I'm sure Signal will be interested in responses to this one ;)

I am specifically aiming this question at those of you who believe that you are faithfully adhering to a specific set of beliefs and practices that will ensure your salvation*. In particular I'd like to know why you feel certain (or close to it) that the particular set of beliefs that you adhere to represent those which are necessary to achieve the desired outcome (salvation), as opposed to some other set of beliefs that may be inadequate and/or mutually exclusive.

*For the purposes of this discussion our definition of salvation need not be restricted to the avoidance of eternal damnation, but can be expanded to include any kind of spiritual reward or achievement.

I'm sure Signal will be interested in responses to this one ;)

I am specifically aiming this question at those of you who believe that you are faithfully adhering to a specific set of beliefs and practices that will ensure your salvation*. In particular I'd like to know why you feel certain (or close to it) that the particular set of beliefs that you adhere to represent those which are necessary to achieve the desired outcome (salvation), as opposed to some other set of beliefs that may be inadequate and/or mutually exclusive.

*For the purposes of this discussion our definition of salvation need not be restricted to the avoidance of eternal damnation, but can be expanded to include any kind of spiritual reward or achievement.

I'm an Atheist but I'll play this game in my own little way...

It is my observation and thus opinion that most people of faith were raised in faith. If it were somehow possible that a child would not be exposed to religion at all until they reached adulthood, or at least close, that they would not convert to a religion if it were then taught to them. Granted there are obvious exceptions, hence "most". But overall, I believe religion would suffer a quick and painless death if people were not raised among the religious.

I'm sure Signal will be interested in responses to this one ;)

I am specifically aiming this question at those of you who believe that you are faithfully adhering to a specific set of beliefs and practices that will ensure your salvation*. In particular I'd like to know why you feel certain (or close to it) that the particular set of beliefs that you adhere to represent those which are necessary to achieve the desired outcome (salvation), as opposed to some other set of beliefs that may be inadequate and/or mutually exclusive.

*For the purposes of this discussion our definition of salvation need not be restricted to the avoidance of eternal damnation, but can be expanded to include any kind of spiritual reward or achievement.
There are different avenues one can take with this question. The Catechism presents the best summary of an answer.


"Outside the Church there is no salvation"
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."

To gain a deeper understanding of the Church's teaching on this matter, Please read this section of the Catechism on the Catholic Church is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.[/B] (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm[B])
So based on what is written above, the strictest answer to the OP question "What makes you certain that you've chosen the correct faith?" has to be no, it is not strictly "necessary" (that is in all cases) to salvation to have a "personal relationship with the Church that Christ founded including all the rites, rituals and hierarchy".

However, great care and caution must be taken in applying this teaching. It cannot be used as a "loophole" to remain outside the church once reasonably assured of the Church's validity.

As an analogy, we could ask if it is necessary to go to university in order to learn everything you need to know, everything that we could learn at university?
In the strictest sense - no.
However there are many things, tangible and intangible, that universities offer that make it far easier and better to go than to not go.

This is nowhere near a complete answer but.... :shrug:

However, great care and caution must be taken in applying this teaching. It cannot be used as a "loophole" to remain outside the church once reasonably assured of the Church's validity.

It is not clear how it is even theoretically possible to be reasonably sure of the validity of something, and yet not (aspire to) act accordingly.

Only an insane or evil entity might be capable of that; but that opens the question of the relevance of the issue in the first place.

It is not clear how it is even theoretically possible to be reasonably sure of the validity of something, and yet not (aspire to) act accordingly.

Only an insane or evil entity might be capable of that; but that opens the question of the relevance of the issue in the first place.
To an extent I agree, especially in the way that we understand things today. However many ceturies ago, things like sin, absolution etc. were understood differently by many people and they would believe in the Church yet hold off being baptized until late in life, or even on their deathbed, for fear that they sin after baptism and not go to heaven.

In a more modern sense I've seen people, converts, on the Journey Home Program (EWTN - Monday nights 8:00 pm) speak of coming to the conviction that the Catholic Church was the correct Church and yet hold off joining for some reason or another, usually related to family or job concerns.

A friend of mine himself, after many years away from the Church, hesitated for some time applying for an annulment in order to return because, 1) he didn't want to dredge up a lot of junk for other people and 2) He didn't think he could reasonably and truthfully be granted an annulment.
When he finally screwed up the courage to apply the annulment was granted.

So perhaps this is something to be added to your list "insane or evil"...Lack of courage.

This is nowhere near a complete answer but.... :shrug:

If I'm understanding you correctly, then according to Catholic teachings, a follower of Islam or Judaism (for example) can achieve salvation as long as they have a genuine faith and a desire to do God's will to the best of their ability? But once exposed to the more comprehensively "correct" teachings of the Catholic Church, one can only achieve salvation by embracing them (which I am sure you would argue would be a natural thing for someone who had genuine faith in the first place)?

This is all very interesting, but not quite the point of the thread. Followers of Islam and Judaism (for example) would typically reject the authority of the Catholic church on such matters and continue to embrace their own beliefs instead. What makes you certain that you're doing the right thing, and they are not?

Trust me when I say that my intention here is not to take cheap shots at any answers your provide. I might ask further questions and present other arguments, but this really is designed to be an exploration rather than an inquisition.

I'm sure Signal will be interested in responses to this one ;)

I am specifically aiming this question at those of you who believe that you are faithfully adhering to a specific set of beliefs and practices that will ensure your salvation*.

Well there is a problem right down at the foundation of your question. You put the word "practices" in there. I guess anyone who had practices as needed parts of their salvation could never feel absolutely confident in obtaining eternity with God. See once you have things that you do to secure your own eternity your not really being saved by another are you. You are securing your own eternity. Someone else is not saving you. Therefore you cannot really use the word "salvation" in regard to these people.





In particular I'd like to know why you feel certain (or close to it) that the particular set of beliefs that you adhere to represent those which are necessary to achieve the desired outcome (salvation),as opposed to some other set of beliefs that may be inadequate and/or mutually exclusive.

Because i am not reliant on my own performance but on the promise of a perfect God. In my belief it is Jesus who saves, i rely on His righteousness. His Honesty, His perfection. Not my own. Therefore if i believe Jesus i accept the Way they He says leads to being saved. That is by believing and trusting Jesus. Then I can be totally confident. Belief is an easy thing.





*For the purposes of this discussion our definition of salvation need not be restricted to the avoidance of eternal damnation, but can be expanded to include any kind of spiritual reward or achievement.

Then it would be called rewardation or some such variant. The Word Salvation means that one is being saved from something.



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

In a more modern sense I've seen people, converts, on the Journey Home Program (EWTN - Monday nights 8:00 pm) speak of coming to the conviction that the Catholic Church was the correct Church and yet hold off joining for some reason or another, usually related to family or job concerns.

Then they weren't really convinced after all.

In my own experience, and what I have heard and read from others, when it comes to choice of religion, people are sometimes subject to very unhealthy patterns.

For example, a good guilt trip can convince a person that they believe something - when in fact they don't.

I'm sure Signal will be interested in responses to this one

Signal is interested. :)



I am specifically aiming this question at those of you who believe that you are faithfully adhering to a specific set of beliefs and practices that will ensure your salvation*. In particular I'd like to know why you feel certain (or close to it) that the particular set of beliefs that you adhere to represent those which are necessary to achieve the desired outcome (salvation), as opposed to some other set of beliefs that may be inadequate and/or mutually exclusive.

*For the purposes of this discussion our definition of salvation need not be restricted to the avoidance of eternal damnation, but can be expanded to include any kind of spiritual reward or achievement.

I think the question of certainty about having chosen the correct path is pertinent in only one instance: namely, when one has the fear that God is evil or when one is convinced that God is evil. This fear or conviction might not necessarily be clearly articulated, nor the person be aware of having them.

People act according to their conscience, and this is the best they can hope to do anyway. This, combined with the conviction that God is good, holds off uncertainty and lets the person go about their daily life with a considerable measure of peace and confidence.

What makes you certain that you're doing the right thing, and they are not?

What makes you think I think that?

And I have to ask, what exactly is the definition of, "a genuine faith"?

Rav,

The very short answer and this applies to ALL faith walks - is how closely those following it adhere to Love as the core source and goal of their faith and their actions.
This is the "touchstone" that gives hope that those in other faiths might be saved, and it is the core of our own faith as well.

Theologically speaking, and simply addressing the "teachings" of the two groups you mention (Jews and Islam) is the idea of the culmination we find in Christ and how Christ completely sources back to the critical core of Love.
The Jewish faith missed this at the time, and I guess still looks for a temporal messiah which I guess for them will be realized in the second coming...:shrug:
Islam strikes me as a reversion from the NT covenant based on Love and faith and a "Loving Father God", to more of an OT covenant "Law based, Judge God" concept.
So in neither of these do I see the growth toward a 'Love" relationship, a "unitive" relationship with God that I see in Christianity through Christ in His Church.

Then they weren't really convinced after all.

In my own experience, and what I have heard and read from others, when it comes to choice of religion, people are sometimes subject to very unhealthy patterns.

For example, a good guilt trip can convince a person that they believe something - when in fact they don't.
Well I believe that we should not try to read too much into other people's motivations and timing in these matters as they are highly personal in nature.

I note that you did not address my addition of "Courage" (or lack thereof) to the list of things that might stop a person from formally entering the church.

As to just what specific things bring people to conviction, these will vary with the indiviudal.

There is no way to turn back. Once you meditate, breath becomes skilled breath. Breathing as a skill can't be unlearned and is always in effect. Therefore once one starts to meditate, they develop a skill that can never go away and is constant effect. To breath is to meditate in essence. The attaching power is a strong reason why meditation for me is the ultimate salvation.

Beyond the inherent lifelong bond that keeps me forever glued to it, there are tangible benefits for support. With a feedback system such as chess.com's, one can get an objective view on whether a skill is useful. Focusing with meditation's aid achieves much higher ratings than if I had many things on the mind. There are other feedback systems I have used such as sports where the focus meditation can provide is on par with amphetamines.

There are other important things like emotional control that I have realized come as a direct result from meditating.

In any light, find me another belief system with such a five-star rating in immediate visible self-improvement and I will try. I'm not biased I just do what I know works.

I'm sure Signal will be interested in responses to this one ;)

I am specifically aiming this question at those of you who believe that you are faithfully adhering to a specific set of beliefs and practices that will ensure your salvation*. In particular I'd like to know why you feel certain (or close to it) that the particular set of beliefs that you adhere to represent those which are necessary to achieve the desired outcome (salvation), as opposed to some other set of beliefs that may be inadequate and/or mutually exclusive.

*For the purposes of this discussion our definition of salvation need not be restricted to the avoidance of eternal damnation, but can be expanded to include any kind of spiritual reward or achievement.

You should turn salvation into slavation Bro . You know I think I was a Little hard on you when we first met. I wanted to tell you that you are a good solider my man .
O.K. my take : Most of you are Christians even you atheist. You can't open your mouth and talk in English with out being a Christian. Your thoughts actions , intentions, moralities are embedded Archetypes from the thieving scoundrel,Vampire, blood drinking. Cannibal eating Jesus. Fraggle think about this bro . Language and the letters that represent are archetypes. Question for you if you read this ? If they are past down from generation to generation is there a lag time in morphage as as different circles of influence brake open new silos of information . The answer is yes if you are still thinking . So all information silos are like that . Trickle down economics of information. I lost my point . Religious thought and the changes from industrial to modernism is in many stages of evolution . Each culture is at its own stage of development. It has been strange to Me how something lake agriculture sprang up world wide at about the same time , or better yet child sacrifice was going on in a large percentage world wide at approximately the same time in history . I know the debate goes on " Did it start in Africa and we are using the same basic rudiments of archetypes , or It developed independently in separate cultures as evolution unravels . I tend to think both are true, because of bottle necking in human populations . So imagine WE get bottle neck and archetype coverage, now we get new growth of human population and they migrate to new separate communities all having the same archetypes embedded and being in a sense all created equal develop at similar rates of change .

Well there is a problem right down at the foundation of your question. You put the word "practices" in there.

I've seen you make this point before, but there is really no incompatibility if you understand that even though you can't "earn" salvation, there are typically practices that flow from having accepted it (such as prayer, continued repentance, evangelism etc). Such "practices" are important to many people so it seemed natural to include the word.


Then it would be called rewardation or some such variant. The Word Salvation means that one is being saved from something.

I know what it typically means, but not every religious person in this forum is of an Abrahamic faith. I had others in mind when I decided to expand the definition of the word so as not to exclude them. Some may see rising to a higher plane of existence as a salvation of sorts, for example. If I get more complaints about this literary blasphemy I shall do something about it, but for now I trust that the intent is clear.


