Ask a Catholic

[Combine 017]

We already know the answer which is God is real and God loves us!

Prove it.

So, say some guy says "I was abducted by aliens! They took me to a planet where it rained eyelids!". Youd probably just think that guy is crazy. So how is he different from some other dude who says "A giant man in the clouds spoke to me last night! He said you should put your money in this hat!". You technically cant prove or disprove either of those, theyre both just crazy people yelling things, just one of them has a larger following, so its more acceptable or something.

Also, im quite curious about your opinion on Scientology. It was created by a science fiction writer 60 years ago, and has grown exponentially. I personally think scientology makes less sense than other religions, but who's to say Catholicism wasnt created by a imaginative writer, only thousands of years ago instead of a few decades?

[jeepnut]

Originally Posted by Combine 017

Prove it.

So, say some guy says "I was abducted by aliens! They took me to a planet where it rained eyelids!". Youd probably just think that guy is crazy. So how is he different from some other dude who says "A giant man in the clouds spoke to me last night! He said you should put your money in this hat!". You technically cant prove or disprove either of those, theyre both just crazy people yelling things, just one of them has a larger following, so its more acceptable or something.

Also, im quite curious about your opinion on Scientology. It was created by a science fiction writer 60 years ago, and has grown exponentially. I personally think scientology makes less sense than other religions, but who's to say Catholicism wasnt created by a imaginative writer, only thousands of years ago instead of a few decades?

I think I would believe both of those guys was crazy. In the first case, there is little solid evidence to believe aliens exist. In the second, the individual appears to have a poor understanding of God. Because of this, I am unlikely to put money in his hat, especially since I probably don't know what he intends to do with that money.

I don't really know anything about scientology other than that Anonymous has a personal vendetta against it. Christianity on the other hand, has a strong historical basis.

What are your reasons for believing that the basis of Christianity is an imaginative writer so that I may address them?

Do you believe Jesus was a historical figure who was not divine? Do you disbelieve Jesus existed at all, but that God may exist? Or do you categorically reject to possibility of any supernatural being?

If you reject the possibility of a supernatural being, what is it that brought you to that conclusion? I would argue that based on our current knowledge of the world, it is far more logical to believe that some sort of supernatural being exists rather than none at all.

My reasoning for this is the existence of the universe. We know that in order for something natural to exist, it must have a cause. By definition, in order to create something where before nothing existed, a supernatural cause is required. We call this cause God; a being for which there is no beginning or end.

[Combine 017]

Originally Posted by jeepnut

What are your reasons for believing that the basis of Christianity is an imaginative writer so that I may address them?

I didnt say thats what I believe christianity is, im just saying that its a possibility, as its fairly hard to disprove it in another way than you saying "thats wrong because God".

Do you believe Jesus was a historical figure who was not divine? Do you disbelieve Jesus existed at all, but that God may exist? Or do you categorically reject to possibility of any supernatural being?

Sure, Jesus could have existed, I wont say no to that, its the parts where he walks on water and turns H2O into a completely different chemical composition, with the only answer of "yeah bros, im the son of God, check this shit out." Im not going to reject the possibility of any supernatural beings, ive got an open mind, I just think that theres a better chance of making contact with alien life, than with supernatural beings.

I would argue that based on our current knowledge of the world, it is far more logical to believe that some sort of supernatural being exists rather than none at all.

Ok, then based on our current knowledge of the universe, is it not far more logical to believe life exists elsewhere than on Earth rather than nowhere else ever?

My reasoning for this is the existence of the universe. We know that in order for something natural to exist, it must have a cause. By definition, in order to create something where before nothing existed, a supernatural cause is required. We call this cause God; a being for which there is no beginning or end.

Could survival of the fittest not be a cause to exist? The urge to live sounds as good a cause as any for the existence of life. As for creating something where nothing existed before, I call that a star exploding. But where did the first star come from? What made that? I dont know, you dont know, nobody knows. The best explanation you have for where life came from is a 2000 year old book, telling you how the quintillion year old universe came into existence. Thats like trying to explain Batman to someone in 2 seconds.

[jeepnut]

Originally Posted by Combine 017

I didnt say thats what I believe christianity is, im just saying that its a possibility, as its fairly hard to disprove it in another way than you saying "thats wrong because God".

OK, understood. If I can provide compelling evidence that the bible was not written by a single writer, but rather by several, would that convince you? Or rather, would you simply say that instead of one imaginative writer, it could be several? I would argue that it is unlikely that several writers decided to get together and write about a new religion on their own, but we can discuss that more if you want to.

