads like this.

1. Attacking a caricature of believers. i.e. all believers are evangelicals who are stuck in the Dark Ages. This is simply not the case. Faith and reason intermingle, especially within the Catholic Church.
2. Evil deeds committed by Christians prove that God does not exist, for how could He allow such things to occur? Do bad doctors prove that medicine is bad? Does a crooked lawyer mean that law itself is evil? Of course not.
3. The belief that atheism is not a religion. In so far as it is active, it is a ‘religion’ without a deity. It has replaced belief in God with belief in something: nature, determinism, evolution…something. Along the same lines it hungers for a community, in the same vein as churches…see for example Alain De Botton’s new book.

 

[conniepink21]

Okay. I’m only 14 and not very eloquent, but I will do your best to answer your question “Why must God exist?”

So there are two ways to exist: contingent and necessary. Contingent beings received their existence from another source and/or could possibly not exist. Humans, and all material things, are contingent beings. You are contingent because you would not exist if it weren’t for your mom and dad. America is contingent because it wouldn’t exist if Britain had won the War for Independence. A necessary being, on the other hand, could never not exist, must exist, is existence. So a contingent being can’t create existence (it can modify being, like changing a tree into paper or a table, or milk, flour, and eggs into pancakes, but it can’t conjure being out of nothing), and it can’t cause its own existence. Yet contingent beings exist, a self-evident truth. So why is there anything rather than nothing? Our own existence calls for a Necessary Being, because if even one thing exists, there must be a God, a Necessary Being to cause the existence of all those contingent beings (because contingent beings can’t cause existence). Ugh, I’m not good at explaining things, but I just thought I’d throw that out there. And there is so much more…that is only one of many, many proofs for the existence of God. I mean, faith in God is based on the principles of logic and reason. If you look into it a bit, I think and hope that you will come to believe in Him.

Currently, I don’t have time to answer all your questions. I wish I did. However, I highly recommend that you purchase “Following Christ in the World” by Anne Carroll. It’s an amazing, down-to-earth book with compelling proofs/answers to nearly all your questions. The book addresses the existence of God, the existence of evil in the world, the existence and divinity of Jesus, and Catholic morality. I implore you to read it!

One more thing, though - you said “Why did he allow Lucifer to rebel and thus set in motion the creation of Hell? Similarly, why did he allow original sin? If he knew what the outcome would be and is all good, why would he let his children suffer?”

My answer: First, we should remember that God didn’t have to create anybody. He was perfectly happy by Himself, but chose to create the universe out of the generosity of His heart. (You might dwell on that with gratitude for a moment.) One of the generous gifts with which he endowed angels and human beings is free will. God wanted the angels and people to be happy with Him out of their own free CHOICE. If they didn’t want to be with Him because they CHOSE to be proud, arrogant, and selfish, they could only be where He is not, which is Hell. Lucifer, etc. and Adam and Eve CHOSE to rebel against God. I get the impression that you think that God is sending people to Hell, but He isn’t. We send ourselves there. Don’t you think free will is, in itself, a good thing? I think it’s a great gift, even if it does allow us to allow ourselves to send ourselves to Hell.

I’m so bad at explaining. But I hope you kind of, a little bit, comprehend what I am saying. Catholic Apologetics courses are so exciting!

Source: Almost everything is paraphrased from “Following Christ in the World” by Anne Carroll.

I’ll pray for you. Good luck, and I hope you find peace.