Because i am not reliant on my own performance but on the promise of a perfect God. In my belief it is Jesus who saves, i rely on His righteousness. His Honesty, His perfection. Not my own. Therefore if i believe Jesus i accept the Way they He says leads to being saved. That is by believing and trusting Jesus. Then I can be totally confident. Belief is an easy thing.

You seem to be saying that the most important thing of all is proper submission to God's righteousness and power. Does it matter to one's salvation then if they believe that Jesus died for their sins (or not), as long as they adopt this attitude towards God? If not, fair enough. If so, how have you become certain that it matters?

There is no way to turn back. Once you meditate, breath becomes skilled breath. Breathing as a skill can't be unlearned and is always in effect. Therefore once one starts to meditate, they develop a skill that can never go away and is constant effect. To breath is to meditate in essence. The attaching power is a strong reason why meditation for me is the ultimate salvation.

Beyond the inherent lifelong bond that keeps me forever glued to it, there are tangible benefits for support. With a feedback system such as chess.com's, one can get an objective view on whether a skill is useful. Focusing with meditation's aid achieves much higher ratings than if I had many things on the mind. There are other feedback systems I have used such as sports where the focus meditation can provide is on par with amphetamines.

There are other important things like emotional control that I have realized come as a direct result from meditating.

In any light, find me another belief system with such a five-star rating in immediate visible self-improvement and I will try. I'm not biased I just do what I know works.

Great , join the human race of Super men . Good soldiers of love are hard to come by . Autistic kids can have trouble knowing when to breath . SID babies too . Natural responses to bombardments against there natural human baby archetypes ? I Don't know ? I think some people are afraid to breath . They don't feel worthy to live so they have problems taking there share of life giving air. Part of My theories on anal retention in modern societies . Don't Bust Me for using Theory wrong DW

And I have to ask, what exactly is the definition of, "a genuine faith"?

Genuine faith is just that; genuine. Someone who only practices their religion outwardly, but does not truly embrace it in their hearts, is not a person of genuine faith, for example.


The Jewish faith missed this at the time, and I guess still looks for a temporal messiah which I guess for them will be realized in the second coming...
Islam strikes me as a reversion from the NT covenant based on Love and faith and a "Loving Father God", to more of an OT covenant "Law based, Judge God" concept.
So in neither of these do I see the growth toward a 'Love" relationship, a "unitive" relationship with God that I see in Christianity through Christ in His Church.

Are you saying then that it is less likely for a person to be "right" with God if they have not embraced the new testament teachings of Jesus, or if they instead embrace a doctrine that may recognize that it has some authority, but has been superseded by more recent prophecy? Of course you have already indicated that exceptions can be made for people of any religion who genuinely seek God, which seems fair.

So far it seems the common answer is that you believe your faith is the right one because you believe it is. Only MX3Boy hit on a reasoning outside simple belief, that a person will tend to gravitate towards what religion they were exposed to in childhood.

Maybe more of a focus should be the question...WHY did you choose your current belief? Did you ever have a choice, or have you always assumed what you believe is right?

This is a usually simple answer for atheists, but the answer for theists would zero in on what this topic is all about.

So far it seems the common answer is that you believe your faith is the right one because you believe it is. Only MX3Boy hit on a reasoning outside simple belief, that a person will tend to gravitate towards what religion they were exposed to in childhood.

Maybe more of a focus should be the question...WHY did you choose your current belief? Did you ever have a choice, or have you always assumed what you believe is right?

This is a usually simple answer for atheists, but the answer for theists would zero in on what this topic is all about.

That is easy ! By there circles of influence in there daily lives . The things they gravitate towards by natural selection and if you ask Me there name plays a significant roll in the form of involuntary actions based on the ego of a person to seek out familiarity. The laziness of a person to stick with what is comfortable plays a big roll too. Peer pressure also

Well I believe that we should not try to read too much into other people's motivations and timing in these matters as they are highly personal in nature.

I note that you did not address my addition of "Courage" (or lack thereof) to the list of things that might stop a person from formally entering the church.

As to just what specific things bring people to conviction, these will vary with the indiviudal.

I believe that if a person is truly convinced of something, they will act accordingly. If they aren't convinced, they won't act accordingly.

This is not to say that everyone who acts a certain way has the according convictions.
Just that when the issue is about declaring convictions, then actions are the measure of them.

I am specifically aiming this question at those of you who believe that you are faithfully adhering to a specific set of beliefs and practices that will ensure your salvation*.

I'm an agnostic (epistemologically) and effectively an atheist (I'm reasonably certain that the Judeo-Christian-Islamic 'God' doesn't exist).

But having said that, I follow a Buddhist practice. (Or more accurately, I feel guilty about not giving that practice the attention it deserves.)


In particular I'd like to know why you feel certain (or close to it) that the particular set of beliefs that you adhere to represent those which are necessary to achieve the desired outcome (salvation), as opposed to some other set of beliefs that may be inadequate and/or mutually exclusive.

I don't.

One of the things that attracts me to Buddhism is that primarily, it's what religious-studies types call an 'orthopraxy'. That word means 'right practice', and it's contrasted with 'orthodoxy', which means 'right belief'. In Buddhism, what matters isn't so much what you believe as what you do.

Am I certain that my thinking and ideas accurately reflect those of the Buddha and the historical tradition? No. I'm pretty sure that some of my ideas are dramatically different. I feel no guilt about crafting a modernist form of Buddhist philosophy for myself that's consistent with contemporary scientific understanding of the universe. The Buddha formed his ideas and expressed his message in terms of the concepts that were available in his ancient time and place. I suspect that if he were alive today, he'd probably express his insights in terms derived from our time and place, cognitive neuroscience or something.

Am I certain that my more traditional ideas of Buddhist practice will successfully deliver me to salvation, nibbana or whatever it's supposed to be? No. I have no way of knowing that. In fact, I'm almost certain that it isn't going to happen in this lifetime. I don't anticipate any grand enlightenment events.

But having acknowledged that, and addressing your question more directly, practice isn't without its own internal verification and rewards. But it's modest and subtle, small alterations in mood, awareness, cognition and functioning that seem to be improvements.

This isn't about supernatural personalities or revealed transcendntal ontologies. It's just a matter of making simple changes (both inner-contemplative and outer-ethical) in real life and then observing what the effects seem to be. If the results seem to be positive, then the practice might be working and appears to have some truth in a pragmatic sense.

Can I be sure that other paths don't work? Of course not. It's entirely possible that different inconsistent practices have their own pragmatic truth for different individuals in different psychological circumstances. The Buddhist tradition (and perhaps the Buddha himself) used the analogy of medicine to describe this. They portray the Buddha as a physician treating spiritual disease. And just as a physician prescribes different treatments to different patients depending on their circumstances, the Buddha often did the same with his teaching. The early discourses are always delivered to particular individuals in response to particular needs.

Because i am not reliant on my own performance but on the promise of a perfect God. In my belief it is Jesus who saves, i rely on His righteousness. His Honesty, His perfection. Not my own. Therefore if i believe Jesus i accept the Way they He says leads to being saved. That is by believing and trusting Jesus. Then I can be totally confident. Belief is an easy thing.
Out of curiosity, how do you reconcile this belief with the book of James Chapter 2?

What makes you certain that you've chosen the correct faith?

I think that if you are absolutely certain then you have not chosen the correct faith.

I am specifically aiming this question at those of you who believe that you are faithfully adhering to a specific set of beliefs and practices that will ensure your salvation*.
this sounds of doctrine not of belief.
doctrine spells out what you are supposed to believe and do,
belief is what you believe.

I do not join a church and change my beliefs to suit them, i find a church that closest believes as i believe.(no such thing as perfect)
i try to do what i think God wants me to do, not what some human wants me to do.


In particular I'd like to know why you feel certain (or close to it) that the particular set of beliefs that you adhere to represent those which are necessary to achieve the desired outcome (salvation), as opposed to some other set of beliefs that may be inadequate and/or mutually exclusive.
this intones an 'if i just do what i am told,i will be saved', again capatilized on by the church..thing is, who is telling you? God or some man behind a pulpit.

I believe, if we were able to strip all the ritual, and posturing out of all the religions, we would find more things in common..
religion is what you make it, no more, no less.


*For the purposes of this discussion our definition of salvation need not be restricted to the avoidance of eternal damnation, but can be expanded to include any kind of spiritual reward or achievement.
i have a baptism certificate, does that count?:eek::D

<edit>
btw, only read the first page, but well said all..

Well I, as you all may have guessed by now, foster a deep belief in the new doctrine of 'Universal Creationism'. My belief is the ideal as any religion (which I will refer to as subsets) can be encompassed into its teachings. There is no fixed abode of God if you will. God is all you want it to be. The only fixed rule being that any stance anyone may take is immateterial in regards to conflict between subsets because god is all. Any interpretation has the will of God's blessing, though he has no will as such bar a symbolic will symptom of the universes ability to compute using an evolved structure/settling. In fact all the subsets of the world have God's designs flowing through them, and are mutually exclusive and emulative of gods ability to foster ALL his incumbents. The evolution of the universe and all its evolved/evolving subsets are accepted at once (indeed all subsets are still/always evolving).

My god does not need you to believe, and it assuredly does not want you to believe. It just requires you(as part of your inclusion in its universe) to be that which you want to be. And do this within its all.

All laws of science, physics, logic etc. apply.

All the movement suggests is that one calls god 'All', and bathes in the 'All' of 'All'.

this sounds of doctrine not of belief.


All belief has structure. I think he is just trying to ask why you believe your system of faith/belief is the one for you, above all others?

All belief has structure. I think he is just trying to ask why you believe your system of faith/belief is the one for you, above all others?

um, ignoring the 'system' part,(implies 'do as your told')

why do i believe my faith/belief is the one for me?
because it is the one that God has guided me to.

um, ignoring the 'system' part,(implies 'do as your told')

A system can be personally formed and subject to personal evolution of one's choosing ie, not fixed by any but you, or even not even by you, if you choose?


why do i believe my faith/belief is the one for me?
because it is the one that God has guided me to.

That is answer enough I suppose. One's personal belief is down to one's own choice/finding.

A system can be personally formed and subject to personal evolution of one's choosing ie, not fixed by any but you, or even not even by you, if you choose?

it still implies limits to what God can do.

God: i want you to do this.
Me: but my system/doctrine/whatever says i can't do that.
God: who are you going to listen to?

it still implies limits to what God can do.

The system can be one of no limits?


God: i want you to do this.
Me: but my system/doctrine/whatever says i can't do that.
God: who are you going to listen to?

Are you saying that you do not decide?

The structure of your belief makes any limitations or lack of limitations you require?

Freedom is a choice.

You are the limitation. Your ability.

Are you saying that you do not decide?
we always gotta decide who to listen to.



The structure of your belief makes any limitations or lack of limitations you require?
huh?


Freedom is a choice.

not when it is legislated..

Maybe more of a focus should be the question...WHY did you choose your current belief? Did you ever have a choice, or have you always assumed what you believe is right?


I was born as a Christian, but dropped out around 13. By 16 or so I was meditating. After a few years experimenting with different belief systems, Buddhism was the best fit because of near immediate results.



Great , join the human race of Super men . Good soldiers of love are hard to come by . Autistic kids can have trouble knowing when to breath . SID babies too . Natural responses to bombardments against there natural human baby archetypes ? I Don't know ? I think some people are afraid to breath . They don't feel worthy to live so they have problems taking there share of life giving air. Part of My theories on anal retention in modern societies . Don't Bust Me for using Theory wrong DW


I think you can sum this up in a clear sentence or two. If you did it would be beneficial to my understanding. Come again?

Out of curiosity, how do you reconcile this belief with the book of James Chapter 2?

I believe James was talking about people who did not Love their neighbours. The two laws we follow is Love God and Love your neighbour. James was saying that if you don't help your neighbour in their distress, in practical ways then it shows that you do not love your neighbour and thus you are a fake.

But still we are saved by faith. those who have the faith will seek to love their neighbour. That fruit comes from the genuine belief.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

I've seen you make this point before, but there is really no incompatibility if you understand that even though you can't "earn" salvation, there are typically practices that flow from having accepted it (such as prayer, continued repentance, evangelism etc). Such "practices" are important to many people so it seemed natural to include the word.

Well i do pray, and when i do something wrong i feel regret that just comes naturally now and of course i do share the message of Jesus. But again none of these things earns me eternity with God. I believe it is God who saves. All glory and honour is to Him. As Isaiah said:

Isaiah 64
6 But we are all like an unclean thing,And all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags; We all fade as a leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, Have taken us away.




I know what it typically means, but not every religious person in this forum is of an Abrahamic faith. I had others in mind when I decided to expand the definition of the word so as not to exclude them. Some may see rising to a higher plane of existence as a salvation of sorts, for example. If I get more complaints about this literary blasphemy I shall do something about it, but for now I trust that the intent is clear.