As far as a single writer, scholarly study of the bible is almost unanimous in agreeing that the difference in writing styles between the books of the bible is too great to suggest a single writer or even two or three. The academic consensus is that the bible was written by multiple people.

Furthermore, the bible is not the sole evidence for the existence of Jesus. He is mentioned in other, non-biblical writings from the time. I can elaborate on this if you like.

Originally Posted by Combine 017

Sure, Jesus could have existed, I wont say no to that, its the parts where he walks on water and turns H2O into a completely different chemical composition, with the only answer of "yeah bros, im the son of God, check this shit out." Im not going to reject the possibility of any supernatural beings, ive got an open mind, I just think that theres a better chance of making contact with alien life, than with supernatural beings.

Ok, then based on our current knowledge of the universe, is it not far more logical to believe life exists elsewhere than on Earth rather than nowhere else ever?

I would agree with this possibility. The Catholic Church makes no statement that Earth is the only place that God has created life. The Church is open to the possibility of life on other planets.

As far as the miracles of Jesus, I assume this falls under your belief that the bible could be made up. Do you agree with the idea I presented above? If so, then I would argue that each of these writers at least believed that the events they were writing about happened. Do you think it is likely that several writers were deceived into believing the same lie? Also, do you believe that they were deceived to such a degree that they were willing to die for it? I would argue that this is unlikely.

Originally Posted by Combine 017

Could survival of the fittest not be a cause to exist? The urge to live sounds as good a cause as any for the existence of life. As for creating something where nothing existed before, I call that a star exploding. But where did the first star come from? What made that? I dont know, you dont know, nobody knows. The best explanation you have for where life came from is a 2000 year old book, telling you how the quintillion year old universe came into existence. Thats like trying to explain Batman to someone in 2 seconds.

Your right. We do not know where the universe came from without a doubt. However, can you think of an explanation for something spontaneously coming into existence from nothing that is not supernatural? I cannot.

As far as survival of the fittest, i don't believe it to be a compelling explanation for existence. It may explain the continuation of existence, but not why we exist in the first place. Further, it does not explain morality. Why do we believe that some acts are objectively evil? You cannot explain this without the existence of a higher moral authority, i.e. God.

[Combine 017]

Originally Posted by jeepnut

OK, understood. If I can provide compelling evidence that the bible was not written by a single writer, but rather by several, would that convince you? Or rather, would you simply say that instead of one imaginative writer, it could be several? I would argue that it is unlikely that several writers decided to get together and write about a new religion on their own, but we can discuss that more if you want to.

1 or 1000, it doesnt really change the possibility of it just being made up. L. Ron Hubbard just sort of threw a story together and seemingly made up Scientology, I dont see why it couldnt have happened with the bible.

Furthermore, the bible is not the sole evidence for the existence of Jesus. He is mentioned in other, non-biblical writings from the time. I can elaborate on this if you like.

I said Jesus could have been around, im not denying his existence, just his magical abilities.

I would agree with this possibility. The Catholic Church makes no statement that Earth is the only place that God has created life. The Church is open to the possibility of life on other planets.

Thats good, although im sure if we ever found alien life, you guys would be cramming bibles down their gizzards.

As far as the miracles of Jesus, I assume this falls under your belief that the bible could be made up. Do you agree with the idea I presented above? If so, then I would argue that each of these writers at least believed that the events they were writing about happened. Do you think it is likely that several writers were deceived into believing the same lie? Also, do you believe that they were deceived to such a degree that they were willing to die for it?

Yes. People are stupid. in the words of the great Agent K. "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it."

Your right. We do not know where the universe came from without a doubt. However, can you think of an explanation for something spontaneously coming into existence from nothing that is not supernatural? I cannot.

I think something science happened. I couldnt possibly begin to explain or even comprehend it, but I find that more believable than some omnipotent being simply snapping his fingers and "poof", theres the universe.

As far as survival of the fittest, i don't believe it to be a compelling explanation for existence. It may explain the continuation of existence, but not why we exist in the first place.

Fair enough.

Further, it does not explain morality. Why do we believe that some acts are objectively evil? You cannot explain this without the existence of a higher moral authority, i.e. God.

Morality is just a basic human trait. What I think is right or wrong is probably different than what you think, or any other person in the world. If God was governing these morals, then wouldnt we all just think the same? Then people like Edison and Hitler never would have existed.

[jeepnut]

Originally Posted by Combine 017

1 or 1000, it doesnt really change the possibility of it just being made up. L. Ron Hubbard just sort of threw a story together and seemingly made up Scientology, I dont see why it couldnt have happened with the bible.