Blasphemy? A bit too strong of an expression in relation to the issue i think.



You seem to be saying that the most important thing of all is proper submission to God's righteousness and power. Does it matter to one's salvation then if they believe that Jesus died for their sins (or not), as long as they adopt this attitude towards God? If not, fair enough. If so, how have you become certain that it matters?

If one believes and trusts in Jesus then one will believe He died for their sins. I cannot see how anyone who truly believed Jesus would not believe He died for there sins. Is it such an incredible concept?

Believing Jesus but disbelieving Hie died for ones sin. Is like climbing over a great mountain, then upon coming to a staircase being unable to go up the first step.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

What made me certain I picked the correct faith?

D20 roll.

If one believes and trusts in Jesus then one will believe He died for their sins. I cannot see how anyone who truly believed Jesus would not believe He died for there sins. Is it such an incredible concept?

Think of it this way. An educated agnostic who is seeking the truth knows that the Bible teaches that Jesus died for their sins. But they also likely know that the Qur'an teaches Jesus wasn't crucified at all. Specifically it teaches that regardless of the reports of such, Jesus was in fact taken up to heaven to be with Allah instead. It also teaches that while the Bible has some authority, and is indeed a good book for learn from, it has been superseded by the more recent revelation contained within the Qur'an. So the agnostic (agnostic theist in particular) who seeks to be "right" with God is put in the rather awkward position of trying to determine which set of revelations to embrace.

What I am getting at with this thread is something like this: what sort of assurance can the agnostic theist find in the act of embracing one over the other that allows them to feel certain (or close to it) that they've chosen correctly? If it actually doesn't matter which one they choose as long as they genuinely open their heart to God, then the question is kind of moot. But if it does matter, then the question is an important one.

I believe that if a person is truly convinced of something, they will act accordingly. If they aren't convinced, they won't act accordingly.

This is not to say that everyone who acts a certain way has the according convictions.
Just that when the issue is about declaring convictions, then actions are the measure of them.
Agreed. However, I have heard the testimonies of former protestant pastors and spouses of pastors who held back from formally entering the church for a time due to financial concerns etc. They were convicted of the Truth of the Church and yet.....

I suppose that one could say that this is merely a stage in the process of conviction and then building up the courage to act on that conviction. That is, a stage whereby one must translate the growing conviction into action.

Otherwise I agree with you. A person's action in this matter is a measure of their conviction.

Are you saying then that it is less likely for a person to be "right" with God if they have not embraced the new testament teachings of Jesus, or if they instead embrace a doctrine that may recognize that it has some authority, but has been superseded by more recent prophecy? Of course you have already indicated that exceptions can be made for people of any religion who genuinely seek God, which seems fair.
I make no asserion as to how "right with God" ANYone is. That is between them personally and God.

The question you asked is, "What makes you (that would be me, personally) certain that you're doing the right thing, and they are not? (in choosing to be a Catholic Christian as opposed to Jewish or Islamic)

But - as to the teachings of the two groups mentioned (Abrahamic traditions)
The Jews, as a faith, rejected the coming of the Messiah in Christ Jesus. So they find no authority at all in the NT.
Islam, on the other hand seems to accept some of the NT concepts, but likewise rejects the fullfilment that we see in Christ. So their prophet wrote a whole new book to set the record straight.
In this I see shades similar to the founding of Mormonism. The claim that the NT writers and the "pre-canon" interpreters got it wrong and so here is another book that gets it right....

Now these are my personal views. They are not to be taken as in any way reflecting official church teaching. If you'd like to see what the church says about our lrelationship to Islam, you could look it up in the catechism.

So the agnostic (agnostic theist in particular) who seeks to be "right" with God is put in the rather awkward position of trying to determine which set of revelations to embrace.

What do you think about the point I have made earlier, namely, that the question of choosing the right religion presupposes a fear or conviction in an evil God?



What I am getting at with this thread is something like this: what sort of assurance can the agnostic theist find in the act of embracing one over the other that allows them to feel certain (or close to it) that they've chosen correctly? If it actually doesn't matter which one they choose as long as they genuinely open their heart to God, then the question is kind of moot. But if it does matter, then the question is an important one.

What do you think -
Who can answer these questions?
Can one person answer them for other people?

I make no asserion as to how "right with God" ANYone is. That is between them personally and God.

The question you asked is, "What makes you (that would be me, personally) certain that you're doing the right thing, and they are not? (in choosing to be a Catholic Christian as opposed to Jewish or Islamic)

I don't see where you have answered that question -?

I believe James was talking about people who did not Love their neighbours. The two laws we follow is Love God and Love your neighbour. James was saying that if you don't help your neighbour in their distress, in practical ways then it shows that you do not love your neighbour and thus you are a fake.

But still we are saved by faith. those who have the faith will seek to love their neighbour. That fruit comes from the genuine belief.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days
But one can love their neighbor and not believe in the supernatural. Why should God care what you believe as long as you're doing the right thing?

What do you think about the point I have made earlier, namely, that the question of choosing the right religion presupposes a fear or conviction in an evil God?

I think it's a valid position in the sense that people would likely be less concerned about choosing the right religion if there were no significant consequences to choosing the wrong one. But then again, many religions teach that there are consequences to getting it wrong, so the fear is not necessarily presupposed as much as it is learned from an investigation of religion itself.


What do you think -
Who can answer these questions?
Can one person answer them for other people?

The answers may be different depending on the person giving them, and they will no doubt be little more than the product of their own individual experiences. But I must assume that in the case where one believes that the only way to God is by embracing a particular faith, then there must be something that convinces them that they have embraced the correct one (if indeed they believe that the faith that they have embraced which teaches that it is the only correct one, is indeed the only correct one).

I don't see where you have answered that question -?
Which question?

I think it's a valid position in the sense that people would likely be less concerned about choosing the right religion if there were no significant consequences to choosing the wrong one. But then again, many religions teach that there are consequences to getting it wrong, so the fear is not necessarily presupposed as much as it is learned from an investigation of religion itself.

The relevant issue is the kind of consequence for choosing the "wrong religion" vs. the "right one".

Are the consequence infinite, irrepairable? Does one have to "get it right in this one lifetime or burn in hell forever"?
- If these are the feared consequences, then this reveals the fear that God is evil.



The answers may be different depending on the person giving them, and they will no doubt be little more than the product of their own individual experiences. But I must assume that in the case where one believes that the only way to God is by embracing a particular faith, then there must be something that convinces them that they have embraced the correct one (if indeed they believe that the faith that they have embraced which teaches that it is the only correct one, is indeed the only correct one).

You said earlier:


What I am getting at with this thread is something like this: what sort of assurance can the agnostic theist find in the act of embracing one over the other that allows them to feel certain (or close to it) that they've chosen correctly? If it actually doesn't matter which one they choose as long as they genuinely open their heart to God, then the question is kind of moot. But if it does matter, then the question is an important one.

To me, this seems to suggest that you are looking for a neutral, objective, non-denominational way to assess the choice of religion.
Is this correct?

Which question?

"What makes you certain that you've chosen the correct faith?"

The relevant issue is the kind of consequence for choosing the "wrong religion" vs. the "right one".

Are the consequence infinite, irrepairable? Does one have to "get it right in this one lifetime or burn in hell forever"?
- If these are the feared consequences, then this reveals the fear that God is evil.

I think that the feared consequences are the result of investigation of religion itself, since consequences such as eternal damnation exist within some religious teaching themselves. I'm not sure how that doesn't address your question.


To me, this seems to suggest that you are looking for a neutral, objective, non-denominational way to assess the choice of religion.
Is this correct?

I really am just interested in what experiences or arguments people have that support their position that they have chosen the correct one. Obviously the question is only applicable to those who believe that there is indeed a "correct" choice (many people don't).

The relevant issue is the kind of consequence for choosing the "wrong religion" vs. the "right one".

Are the consequence infinite, irrepairable? Does one have to "get it right in this one lifetime or burn in hell forever"?

Dear one.
I believe your question and doubt is the stepping stone for you to desire the infinitely One. Keep on practising to look for TRUTH.

I asked myself "if Jesus came back tomorrow, which church would He walk into and accept?" And the answer was Buddhism because Buddhism has virtue and depth.

As such, I study Buddhism and fail to live a Buddhist life but try nonetheless.

"What makes you certain that you've chosen the correct faith?"
Please revisit posts #11 & 39

Please revisit posts #11 & 39

I have. I don't see how you have answered the OP.

I really am just interested in what experiences or arguments people have that support their position that they have chosen the correct one. Obviously the question is only applicable to those who believe that there is indeed a "correct" choice (many people don't).

Actually, I think that beyond "I have personal revelation from God" or something to that effect, there can be no answer to your question that would not be a betrayal of the person's faith.

Namely, to provide an externalist, non-denominational, objective, neutral reasoning or other evidence for one's faith would be to say that there is something higher and more relevant than the highest authorities of one's religion.

Jesus was a Zen Master (Buddhist)

Think of it this way. An educated agnostic who is seeking the truth knows that the Bible teaches that Jesus died for their sins. But they also likely know that the Qur'an teaches Jesus wasn't crucified at all. Specifically it teaches that regardless of the reports of such, Jesus was in fact taken up to heaven to be with Allah instead. It also teaches that while the Bible has some authority, and is indeed a good book for learn from, it has been superseded by the more recent revelation contained within the Qur'an. So the agnostic (agnostic theist in particular) who seeks to be "right" with God is put in the rather awkward position of trying to determine which set of revelations to embrace.

That's an interesting distinction between 'agnostic' and 'agnostic theist'.

Epistemological agnostics these days generally are weak ontological atheists. They don't actually believe in any God, even if they don't totally deny the possibility. (I fit there, in some of my moods.)

But yeah, there are agnostic theists as well, individuals who do believe that a God exists, but believe that they personally, or mankind generally, lack cognitive proposiitonal knowledge of that God. At times in history, these represented the majority of agnostics. (Of course, the word 'agnostic' hadn't been coined yet.) We encounter agnostic theists among the deists and among a certain kind of religious mystic.


What I am getting at with this thread is something like this: what sort of assurance can the agnostic theist find in the act of embracing one over the other that allows them to feel certain (or close to it) that they've chosen correctly? If it actually doesn't matter which one they choose as long as they genuinely open their heart to God, then the question is kind of moot. But if it does matter, then the question is an important one.

The deists accepted natural theology but were skeptical about whether any special revelation was true. So they accepted the abstract philosopher's God: first-cause designer and so on, but they questioned the literal truth of books like the Bible and the Qu'ran.

So your problem wouldn't have been felt with much force by the deists, since they were skeptical of all revelations by definition and weren't all that concerned to locate a supposedly one-true-one.

The religious mystics generally arise from out of a particular religious tradition and they typically absorb respect for their tradition's scriptures simply by default. Their agnosticism is usually religious-inspired, inspired not by a lack of religiosity but by an uusual abundance of it, resulting in their elevating God so highly in their thinking that God becomes totally transcendent, above finite and imperfect human conceptualization entirely. That in turn creates kind of a blow-back that puts the literal truth of the scriptures into question and often motivates analogical and allegorical readings.

So I don't think that most of the mystics would have felt the religious choice issue very strongly either. They were already too committed.

There are exceptions though, mystics who have promoted universalist ideas that all religions point towards the same goal and sometimes the idea that there is some perennial philosphy implicit in all religious traditions.

I am glad you posted

Ban this numpty already. multi-posting crap across different threads.

point is..don't get 'stuck' on religion..get stuck on God..

(which always made me question why are we worshiping jesus and not God..)

point is..don't get 'stuck' on religion..get stuck on God..

(which always made me question why are we worshiping jesus and not God..)

I thought the son was the god etc.

I thought the son was the god etc.

either way..it still takes the attention off of God..

either way..it still takes the attention off of God..

Depends on whether the acolyte accepts the holy trinity thing?

Depends on whether the acolyte accepts the holy trinity thing?

if it has to be defined by words the church has invented,then one has to question it..(God is better than a script)

Epistemological agnostics these days generally are weak ontological atheists. They don't actually believe in any God, even if they don't totally deny the possibility. (I fit there, in some of my moods.)

I think this is an important point.

A person's stance on a particular topic varies, according to time, place, circumstance, mood whatever other factor there may be.

The OP question, however, presumes that a person's stance will be stable, static. And normally, we would tend to presume it is - and yet real life experience shows otherwise.

I think this is an important point.

A person's stance on a particular topic varies, according to time, place, circumstance, mood whatever other factor there may be.

The OP question, however, presumes that a person's stance will be stable, static. And normally, we would tend to presume it is - and yet real life experience shows otherwise.

Yes. theist stances tend to shift depending on the debate they are embroiled in?

I always aim to present my stance consistently as my fundamentals (attitudes to god etc.) are not shifting, more becoming more detailed.

I do recognise that this could change/evolve with new knowledge but moments of epiquany in this require a massive shift?

I feel my stance is quite overreaching. When did your stance last change towards god? (meaningfully significantly)

But one can love their neighbor and not believe in the supernatural. Why should God care what you believe as long as you're doing the right thing?

No body does the right thing all the time.

If God is to be Just and seen to be Just by the Heavenly Host. He MUST do Justice.

God cannot allow anything imperfect to exist in eternity. So God has a Just way to Redeem His creation. A creation whose nature has been contaminated by imperfection. That Way is by the acceptance of the Atonement of the Messiah Jesus.

It is Justice to have Mercy on the repentant. Those who reject the Messiah Jesus, who refuse to repent, in effect, leave God without the option of having justified mercy upon them.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

No body does the right thing all the time.

If God is to be Just and seen to be Just by the Heavenly Host. He MUST do Justice.

God cannot allow anything imperfect to exist in eternity. So God has a Just way to Redeem His creation. A creation whose nature has been contaminated by imperfection. That Way is by the acceptance of the Atonement of the Messiah Jesus.

It is Justice to have Mercy on the repentant. Those who reject the Messiah Jesus, who refuse to repent, in effect, leave God without the option of having justified mercy upon them.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Doing the right thing does not require one to be 'god fearing'.

All praise the 'Science'.

Doing the right thing does not require one to be 'god fearing'.

All praise the 'Science'.

I never said it did.

What i said was, No one does the right thing all the time. Even when they are absolutely petrified of God, and some are.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days
PS i do not fear God. I love Him.

I never said it did.


So how do I digest this statement?


Those who reject the Messiah Jesus, who refuse to repent, in effect, leave God without the option of having justified mercy upon them.

If this isn't meant to instill fear then what is?

I don't want to repent to a god that there is no evidence to support the existence of. where does that leave me in god's eyes? I do not fear god so he won't have justified mercy on me? No mercy means something bad???

Why doesn't anyone gripe with the Buddhists here? I posted hankering for just that.

So to answer the OP - I adhere to this set of beliefs because it is the one religion that nobody has demerited.

edit:

Maybe it is just too non-religious. I read once something like this:

A man who tries to find God, is like a man shot by an arrow, questioning where the arrow came from and what material it is, before letting anyone pull it out.

The relevant issue is the kind of consequence for choosing the "wrong religion" vs. the "right one".

Are the consequence infinite, irrepairable? Does one have to "get it right in this one lifetime or burn in hell forever"?
- If these are the feared consequences,
Here's a better and more accurate way to think about it.

All goodness is in God. God is Love and all that is holy, valuable and true is of Him and leads to Him. Therefore, whenever people choose what is loving, good and pure in this life, they are choosing to do God's will and are expressing reverence for Him. Whenever people choose what is unloving, though, they are choosing to live apart from God, for He is Love and rejecting the loving course is rejecting love, and so is also rejecting God, the source of all the good.

Truth is consistent and does not contradict itself. But people don't always know what is true and good. When they make a mistake while honestly trying to find the truth, God will not judge them for that. But when people deliberately blind themselves to the truth, because they are attached to harmful lifestyles or worldly things, and prefer bad lifestyles and short-term pleasures to love, then these unloving preferences and choices hurt their souls (and other people) badly.

Our own negative choices hurt us badly, in our souls. Our unloving choices cause us to become less loving, more distant from Love, from God. If we prefer something in this life above love, and above what is true and good, then that thing separates us from love both in this life and the next. If we prefer something to God, then that thing becomes our god.

In this life, we experience the ability to change, for we are surrounded by time. We can change from one state of being to another. When we die, we enter eternity, though. Whatever we have made of ourselves in this life is what we then are, permanently. If we died while preferring something above God, then that thing separated us from Him in this life and continues to permanently. So yes, we damn ourselves to eternal separation from God. And because all love and goodness and happiness are found in God (not in worldly things, negative choices or selfishness), we are eternally miserable when we are separated from Him forever by whatever it is that we valued more highly than Him.

When we value something above God, Who is Love, then we value something in life above loving actions as well and above goodness and what is right. Therefore that thing becomes a major obstacle to love and to God. It becomes something like a boulder in the middle of a stream that blocks the water from flowing. It stops us from being united with God, for as long as we prefer something else above what is good, true, loving and valuable, we are destroying ourselves. We are preferring what is bad for us and choosing what is bad for us, destroying our own futures.

And because when we die, we enter eternity, the damage we do to our souls here in time can last for eternity if we don't change things now.

It says in 1 Peter chapter 1 that Christ died to save us from our own "futile conduct." He died to save us from giving ourselves to what is worthless and what is apart from Him, to save us from choosing Hell, and to help us to love Him most, instead. And when we love Him most, then we become united with Him . . . we act in more loving ways, increasingly, in life, and do more and more good.

God won't judge you for making an honest mistake about what religion is true. If you prefer your current lifestyle above truth, though, and above what is right, and are unwilling to surrender what you have now and put Love before everything, then things are serious barriers between you and God. So pray that He will help you to clear those barriers out of your life. Trust Him with all yourself and be ready to change anything in your way of living that might be a barrier between yourself and Him, should you find out that it is not right.

Pray to know what is right and true. But don't be afraid. If you seek Him with a sincere heart, and with willingness to change your life if you find Him, then you already have Him. For He said, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life." He also said that He is the end of the journey. When someone is baptized and enters the Catholic Church, in a sense, that is an end to a journey, though it is the beginning of another. Yet He is also the Way to the Catholic Church, in which the fullness of truth and goodness resides, so when you seek what is good and true, you are seeking the Catholic Church, you are seeking God, and you already are walking along "The Way." For seeking Truth and valuing it most, while trying to discern it, shows a love for truth and for God. If you are seeking it, you are walking the Way. Those that aren't seeking it, or who seek it while being unwilling to conform to it if it contradicts their current mindset, ideology or lifestyle, are not loving Truth most and they risk eternal destruction. But those who are seeking it or have found it and are living it, these are united with "The Way, the Truth and the Life," and in Him they will find their safety.

Anyone who dies a Hindu or a Buddhist or Muslim, who has put truth first and sought it to the best of their ability, and has not preferred anything above truth and love and good, will have eternal life. But anyone who does not put truth and good first will be separate from God forever when they enter eternity, for they have separated themselves from God in this life, and all truth and goodness are in Him, so they separate themselves from these also, and so also from happiness. They did this by choosing to live for what is not good and loving, and putting that above Love, they separated themselves from loving life and choices, and from all that makes life worthwhile and really valuable.

The better I reason the better I solve problems and the better I choose the correct actions I should take for myself and w/ others. It works for me so ergo it is right for me.

It is nice to wonder about the spiritual (for me abstractly) but at most it is secondary to the material and does nothing but to edify me, being spiritual or a believer does nothing to change the world around me in a physical way.

No body does the right thing all the time.

If God is to be Just and seen to be Just by the Heavenly Host. He MUST do Justice.

God cannot allow anything imperfect to exist in eternity. So God has a Just way to Redeem His creation. A creation whose nature has been contaminated by imperfection. That Way is by the acceptance of the Atonement of the Messiah Jesus.

It is Justice to have Mercy on the repentant. Those who reject the Messiah Jesus, who refuse to repent, in effect, leave God without the option of having justified mercy upon them.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days
That's a non-sequitor. Just because I find tales of talking snakes and dead men rising from graves ludicrous does not mean I don't regret when I've done wrong and try to learn from my mistakes.

Mind Over Matter, good coherent post. Do you believe God is in one's mind?

Why doesn't anyone gripe with the Buddhists here? I posted hankering for just that.

Generally, Buddhists are not suitable for fights. :p
They're too nice.

Here's a better and more accurate way to think about it.
...

On the authority of what are you saying this?
How can we know we can trust you?

Why doesn't anyone gripe with the Buddhists here? I posted hankering for just that.

Ok I'll gripe:

If you follow the teachings of Gautam Buddha, you cannot be a Buddhist; for Buddha was teaching his disciples the ways on how can they realize Buddhahood themselves.

When Buddha died, his disciples were divided into 32 different schools that differed from another on their interpretation of the original teachings.
Also, Buddha did say different things to different disciples; and in the end, you cannot make an organized set of dogmatized beliefs over these teachings.

The last words of the Buddha where "Appo Deepa Bhava" which roughly translates into: 'Be a light unto yourself.' This is better understood in the context of Buddha's death:
It is said that Buddha announced his own death, and died willingly (in the lotus posture) in front of his disciples probably because he thought this would be a good teaching for them. In this scenario his bhikkhus were crying because he was leaving them, specially Anand, and then Buddha uttered this meaningful profound words before going into Samaddhi and leaving the body.

Mind Over Matter, good coherent post. Do you believe God is in one's mind?
It depends what you mean by that. He is not just an idea, ideology or feeling. He is a Person. He can be known and chosen through the mind, though, and He can live in people's souls. He is absolute and consistent, unlike moral relativism, in which there is massive moral and doctrinal inconsistency. He is unchanging, absolute, infinite and eternal Truth, Life and Love.

The Church teaches that virtue is union with Him and sin is separation from Him. Sin is unloving conduct. Virtue is loving conduct. Therefore sin separates us from Love, while virtue unites us with Him. Living a life of virtue is like walking hand in hand with Love. But the Lord often asks more of us than we are willing to ask of ourselves, because we are so attached to material things and sin, and we are willing to excuse our imperfections and justify our bad habits and poor life choices. We even excuse big faults in our characters, rather than confronting them, and we are often completely oblivious to all the smaller faults in our characters (which are actually important and diminish our happiness and goodness, though we have trouble stomaching this).

The Lord asks much of us because He wants much for us. He allowed the animals to be satisfied with temporal things, but for us, He wants much more. He wants us to be completely satisfied and fulfilled in an everlasting relationship of love with God. He has designed us as humans to be completely satisfied only in Him, the source of all love and happiness, and to always have the desire for love, peace, happiness and acceptance in our hearts, because this is the desire for God and it inspires people to look for Him. He created us with more exalted desires than the animals have, and with a more magnificent end. He has designed us to find material things and human relationships insufficient to satisfy our hearts' deepest longings, because He has created our hearts to rest in Him, Who is ultimate and perfect satisfaction and joy. He wants us to have everything good and worthwhile, and all that is good and worthwhile for us is found in Him.

God wants us to become perfect, completely detached from the worldly things that distract us from the longings He has placed in our hearts, and He wants to win us over completely from sin, to conquer us with all that can satisfy and delight us: Union with Himself.

Therefore He has given us the Eucharist, which is His fullness, His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, so that we can give Him all of ourselves in It and receive all of Himself. He is the Eucharist. The Eucharist is Divine Love, the fullness and completeness of Jesus Christ.

Here is what St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote about the Eucharist, on his way to martyrdom:

"I no longer take pleasure in perishable food or in the delights of this world. I want only God's bread, which is the Flesh of Jesus Christ, formed of the seed of David, and for drink I crave His Blood which is love that cannot perish."

On his way to martyrdom in the Colosseum, Ignatius wrote that all his desires were fulfilled in the Eucharist. He begged his Christian brothers not to petition his release, because he wanted to die and be fully one with his Eucharistic Love. The Eucharist was everything to him, so he surrendered his body to be mauled by lions and his spirit to be immolated of self-will and consumed with the fire of God, all for pure love of the Eucharist.

In the Divine Eucharist, there is power to transform us completely and unite us fully with Love, which is God.

The Eucharist is like sex between two married lovers. We "marry" God at the moment of Baptism (and non-Catholics are not allowed to partake of Him in the Eucharist) and in the Eucharist we become totally one with Him, in total self-giving and total receiving. Unmarried sexual partners only give themselves to one another in part, because there is the possibility that one might leave, and they do not have the totally self-giving covenantal union that exists in a marriage. Marriage's permanence, the total self-giving of two people to one another for life, vowed, in sickness and in health, for richer for poorer, no matter what the circumstances or troubles, is a reflection of our total and permanent union with God, both in the Eucharist and throughout all our lives, no matter what forces or circumstances might try to break that everlasting union.

Partaking of the Eucharist is the mightiest mystical experience possible on this Earth. The more people give themselves to Him, over time, the more they receive His grace in that encounter. Then they are ever more transformed and made holy, one with God's love. The Eucharist is the Power and Love of God. As you draw closer to Him in your spiritual life, you find that eating Him is not at all like eating ordinary bread. The experience is much more. And as one draws closer and closer to God, the encounter with Him in the Eucharist likewise deepens and unfolds into ever intensifying love and power.