I agree that the possibility certainly could exist whether 1 writer or 1000 are responsible. The point I was trying to make however, was that with a greater number of writers responsible, the statistical probability that those writers all decided to get together and create a new religion around the same time is much smaller than if it was a single writer. Would you agree?

To further support this line of thinking, there are numerous recorded incidences in early Christianity of the Church fathers seeking out heresy and vigorously removing it. If we have several writers creating a new religion, who decides what is right and wrong? Obviously there was a coordinated movement with a vested interest in assuring accuracy. This is very difficult to do if everyone is just making things up. There was clear authority in the early church as well as a clear knowledge among the people as to who held that authority.

Finally, the general academic consensus is that the Gospels were written between 60 A.D. and 100 A.D. with Mark generally placed around 70 A.D. While we have no way of knowing for sure, it is at least possible that people who were alive during Jesus's time were still alive when the Gospels were written. If not, children of those who knew Jesus were definitely still around. In addition, this occurred during a time where the culture placed a strong emphasis on accurate oral tradition. Do you think it likely that these accounts would have spread as they did if they were myth? Many people existed at the time these books were written that had second and possible first hand knowledge of Jesus and who he was. Inaccurate histories would not have survived. Too many people would have known they were false.

Furthermore, we are talking about a time when Christians were severely persecuted. To call yourself a Christian in this time was to risk the possibility of death. Do you know of anyone who would willingly profess faith in something they knew was false if it could get them killed? I don't know of any.

Originally Posted by Combine 017

I said Jesus could have been around, im not denying his existence, just his magical abilities.

What do you think of what I presented above? Do you still believe it likely that the bible was created by imaginative writer(s)? These are the historical accounts of Jesus's life. Either they are true or not. If they are true, we therefore can surmise that their accounts of the miracles of Jesus are also true.

If you still think it likely that the bible is a myth, what specifically makes you believe that? Do you hold similar skepticism for other historical works of the time period? If not, why not?

Originally Posted by Combine 017

Thats good, although im sure if we ever found alien life, you guys would be cramming bibles down their gizzards.

Naturally.

Originally Posted by Combine 017

Yes. People are stupid. in the words of the great Agent K. "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it."

Seeing as how this was in response to an argument that I further detailed above, I'll assume that your response will again be that "people are stupid." But this is a dismissal. You have stated that people can be stupid, and I agree with this statement. But what does it say about our scenario? What proof do you have that the early Christians were stupid and were not acting with logic and reason?

Originally Posted by Combine 017

I think something science happened. I couldnt possibly begin to explain or even comprehend it, but I find that more believable than some omnipotent being simply snapping his fingers and "poof", theres the universe.

Do you believe science has all the answers? Science is a method. It is a tool through which we understand our world using observation and experimentation. Science cannot explain how the universe began because it relies on observation. You cannot observe nothing. Our universe necessarily arose from nothing. Science cannot tell us what existed before the universe began anymore than science can prove mathematical proofs or the existence of logic. Do not give in to the recent temptation to elevate science to the realm of a belief.

Please answer this question for me: Should we only believe as true that which can be proven true using the scientific method?

Originally Posted by Combine 017

Morality is just a basic human trait. What I think is right or wrong is probably different than what you think, or any other person in the world. If God was governing these morals, then wouldnt we all just think the same? Then people like Edison and Hitler never would have existed.

Is morality just a basic human trait? Why then do we have objective morality? Why is murder unlawful? If morality is unique to each of us, why do we legislate it?

Would I be correct in assuming that you would agree with the statement that "there are no absolute truths. Everything is relative?"

As far as God governing morality, God gives us free will. Morals are not compulsions, but rather truths concerning right and wrong. Just because we are allowed to choose wrong actions, it does not then follow that there can be no right action.

[Teuthida]

Originally Posted by jeepnut

What do you think of what I presented above? Do you still believe it likely that the bible was created by imaginative writer(s)? These are the historical accounts of Jesus's life. Either they are true or not. If they are true, we therefore can surmise that their accounts of the miracles of Jesus are also true.

Say Jesus actually existed, and say people actually saw him do these things...it's pretty easy to fake turning water the color of wine or to appear to walk on the surface of water. Doing these things would probably trick people into believing he was who he said he was and give his words more weight. People are gullible. Religion is proof of that.

EDIT: I feel bad about that last bit...but it really does end that thought nicely...soooo...ummmm sorry?