St. Gemma Galgani could only stay in the Eucharist's presence for about fifteen minutes at a time, because she felt such physical burning heat raging from it that the searing intensity forced her out of the room. Often, the Eucharist has sped from the priest's hands through midair into the mouth of a saint, rushing to Its lover. Sometimes saints' eyes have been opened and they have seen Jesus descend from Heaven into the priest's hands, at the moment of consecration.

The Lord has also provided Eucharistic Miracles that all the world can see, and which even medical science can verify, to show us His Love (dozens are recorded in this document): http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/engl_mir.htm

If I'm understanding you correctly, then according to Catholic teachings, a follower of Islam or Judaism (for example) can achieve salvation as long as they have a genuine faith and a desire to do God's will to the best of their ability? But once exposed to the more comprehensively "correct" teachings of the Catholic Church, one can only achieve salvation by embracing them (which I am sure you would argue would be a natural thing for someone who had genuine faith in the first place)?

I would argue that the natural thing for a Muslim or a Jew to do when presented with Christianity would be to deny it; and that implies no bad faith in them. A Muslim who knows about Christianity and yet rejects it can, theoretically, be a spiritual member of the Catholic Church and thus be saved, if what's keeping him from the Faith are psychological and cultural impediments to see the truth of Christ's teaching, and also the ineptitude of those whose calling it is to give witness of the Catholic Faith to him.


This is all very interesting, but not quite the point of the thread. Followers of Islam and Judaism (for example) would typically reject the authority of the Catholic church on such matters and continue to embrace their own beliefs instead. What makes you certain that you're doing the right thing, and they are not?


I have. I don't see how you have answered the OP.
I think reason is on my side (and how can we settle this? Well, by the only way we can settle everything else: by dialog, argument, exchange of ideas, etc.), and the more I consider the Catholic position on many issues and compare it with Muslim or Jewish positions (especially when it comes to their relationship with morality and divine law in general), it seems very clear to me that they have committed some serious blunders.

I cannot give you a proof that I am right and they are wrong, but I see many convincing reasons to reject Islam and Judaism in favor of Christianity, and I don't see good reasons to do otherwise.

MoM -

My point is that you seem to be taking yourself out of the equation.
It's as if you presume yourself to be objective and neutral, unaffected by any greed, anger and delusion that you might have.

You speak as if reasoning were something that happens automatically, without the person's will and whatever conditioning they may have; as if reasoning were much the same as mixing chemicals - add premise 1, add premise 2, and there is conclusion C - no personal input or consideration necessary.

It's as if you don't own your statements, don't take responsibility for them.

You don't really make I-statements. While you will say "I think ..." or "In my estimation ...", these seem to be mere formalities, not actually expressions of you considering yourself an epistemological and ontological instance.

You speak as if reasoning were something that happens automatically, without the person's will and whatever conditioning they may have; as if reasoning were much the same as mixing chemicals - add premis 1, add premis 2, and there is conclusion C - no personal input or consideration necessary.
And all the while doing little but...

MoM -

My point is that you seem to be taking yourself out of the equation.
It's as if you presume yourself to be objective and neutral, unaffected by any greed, anger and delusion that you might have.

Not at all. I certainly am affected by all of these. That is one other reason why input from others is so important; to check these biases. Still, I think that a person's intellectual maturing consists also of being able to check these and be able to achieve an ever greater objectivity.

It is always possible to move a level above our prejudices, or else any knowledge, and any rational discussion, would be completely worthless, because they would all be determined by each person's personal biases.

Oh well. Perhaps some of us are asking you questions or presenting a perspective to which there isn't a regular answer.

Oh well. Perhaps some of us are asking you questions or presenting a perspective to which there isn't a regular answer.
This is often the case with things like this.

It is impossible to completely and totlly divorce ourselves from all possible biases, influences, backgrounds, etc for we begin to aquire these things from the moment of our birth - and maybe even before...

The best we can do is to make comparison, attempt to ask the proper questions, not be afraid of pursuing truth by the path it leads us, and to keep God at all times in the forefront of our thoughts and desires.

For me - one of things that gives me certainty is that I am not particularly influenced by the actions of members of a given sect or belief system. If you wish to judge by example, then judge by those held up as the best examples of a given belief system. But since even these can be found to have flaws, it is the teachings, documented and approved (widely accepted) that are the foundation upon which to make determination.
Official teachings remain the same. Others might skew them - the the teaching ideals remain the same. And in seeking God - it is the ideal we should seek...

This is often the case with things like this.

It is impossible to completely and totlly divorce ourselves from all possible biases, influences, backgrounds, etc for we begin to aquire these things from the moment of our birth - and maybe even before...

That wasn't my point.

My point is that you talk as if you already would be objective, as if you already knew all the anwers. As if you spoke from God's perspective.



The best we can do is to make comparison, attempt to ask the proper questions, not be afraid of pursuing truth by the path it leads us, and to keep God at all times in the forefront of our thoughts and desires.


One cannot keep God at the forefront of one's thoughts and desires if one doesn't know who and what God actually is.



For me - one of things that gives me certainty is that I am not particularly influenced by the actions of members of a given sect or belief system.

You are a Catholic, right?

You do not seem to have much individuality or personality besides Catholicism.

For me - one of things that gives me certainty is that I am not particularly influenced by the actions of members of a given sect or belief system.
Of course this is patently, and self-evidently, untrue.
As you yourself said:

it is the teachings, documented and approved (widely accepted) that are the foundation upon which to make determination.
Official teachings remain the same.
Did not those officials decide what to promote? Did they not take action (based on their belief of what was best) to state what "teachings" and "documentation" are "approved and accepted"?
:rolleyes:

For me - one of things that gives me certainty is that I am not particularly influenced by the actions of members of a given sect or belief system.
That must be why you quote so much Catholic propaganda.

I'm agnostic. I haven't seen concrete proof of the existence of non-existence of supreme beings, so my view is based on the facts at hand.

Ok I'll gripe:

If you follow the teachings of Gautam Buddha, you cannot be a Buddhist; for Buddha was teaching his disciples the ways on how can they realize Buddhahood themselves.

&

The last words of the Buddha where "Appo Deepa Bhava".

This suggests that you must think for yourself, because understanding can not be given - it can only be facilitated.

Let me give you an example. As a high-school teacher, in my class I need to teach erosion. I have two options:

1.) Have the students repeat the definition over and over
2.) Ask the students where the desert they live in comes from. Ask them what happens to a mountain after a thousand years of being cut by wind.

I can see much better results in understanding erosion through option 2. As I teach the same class 17 times it is easy for me to see which method works and which doesn't.


When Buddha died, his disciples were divided into 32 different schools that differed from another on their interpretation of the original teachings.
Also, Buddha did say different things to different disciples; and in the end, you cannot make an organized set of dogmatized beliefs over these teachings.

There are countless types of Buddhism as there are many ways to understand what erosion is.

What specifically is your gripe with this?

edit:

Perhaps it is important to note that motivation is just as important as understanding.

This suggests that you must think for yourself, because understanding can not be given - it can only be facilitated.

What specifically is your gripe with this?
I guess I was just fooling around, I have no beef with buddhists.


Perhaps it is important to note that motivation is just as important as understanding.
Yes it is

That wasn't my point.

My point is that you talk as if you already would be objective, as if you already knew all the anwers. As if you spoke from God's perspective.

Once one has reached a certain conclusion one speaks from a perspective of conviction. This may be why you see us as speaking "from God's perspective".
In Turht, no one can speak "From God's persepctive". We can only speak from the understanding of God's perspective as revealed in Scripture and through the Teachings of His Church.


One cannot keep God at the forefront of one's thoughts and desires if one doesn't know who and what God actually is.

God is "Our Father" (Mt 6:9) - The creator of all things - (Isa 40:28)
Consider what it means to be "A Father".
Consider what it means to be "The Creator" (not the destroyer) of all things.

God is Love (1 John 4:8)
All that God asks of us is based on Love (Mt 22:36-40)

Therefore Dear Signal, keep Love, foremost in your mind, and you will keep God foremost in your mind.
Read the Gospels with Love at the core and unerlying principle and you will find all connected.
Where Love is served, God is served.
Where Love is denied, God is denied.

Love builds up - Love creates - Love fathers - Love mothers and nurtures.

PS: Sorry I quoted the bible again.

So how do I digest this statement?



If this isn't meant to instill fear then what is?

I don't want to repent to a god that there is no evidence to support the existence of. where does that leave me in god's eyes? I do not fear god so he won't have justified mercy on me? No mercy means something bad???

It's up to you when given the message of God to make your own reply. And as for fear. You demonstrate that you do not fear my statement. If fear lead people to believe then all i would have to do would be to make that statement.

Yet i hear all the time from athiests that people are kept in Christianity because of fear. This is not true.


All Praise The Ancient of Days

Once one has reached a certain conclusion one speaks from a perspective of conviction. This may be why you see us as speaking "from God's perspective".
In Turht, no one can speak "From God's persepctive". We can only speak from the understanding of God's perspective as revealed in Scripture and through the Teachings of His Church.

But somehow, you have come to the conviction that you know which church is God's church, and which church is not God's church.

This is the part that you are not taking responsibility for.

You formulate your statements in such a way that it is implied that you have come to your conclusions via a neutral, objective, non-denominational line of reasoning. As if you had epistemic autonomy!



Therefore Dear Signal, keep Love, foremost in your mind, and you will keep God foremost in your mind.

It looks like I have reached the end of your tether and your wisdom.

I suppose you mean well, though.



PS: Sorry I quoted the bible again.

I have told you before (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2749338&postcount=166) that apologizing for quoting the Bible is dishonest.

I guess I was just fooling around, I have no beef with buddhists.


Yes it is

haha it's too bad. I'd rather you tear me to pieces than lower the beef quality. Ok 20+ beers tonight and I'm not the best example of Buddhist principles. G'night.

Yet i hear all the time from athiests that people are kept in Christianity because of fear. This is not true.


at least not all of them.

It's up to you when given the message of God to make your own reply. And as for fear. You demonstrate that you do not fear my statement. If fear lead people to believe then all i would have to do would be to make that statement.

Yet i hear all the time from athiests that people are kept in Christianity because of fear. This is not true.


All Praise The Ancient of Days
Adstar,

Rav's thread is such a big topic. There are so many different signs and layers of evidence God has given that the Catholic faith is true.

I guess I'll start with the Apostle Paul.

Paul is accepted as a very real figure of history by scholars. Most of his epistles in the Bible are generally accepted as authentic. 1 Corinthians, for example, is accepted as having Pauline authorship.

Here's a comment Paul makes about the appearances of the Resurrected Lord in 1 Corinthians:

1 Corinthians
Chapter 15
1
1 2 Now I am reminding you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you indeed received and in which you also stand.
2
Through it you are also being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.
3
3 For I handed on to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures;
4
that he was buried; that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures;
5
that he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve.
6
After that, he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at once, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.
7
After that he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
8
Last of all, as to one born abnormally, he appeared to me.
9
For I am the least of the apostles, not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

Paul records that Jesus appeared to over five hundred Christians at once, most of whom were living witnesses at the time he wrote the epistle. His appearances and conversations with Paul and the apostles (and the apostles and other disciples said He also broke bread, ate food and drank in their presence, after the Resurrection) were so convincing that these men all proceeded to die for their certainty that He was indeed risen.

Paul says that he persecuted the Church but Christ appeared to him and he converted -- an extremely dramatic conversion, considering he used to try to imprison and kill Christians. It took a huge experience to change him so radically.

Paul writes that many others, aside from him, also alive saw Christ alive after His Resurrection, and Paul goes on, later in the chapter, to describe the resurrected body as extremely glorious and majestic in appearance. He says that he, the apostles, and over five hundred others were witnesses of this.

We can be sure Paul was entirely sincere in his testimony, not lying or fudging the truth at all, because he endured many floggings for this faith, starvation, nakedness, and many other sufferings, and finally he was beheaded for his faith in the Resurrection of Christ, in the Colosseum of Rome. Paul was in a position to know for sure whether Christ was risen or not, for he claimed to have spoken with Him and seen Him after His Resurrection. Indeed, in the Book of Galatians, Paul says he received his entire gospel testimony straight from the Resurrected Lord. So Paul knew for sure whether he was lying or not. He could not have hallucinated all that (his companions saw a brilliant light and heard Jesus' voice as well, according to Paul's testimony in Acts 22:9). He could not have made a mistake on this critical point that changed Paul's life radically and made a persecutor of Christianity into its foremost evangelist, willing to suffer greatly for his certainty that Christ was Risen.

People don't die for what they know is a lie, but for what they are convinced is true. Paul suffered enormously for his faith in the Resurrection of Christ and was martyred for this certainty, so we have every reason to believe in the truth of his testimony. His testimony is proven not only by his miracles, which were numerous and convinced large numbers of people in his own time that he was telling the truth, but his blood also proves his words were sincere and therefore true (for he couldn't plausibly have made a mistake or been only imagining it all).

The same proof of the Resurrection of Christ also holds true for the other apostles. They claimed that they saw Christ alive after His Resurrection, that they saw Him eat food in their presence (no possibility of imagining that), that they all saw Him together (not just one witness but many), and they talked with Him in repeated conversations over a period of 40 days, until He rose into Heaven. They could not have been mistaken about His having prepared a fire in John 21 and cooked fish over it for them, and then eaten with them, after which He had a theological conversation with them. So them make a mistake and simply imagining all this evidence that Christ was Risen is impossible. Because a mistake is impossible, they had to have been deliberately lying when they testified that He was Risen, or they had to have been telling the truth.

We know they weren't deliberately lying because they all endured brutal floggings, ostracism, imprisonment, torture (some were flayed, others shattered on the wheel, etc.), and finally martyrdom for their testimony that Christ was Risen. People don't go through all that for a story that they know is a lie. At least one of them would have changed his story! Surely all of them would have changed their story if they knew it was not true (and they couldn't have been mistaken, given all this firsthand eyewitness evidence and physical proofs they testified to). Even if people are telling the truth, usually they will start telling lies when threatened with torture, in the hope of getting off. But the apostles all stayed faithful to their testimony and died for it. People don't do that when they know their testimony is a lie. The apostles knew whether they were telling the truth or not -- they could not have been making a mistake, given the evidence they experienced firsthand -- so we can be sure they were telling the truth. Therefore we can be sure that Christ is Risen.


Thus the blood of the apostles is a powerful evidence that Christ is Risen. Now, if Christ rose from the dead, physically, as the apostles said, and appointed the apostles to be His messengers to the world while present in His glorified body (Matt. 28:19), then we would do well to believe the apostles' teachings. And the apostles passed on to the world the Catholic faith.

I'll get into more evidence in my next post.

Paul is accepted as a very real figure of history by scholars. Most of his epistles in the Bible are generally accepted as authentic. 1 Corinthians, for example, is accepted as having Pauline authorship. Citation needed.

What evidence is there such a person existed? What evidence is there he authored the words in that section of the bible? What evidence is there the bits of the NT about Jesus were written by eye witnesses?

Besides, even if the passages in question were written by someone called Paul who lived in that region around 30AD no account would be sufficient to believe the claims of miracles. Eye witness testimony, particularly when you have no original copy of the account whose authorship is in question, is not sufficient for such things.

A standard example of consistent, corroborated eye witness accounts which the vast majority of Christians don't believe is that of alien encounters. You can go, right now today, and find many thousands of people who claim to have been abducted by aliens. They are spread over a huge geographic region (the entire world!), many of whom don't have contact with one another and yet their stories often have considerable numbers of details similar to one another. This isn't a matter of some 2000 year old account by someone whose identity you can't confirm, you can meet these people face to face now. And yet we don't believe them. Why? Because accounts of such extreme claims have to be backed up by more than just "I say this happened to me". If all these people had such encounters some evidence other than their say so would exist, it doesn't. Now consider the Jesus story. The authorship of the gospels are questionable, the accounts not written as if they are eye witness and no records exist before about AD70. If there's nothing else to justify them then immediately this makes them less credible than alien encounters. So what about other evidence? Well apparently the dead got out of their graves and went into town. So where's the reports? Why didn't someone, somewhere in the Roman empire or an historian in the region record that the dead rose in Israel?! We'd expect word of that to have gotten around pretty quick so the deafening silence from history in that regard actually counts against the claims. In this case absence of evidence is evidence of absence.


Paul records that Jesus appeared to over five hundred Christians at once, most of whom were living witnesses at the time he wrote the epistle.And yet no one else wrote about him. No contemporary account of Jesus outside of the Bible exists. It wasn't for a few more decades someone mentioned Jesus in passing. If Jesus were so well known and events like the dead rising occured you'd think he'd be mentioned a bit more than "I heard about some guy named Jesus from some other guy", it'd more "Holy ****, the dead rose when this guy Jesus was executed!!". The silence is deafening.


His appearances and conversations with Paul and the apostles (and the apostles and other disciples said He also broke bread, ate food and drank in their presence, after the Resurrection) were so convincing that these men all proceeded to die for their certainty that He was indeed risen. Evidence?


Paul says that he persecuted the Church but Christ appeared to him and he converted -- an extremely dramatic conversion, considering he used to try to imprison and kill Christians. It took a huge experience to change him so radically.

Paul writes that many others, aside from him, also alive saw Christ alive after His Resurrection, and Paul goes on, later in the chapter, to describe the resurrected body as extremely glorious and majestic in appearance. He says that he, the apostles, and over five hundred others were witnesses of this.He says, he says, he says. Considering you're talking about hundreds of people who were supposedly amazed by Jesus's awesomeness why didn't anyone else make an account of these events? Why are all the accounts of Jesus always from believers, never from impartial 3rd parties reporting on 'the news' they've heard?


We can be sure Paul was entirely sincere in his testimony, not lying or fudging the truth at all, because he endured many floggings for this faith, starvation, nakedness, and many other sufferings, and finally he was beheaded for his faith in the Resurrection of Christ, in the Colosseum of Rome. An Islamic suicide bombers really believe their religion too. Doesn't make is so. The strength of someone's belief has no affect to the truth of their claims.


Paul was in a position to know for sure whether Christ was risen or not, for he claimed to have spoken with Him and seen Him after His Resurrection. Indeed, in the Book of Galatians, Paul says he received his entire gospel testimony straight from the Resurrected Lord.And when a guy says "I'm telling the truth, trust me, God's wired into my brain right now and speaking to me" then you're sure to believe him!

Seriously, read what you're saying. Your argument is "Paul was right, he said so!". How many non-Christian religious claims have you not believed based they provided nothing other than "We're the truth because we say so"? Use some critical thinking and scepticism, for the love of Jebus!


So Paul knew for sure whether he was lying or not. A man can tell what he believes to be the truth yet still be wrong. The people of different faiths to you believe their claims about their deities are true yet you think they are wrong, just as you think what you say is true yet they think you are wrong. You've got to provide something more than "Because I say so".


He could not have hallucinated all that (his companions saw a brilliant light and heard Jesus' voice as well, according to Paul's testimony in Acts 22:9)So you believe all the accounts of groups of people claiming to have seen/spoken to Allah, Shiva, Baal, Ra, Santa, Big-foot and aliens then? There's plenty of examples of more than one person experiencing something but that 'something' wasn't your notion of the Christian god. Just go over to the pseudo sub forum and look at common sense seeker's thread about hyraxes. He keeps linking to 'eye witness accounts' of 2 or 3 people who claim to have seen Big-foot or moth man or a werewolf on Wimbledon common or whatever the hell he's obsessed with. Do you believe them?


He could not have made a mistake on this critical point that changed Paul's life radically and made a persecutor of Christianity into its foremost evangelist, willing to suffer greatly for his certainty that Christ was Risen. People can be wrong, despite being sincere and believing what they say. Every religion has such people in and they can't all be right, but they can all be wrong. And so how do we tell? EVIDENCE. When you've got some let us know.


People don't die for what they know is a lie, but for what they are convinced is true. Paul suffered enormously for his faith in the Resurrection of Christ and was martyred for this certainty, so we have every reason to believe in the truth of his testimony.The truth of his testimony, in that he believed what he said yet. But that doesn't make it true. Your logic implies suicide bombers are correct because no one would be stupid enough to die for something wrong, right?

Paul suffered enormously for his faith in the Resurrection of Christ and was martyred for this certainty, so we have every reason to believe in the truth of his testimony.


but his blood also proves his words were sincere and therefore true (for he couldn't plausibly have made a mistake or been only imagining it all). I really really really REALLY hope you're a Poe (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe%27s_Law) and just pretending to be a staggeringly daft, illogical, self contradicting bible thumper blinded by faith to the point of .... well I'll stop there lest I get banned.


We know they weren't deliberately lying because they all endured brutal floggings, ostracism, imprisonment, torture (some were flayed, others shattered on the wheel, etc.), and finally martyrdom for their testimony that Christ was Risen. People don't go through all that for a story that they know is a lie. At least one of them would have changed his story! Surely all of them would have changed their story if they knew it was not true (and they couldn't have been mistaken, given all this firsthand eyewitness evidence and physical proofs they testified to). Even if people are telling the truth, usually they will start telling lies when threatened with torture, in the hope of getting off. But the apostles all stayed faithful to their testimony and died for it. People don't do that when they know their testimony is a lie. The apostles knew whether they were telling the truth or not -- they could not have been making a mistake, given the evidence they experienced firsthand -- so we can be sure they were telling the truth. Therefore we can be sure that Christ is Risen.You have incredibly low standards of evidence. You accept " A bunch of guys said something they thought was true therefore I accept it, no matter how huge or ridiculous or otherwise unsubstantiated the claim". By that logic every single religion is true because they all have groups of people who have experienced, often together, things they truely believe to be divine. None of them have stood up to impartial scrutiny or provided anything other than more "He said it so its true".

You've got a presupposed conclusion, that the Christian god is real and the Bible is true. You've then tried to tell yourself there's evidence for that by using this staggeringly pathetic line of .... well its not even logic, it's just BS. You haven't given it a nanosecond of thought because if you had you'd realise the same methods 'prove' any religion you care to name.

Epic, EPIC fail.


I'll get into more evidence in my next post.You haven't provided any in this post so 'more' is incorrect.

I recommend browsing through these Old Testament prophecies of the Messiah, which were fulfilled in the life of Jesus Christ, when you find the time:

http://www.cynet.com/jesus/prophecy/ntquoted.htm

There are many more Old Testament prophecies He fulfilled as well, in addition to these. I have a book of them on my religion shelf.


You know, when Christ appeared to five hundred Christians, after His Resurrection, He wasn't the only one from Heaven to appear to so many people at once. His Mother was also assumed into Heaven in the body, according to Catholic Tradition, and she has appeared to many more people since.

In a series of 20th century apparitions in Betania, for instance, Mary appeared visibly to many people at a shrine. The local Archbishop, who investigated the phenomenon carefully, has calculated that between five hundred and a thousand people have seen Mary at this location. Here is his report:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/BET_PIO.HTM

http://www.ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/BET_PIO.HTM

An even more dramatic apparition of Mary occurred in Cairo, in the 1960's, at a church called Zeitoun. For at least a year, she appeared almost daily to a rapidly growing crowd. In the end, about a million people had seen her, and the international media had photographed her repeatedly, and President Nasser of Egypt also came and saw her. You can read about this event on this link, and see a few of the photos:

http://www.zeitun-eg.org/zeitoun1.ht

A million people cannot have all been hysterical or hallucinating. Mary definitely, verifiably has come to Earth from Heaven repeatedly in human history, to instruct us and help us to follow the teachings of her Son. Sometimes she appears to hundreds of people, in one case to a million, but usually to small groups or individuals. Apparitions of Jesus, Mary and other saints are very common in the lives of the canonized Catholic saints.

Another very important apparition of Mary in the 20th century is Our Lady of Fatima. She appeared repeatedly to three very young children, all of whom suffered enormously for their conviction that she truly was appearing to them (they suffered for their testimony through very painful penances they practiced of their own accord, and through persecution by local villagers and public officials, and even persecution by some clergy). Mary also made several prophecies in the presence of the children, about the future, foretelling many events, such as the coming of World War 2, the rise of Communist Russia, the assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II, and several other important events of the 20th century. She finally proved she was appearing to the children and that her words were true by performing a dramatic miracle in front of 70,000 people, who observed it and were astonished and terrified at the sight. You can read about the events at Fatima through the following link:

http://marypages.com/fatimaEng1.htm

You can read about many more Marian apparitions on the following website, if you remain interested in reading more, after having read the above accounts: http://marypages.com/

These repeated heavenly apparitions and the miracles that have surrounded them are another powerful sign of the truth of the Catholic faith. Mary confirms the Catholic faith through her messages and encourages the Catholics to persevere, grow in righteousness and turn away from sin.

I'll continue this in another post, a bit later.

I recommend browsing through these Old Testament prophecies of the Messiah, which were fulfilled in the life of Jesus Christ, when you find the time:

http://www.cynet.com/jesus/prophecy/ntquoted.htm

There are many more Old Testament prophecies He fulfilled as well, in addition to these.Jews would disagree, else they'd be Christians. Besides, there's numerous issues with such an 'argument'.

First and foremost many of the prophecies are extremely vague and can (and have been!) interpreted many different ways. The second problem harkens to something I've already brought up, that the truth of the NT is questionable. Suppose for a moment the stories of Jesus are written by someone around 50AD, someone who believes what he's been told about Jesus's awesomeness. It would be in his interest to modify accounts in order to fit better with the OT, to improve the amazingness of the claims further. The people who wrote the gospels and the NT in general were specifically trying to convert other people and thus they have a vested interest in making things seem as good as possible. Hence why I brought up the requirement for 3rd party accounts, where the person writing about an event has no vested interest in the event itself.

Think of all the religious conmen in history (and even now) who simply make up claims about a god visiting them, so that people will follow them or give them money. Just look at Mormonism or Scientology! If all you have to justify the bible is the bible then you don't have any justification. Yes, the OT said "X will happen" and the NT says "X happened" but is there any evidence X indeed happened?

Besides, if you want to bring in "The OT is the word of god, he passed on his knowledge to prove the divinity of his son" then you get into the issue of how the bible is wrong, just flat out wrong, about things like the origins of the universe, the origins and development of life on Earth, the claim of a global flood, cures for various illnesses, the workings of certain biological systems (rabbits don't chew the cud for instance), the shape of the Earth and even the value of pi! So a god can predict/know the future but can't draw a circle?


I have a book of them on my religion shelf.
It doesn't matter whether you have a book on the subject, I have some Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings books, doesn't make them true. In LoTR Tolkein invented an entire history of the world and numerous working languages. It hangs together a hell of a lot better than the bible does. In fact you can play the same game I've seen some Christians and Muslims play, where they say "There's science in the bible/quran". Tolkein has the world being created from the "music of the Ainur". String theory, the only known viable quantum gravity model of the universe, describes particles as oscillations on strings, like notes on a violin string. Is that evidence/proof Iluvatar exists? Hardly.

What matters is quantifiable, impartial, concrete evidence. Your arguments boil down to "The bible is true because some people believe it is". That works for all religions and thus works for none.


You know, when Christ appeared to five hundred Christians, after His Resurrection, He wasn't the only one from Heaven to appear to so many people at once.And yet we only have the bible's word for it. I know you've clearly had it drilled into you so much you think of the bible as valid an historical resource as any other, no matter what it claims, but that isn't the case. You reject stories about Greek gods in The Iliad. Try applying that same scepticism to the bible for a while, because then you'll perhaps realise your replies aren't providing evidence, just assertions and circular reasoning.


His Mother was also assumed into Heaven in the body, according to Catholic Tradition, and she has appeared to many more people since. 'Assumed' being the correct word there. Nowhere, nowhere, in the bible does it say that. It wasn't even Catholic doctrine for many hundreds of years. At some point a pope just decided, after a lot of praying (or just talking to himself), it was true. No evidence, just plucked out of thin air.

And the whole "She's appeared to people!" thing I've already commented on. You can speak to people who've encountered, so they claim, aliens. Plenty of Muslims have seen Mohammed or Hindus have seen Shiva or Native Americans seen their ancestors. I've heard of one American guy starting up a long dead Egyptian religion because an Egyptian cat goddess appeared to him.

Even putting mental illness and drug usage aside the human brain is a complicated thing and its easy to misinterpret what your senses are telling you, incorrectly recall something, your senses to 'glitch' or you to just have a break from reality. Ever gone 3 or 4 days without sleep? You start hearing voices and seeing shadows move in the corner of your eye, despite there being nothing there. It's just your brain misfiring but some people honestly believe in 'shadow people'.

If visions could be repeatable, demonstrable to other people, impartial 3rd parties, or somehow left evidence which couldn't be explained any other way then visions would count. Since they don't a claim "I saw the virgin Mary!!" is no more believable than "I saw Big foot" or "I saw Vishnu" or "I saw someone from Alabama with a high school diploma!".


An even more dramatic apparition of Mary occurred in Cairo, in the 1960's, at a church called Zeitoun. For at least a year, she appeared almost daily to a rapidly growing crowd. In the end, about a million people had seen her, and the international media had photographed her repeatedly, and President Nasser of Egypt also came and saw her. You can read about this event on this link, and see a few of the photos:And yet there wasn't a mass conversion to Christianity or Catholicism, Egypt, including the person you just mentioned, remains an Islamic country.


A million people cannot have all been hysterical or hallucinating. Seriously? You don't think it's possible for millions of people to be hysterical and wrong? Hinduism has some of the largest religious festivals in the world, where tens of millions of people will gather for a particular religious event. You don't believe in their gods, so the frenzy they can work themselves into at some of these events you must think is just hysterical nonsense. Many people not in your particular faith will have experienced visions when in some kind of religious frenzy or mindset.

The event you link to (which doesn't work by the say) sounds pretty underwhelming. It wasn't like a literal apparition of Mary appeared but instead somewhat unexplained lights. People then coloured their interpretation of those events with their religious beliefs. This harkens back to the comments I just made, how people put a spin on their recollection of events or bias it with preconceptions. A similar thing happens to near death experiences. Christians always experience Christian related imagery, Jesus, St Peter, etc, while Hindus see things relating to their religion and likewise for Muslims or other religions. You never get a Buddhist seeing Jesus or a Catholic seeing Joseph Smith. This illustrates how people's preconceptions taint their interpretation of the world, which in the case of near death experiences is their brain shutting down due to lack of oxygen.


Mary definitely, verifiablyIt isn't 'verifiable' any more than alien encounters are verifiable. You have extremely low standards of evidence. Actually, you have no standard of evidence.


Sometimes she appears to hundreds of people, in one case to a millionYour somewhat misrepresenting the incident there. For a while odd optical phenomena were seen in a region of Cairo, which is a long way from unequivocally the Virgin Mary appearing and every single one of the people saying "There is absolutely definitely the Virgin Mary spoken of in the bible!". Some people see Jesus in the hair of a dog (http://media.photobucket.com/image/recent/BluEyedLou/dog_butt_jesus-1.jpg). In regards to Our Lady of Zeitoun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Zeitoun) I can't help but notice in the article how the priests just concluded, without evidence, that it was Mary. And if there were miracles where's the evidence for them? Miracle curs always seem to be "My cancer went away", which sometimes happens to people of all religious faith (including us atheists) and never "My leg grew back". Why won't god heal amputees? (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/)


, but usually to small groups or individuals. Apparitions of Jesus, Mary and other saints are very common in the lives of the canonized Catholic saints. Yes, funny how those people who utterly immerse themselves in Catholicism end up seeing Catholic imagery everywhere, isn't it? Just like those Muslims who spend decades doing nothing but studying the quran see the hand of Allah everywhere or people obsessed with conspiracies see conspiracies everywhere.

Our brains have evolved to be pattern recognition machines and when you spend all day thinking about certain things you'll start seeing connections to those things all over the place. If I have a day where I spend 10 hours doing algebra (I'm a mathematician by profession) then I can't sleep properly at night because the equations keep running through my head. If I spend all that time playing a particular computer game then that'll be running through my head at night. If I were religious and read the bible was 10 hours then it'd run through my head. It's human nature. It's the same thing as the near death experiences, people see what they've been taught to expect. Hence Catholics seeing catholic imagery doesn't count as evidence because all religions have such examples.


Another very important apparition of Mary in the 20th century is Our Lady of Fatima. She appeared repeatedly to three very young children, all of whom suffered enormously for their conviction that she truly was appearing to them (they suffered for their testimony through very painful penances they practiced of their own accord, and through persecution by local villagers and public officials, and even persecution by some clergy). Mary also made several prophecies in the presence of the children, about the future, foretelling many events, such as the coming of World War 2, the rise of Communist Russia, the assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II, and several other important events of the 20th century. She finally proved she was appearing to the children and that her words were true by performing a dramatic miracle in front of 70,000 people, who observed it and were astonished and terrified at the sight. You can read about the events at Fatima through the following link:

http://marypages.com/fatimaEng1.htmAre you just on autopilot? I already addressed in my previous post how it's possible for people to be utterly convinced that what they are saying is true, even when they are tortured or punished, and still be wrong. There are examples of Islamic children willing to be suicide bombers because they believe the teachings they've received so much. Does that make Islam true? I don't think you'd say 'yes'. By exactly the same reasoning Catholics really believing Catholicism doesn't count as evidence.

You don't seem to realise you're presenting 'arguments' which every religion presents. You dismiss these arguments when a jew or muslim or hindu or Native American or whatever says them. I apply the same to you, because from my point of view there's no reason to accept the claims of any one religion over another, they are all based on unjustified "I'm right because I say I'm right and I say I'm right because this book is right, it says so right in it!".

Can you present an argument which cannot be applied for any other religion? Your "These Catholic people believed Catholicism, even when punished" can be converted into "These Islamic people believed Islam, even when punished" with just a find/replace. You need to provide physical, quantifiable evidence there's something more to your claims. Something unique to your beliefs.


Mary confirms the Catholic faith through her messages and encourages the Catholics to persevere, grow in righteousness and turn away from sin.So how does Mary feel about the systematic, long term covering up of violence, both physical and sexual, perpetrated by members of the Catholic church on tens of thousands of children, male and female? If Mary is in the business of appearing to pass on messages from your god and is all about turning away from sin why didn't any of these appearances lead to the sin being exposed and stopped?

This is just like the "There's science in the bible/quran!" thing. The science is never found because of the bible, it is found by scientists and then some Christian twists an interpretation of a passage to claim the result science has just found through hard work where in the bible all along. Funny how the bible never comes forward with this information first..... In this case all these appearances of Mary never lead to the revelation of information which couldn't have been obtained any other way. Why didn't she uncover this massive amount of paedophilia and abuse? Why was it left to law enforcement to investigate?


I'll continue this in another post, a bit later.If you're going to do nothing more than provide further circular arguments about "This story says that story is true" then don't bother. You seem to have a fundamental lack of understanding of what constitutes evidence. All of your claims are made by other religions too and they have plenty of 'eye witness accounts' and claims of miracles etc. If you believe the claims of the Catholic doctrine then by those same standards of evidence you should believe in every other religion, the claims about alien abduction and the existence of Big-foot, yetis, elves and Santa.

Another topic worth knowing about, regarding the saints, is the mystical phenomenon known as the stigmata. A saint or other deeply devout Catholic is given by God an extraordinary degree of union with Jesus' Passion. They experience piercing pain in their bodies, in those parts of the body where the Lord was wounded. Blood flows from wounds that physically appear on their bodies in these places, nail holes in the hands and feet, lash marks on their backs and sometimes wounds on their heads where the crown of thorns pierced Christ. The wounds open on their own and then close on their own, without any medical intervention. Usually the wounds of the stigmatist appear for a few hours on Fridays (the day of the Lord's Passion), or during Church seasons or holy days particularly designated to the suffering of Christ. This phenomenon has occurred many times in history, and the only verifiable cases have involved Catholics, especially saints. St. Francis of Assisi was the first person recorded as having experienced this form of mystical union with Christ's Passion, in the Medieval Ages.

The Catholic Encyclopedia has the following article on the stigmata:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14294b.htm

There have been hundreds of Catholic stigmatists documented in history. Their wounds, which have many times been proven were NOT self-inflicted, are a testimony to the truth of the Catholic faith. If Christ did not die for our sins and rise again, there would be no point in God uniting all these people with His Passion in so visceral and physical a way. Nor would there be a reason for the spiritual forms of union with His Passion they have endured . . . many saints and mystics have endured union with His Passion spiritually, or in ecstasy, going through tremendous pains in union with Him, bringing forth the grace of His Passion to help the lives of others, through these sacrificial prayers. The sufferings they endured in spirit were often much more severe than physical sufferings. All of this proves that the Passion and Resurrection of Christ conquered sin and raises us all to new life, if we believe in Him. It is testimony to the truth of the Catholic faith.

There are many, many other evidences I can point you to, by which God has shown that the Catholic faith is true.

For instance, we have thousands of canonized saints, and most of these saints performed many miracles. Some of these miracles had to be proven to be real, supernatural miracles by careful investigations of the Vatican, before the saints could be canonized. God has uniquely favored the Catholic Church with a particular abundance of miracles. The reality of God, of God's love for humanity, and of His particular favor to those who follow Him most faithfully in the Catholic Church, is all proven by the reality of these miracles.

Here are miracles from a few Catholic saints:

http://www.padrepio.catholicwebservices.com/ENGLISH/Miracles.htm
http://catholicism.org/br-andre.html
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08520b.htm
http://www.stgemmagalgani.com/2010/09/miracles-of-saint-gemma-galgani.html
I could keep going on and on with more evidence . . . I've listed above some of the large categories of evidence one could look at, though. There's a ton more detail that one could go into, with each category. For instance, I've only brought up a few of the miracles of St. Padre Pio, St. Andre Bessette, St. Gemma Galgani, and St. Joseph Cupertino, but there were many more and there is a ton of confirmation one can look at, for these miracles, and these are only four saints out of thousands. And then there are the prophecies of the canonized saints, so many of which have been fulfilled, against all the odds. Many other mystical phenomenon as well surrounded them, which I haven't even touched on at all.

And I haven't even spoken at all about the miracles of the Immaculate Conception at Lourdes, the Miraculous Medal, the image of Our Lady of Guadaloupe, or the Shroud of Turin. Or about how our Lady of Siluva, through a series of apparitions, converted the entire country of Lithuania (which was Calvinist) to Catholicism, and Our Lady of Guadaloupe converted vast numbers of Mexicans from Aztec barbarism to Catholicism.

My posts above have only scratched the surface of the evidence proving the truth of the Catholic faith.

Mind Over Matter, the main problem is that of which constitutes proof or evidence. Many or all of your examples are not evidence to me. You need to understand why before continuing. I suggest wikipedia "burden of proof" or even start at "evidence" and spend a few months researching this until you understand why others & I don't see eye to eye with the evidence suggested in your posts.

Best Regards

Adstar,

Rav's thread is such a big topic. There are so many different signs and layers of evidence God has given that the Catholic faith is true.

I guess I'll start with the Apostle Paul.

Paul is accepted as a very real figure of history by scholars. Most of his epistles in the Bible are generally accepted as authentic. 1 Corinthians, for example, is accepted as having Pauline authorship.

Here's a comment Paul makes about the appearances of the Resurrected Lord in 1 Corinthians:

1 Corinthians
Chapter 15
1
1 2 Now I am reminding you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you indeed received and in which you also stand.
2
Through it you are also being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.
3
3 For I handed on to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures;
4
that he was buried; that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures;
5
that he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve.
6
After that, he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at once, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.
7
After that he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
8
Last of all, as to one born abnormally, he appeared to me.
9
For I am the least of the apostles, not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

Paul records that Jesus appeared to over five hundred Christians at once, most of whom were living witnesses at the time he wrote the epistle. His appearances and conversations with Paul and the apostles (and the apostles and other disciples said He also broke bread, ate food and drank in their presence, after the Resurrection) were so convincing that these men all proceeded to die for their certainty that He was indeed risen.

Paul says that he persecuted the Church but Christ appeared to him and he converted -- an extremely dramatic conversion, considering he used to try to imprison and kill Christians. It took a huge experience to change him so radically.

Paul writes that many others, aside from him, also alive saw Christ alive after His Resurrection, and Paul goes on, later in the chapter, to describe the resurrected body as extremely glorious and majestic in appearance. He says that he, the apostles, and over five hundred others were witnesses of this.

We can be sure Paul was entirely sincere in his testimony, not lying or fudging the truth at all, because he endured many floggings for this faith, starvation, nakedness, and many other sufferings, and finally he was beheaded for his faith in the Resurrection of Christ, in the Colosseum of Rome. Paul was in a position to know for sure whether Christ was risen or not, for he claimed to have spoken with Him and seen Him after His Resurrection. Indeed, in the Book of Galatians, Paul says he received his entire gospel testimony straight from the Resurrected Lord. So Paul knew for sure whether he was lying or not. He could not have hallucinated all that (his companions saw a brilliant light and heard Jesus' voice as well, according to Paul's testimony in Acts 22:9). He could not have made a mistake on this critical point that changed Paul's life radically and made a persecutor of Christianity into its foremost evangelist, willing to suffer greatly for his certainty that Christ was Risen.

People don't die for what they know is a lie, but for what they are convinced is true. Paul suffered enormously for his faith in the Resurrection of Christ and was martyred for this certainty, so we have every reason to believe in the truth of his testimony. His testimony is proven not only by his miracles, which were numerous and convinced large numbers of people in his own time that he was telling the truth, but his blood also proves his words were sincere and therefore true (for he couldn't plausibly have made a mistake or been only imagining it all).

The same proof of the Resurrection of Christ also holds true for the other apostles. They claimed that they saw Christ alive after His Resurrection, that they saw Him eat food in their presence (no possibility of imagining that), that they all saw Him together (not just one witness but many), and they talked with Him in repeated conversations over a period of 40 days, until He rose into Heaven. They could not have been mistaken about His having prepared a fire in John 21 and cooked fish over it for them, and then eaten with them, after which He had a theological conversation with them. So them make a mistake and simply imagining all this evidence that Christ was Risen is impossible. Because a mistake is impossible, they had to have been deliberately lying when they testified that He was Risen, or they had to have been telling the truth.

We know they weren't deliberately lying because they all endured brutal floggings, ostracism, imprisonment, torture (some were flayed, others shattered on the wheel, etc.), and finally martyrdom for their testimony that Christ was Risen. People don't go through all that for a story that they know is a lie. At least one of them would have changed his story! Surely all of them would have changed their story if they knew it was not true (and they couldn't have been mistaken, given all this firsthand eyewitness evidence and physical proofs they testified to). Even if people are telling the truth, usually they will start telling lies when threatened with torture, in the hope of getting off. But the apostles all stayed faithful to their testimony and died for it. People don't do that when they know their testimony is a lie. The apostles knew whether they were telling the truth or not -- they could not have been making a mistake, given the evidence they experienced firsthand -- so we can be sure they were telling the truth. Therefore we can be sure that Christ is Risen.


Thus the blood of the apostles is a powerful evidence that Christ is Risen. Now, if Christ rose from the dead, physically, as the apostles said, and appointed the apostles to be His messengers to the world while present in His glorified body (Matt. 28:19), then we would do well to believe the apostles' teachings. And the apostles passed on to the world the Catholic faith.

I'll get into more evidence in my next post.

I think you must have quoted the wrong person. I am a Christian. So i believe the Redeemer the Messiah Jesus.

However i do not believe the roman catholic church is true to the teachings of Jesus.

I do not accept its authority on matters concerning the will of God.



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Mind Over Matter, the main problem is that of which constitutes proof or evidence. Many or all of your examples are not evidence to me. You need to understand why before continuing. I suggest wikipedia "burden of proof" or even start at "evidence" and spend a few months researching this until you understand why others & I don't see eye to eye with the evidence suggested in your posts.

Best Regards
Dear Search & Destroy,

I would love to understand why the signs I have given you are not compelling to you. But I want to understand from you why you feel the way you do, rather than going on a quest for months to try to prove my way of thinking incorrect. Would you please explain to me why these proofs don't seem to be evidence to you?

I have spent a lot of time writing for all of you in this thread, so would you please do me this favor? I'd appreciate it very much!

With love and respect,

Mind Over Matter

Dear Search & Destroy,

I would love to understand why the signs I have given you are not compelling to you. But I want to understand from you why you feel the way you do, rather than going on a quest for months to try to prove my way of thinking incorrect. Would you please explain to me why these proofs don't seem to be evidence to you?

I have spent a lot of time writing for all of you in this thread, so would you please do me this favor? I'd appreciate it very much!

With love and respect,

Mind Over Matter

I clicked a random link from your post:

http://www.padrepio.catholicwebservices.com/ENGLISH/Miracles.htm


One miracle that has been identified as Padre Pio's first miracle occurred in 1908. At that time he lived in the monastery of Montefusco. One day he gathered chestnuts growing in a nearby forest into a bag and sent the bag to Pietrelcina to his aunt Daria. She always had a great affection for him. The woman received and ate the chestnuts. She saved the bag as a souvenir. A few days later she was looking for something in a drawer where her husband usually kept the gun powder. It was in the evening so she used a candle to light up the room when suddenly the drawer caught on fire, and aunt Daria’s face got burned. After a moment, she took the bag father Pio sent and put it on her face. Immediately, her pain disappeared and no wound or burn mark remained on her face.

Is this compelling evidence or not? What is the criteria for proof?

The first question that pops into my mind when I read it was - why should I believe that? Who wrote it? Where does the story come from and why should I believe that it really happened?

Perhaps Father Pio was motivated by fame and fabricated the story. Why am I to assume he should be trusted?

Maybe the woman was no expert on burns - it is quite possible she felt the heat of the fire but it was not enough to burn her. She instantly felt relief possibly because the bag was cold.


A good woman’s husband was very sick. The woman ran to the convent, but she asked herself, “How do I reach father Pio?" She had to wait for at least three days if she wanted to meet him for a confession. So during the Mass she stood-up and walked from one side of the Church to the other. Finally, she decided to tell Our Lady what her problem was and asked at the same moment for Padre Pio’s help. After the Mass, she started to move into the Church again, in order to reach Father Pio. Finally, she managed to reach the famous corridor where Father Pio had to pass. As soon as father Pio watched her, he said: “Woman with a little faith, when will you finally ask for my help? Do you think I am deaf? You have already told me it five times when you were in front of me, at my back, on my right and on my left. I understood! I understood! ...Go home! Everything is OK." She went home and found her husband was healed.

Did Father Pio cure her husband, or did the husband's immune system or the medicine finally work. It could have been good timing.

All of Father Pio's miracles are easily debatable. They do not constitute as evidence.

I think the same could be said for almost any source of evidence you posted.

Rather than refer to Wikipedia which is maybe a little lame - get the book "A Guide to Critical Thinking" I think it is around the 11th edition by now so a pleasure to read. I wholeheartedly recommend it.

AlphaNumeric gave the main reasons why your "proofs" are not compelling.
Especially

If you're going to do nothing more than provide further circular arguments about "This story says that story is true" then don't bother.

Many or all of your examples are not evidence to me. You need to understand why before continuing.

and here is the point that atheist/theist get into battles about..
just because an atheist dismisses the evidence, does not mean it is not evidence.

just because an atheist dismisses the evidence, does not mean it is not evidence.

No! No no no no. Just because a theist says it's evidence doesn't mean it actually is. :p

No! No no no no. Just because a theist says it's evidence doesn't mean it actually is. :p

it is evidence for him.
(now we are back to 'what applies to one, applies to the other')

I'm sure Signal will be interested in responses to this one ;)

I am specifically aiming this question at those of you who believe that you are faithfully adhering to a specific set of beliefs and practices that will ensure your salvation*. In particular I'd like to know why you feel certain (or close to it) that the particular set of beliefs that you adhere to represent those which are necessary to achieve the desired outcome (salvation), as opposed to some other set of beliefs that may be inadequate and/or mutually exclusive.

*For the purposes of this discussion our definition of salvation need not be restricted to the avoidance of eternal damnation, but can be expanded to include any kind of spiritual reward or achievement.

I do believe in God, and I do believe God is a logical and rational being, so any doctrines regarding him must also be logical and rational. I subscribe to the denomination I do because it is one of the few I know of that are not internally inconsistent, blatantly self-contradictory, intentionally denying what we know to be true of the universe just to save face, using faith of members as a source of profit, etc. The are a lot of screwed up things in todays churches. I feel that if there is a God, such actions cannot be his way, so the churches that commit them must have strayed from the path. Many chruches nowadays are more like social clubs, political machines, or preachers fan-clubs.

Rather than refer to Wikipedia which is maybe a little lame - get the book "A Guide to Critical Thinking" I think it is around the 11th edition by now so a pleasure to read. I wholeheartedly recommend it.
If there's a section in the book, "A Guide to Critical Thinking," that shows in a logical way that miracles cannot exist or be proven beyond reasonable doubt, I'd be glad to read it, if you post it here.

I am curious. Why do you believe that all of what I have sent you is "not evidence"?


I clicked a random link from your post:

http://www.padrepio.catholicwebservices.com/ENGLISH/Miracles.htm



Is this compelling evidence or not? What is the criteria for proof?

The first question that pops into my mind when I read it was - why should I believe that? Who wrote it? Where does the story come from and why should I believe that it really happened?

Very sound, valid questions. I don't know the sources for the stories on the website. I tend to believe them because many very knowledgeable and thorough people, including both Vatican experts and non-Catholic researchers, have investigated Padre Pio's life and miracles, and have found a great deal of proof that many miracles attributed to him are genuine. Though I know there are skeptics who are incredulous of all miracles or supernatural phenomenon, and through bias, they will assume everything is false no matter what, and will cling to anything other than the supernatural or spiritual explanation, no matter how feeble their arguments are.

Perhaps Father Pio was motivated by fame and fabricated the story. Why am I to assume he should be trusted?

Because of how tremendous his love for people was. He spent twelve hours a day in the confessional, during long periods of his life. That is very painful! It is extremely hard on the body to endure day after day of sitting in one position on a wooden plank, hearing the worst things about people's lives being poured out to you for absolution, for years.

Also, Padre Pio laid down his life for others, suffering terribly in body and soul for love of other people.* You know, in the Catholic Church, we believe that suffering can be offered up as a prayer to heal others, draw them into holiness or in other ways change their lives for the better. People sometimes have flagellated themselves or fasted for long periods of time, or spent all night in prayer for people, making these sacrificial prayers out of love for others. Padre Pio lashed himself three days a week, and war the cilice. When he was a child, he slept with a rock as his pillow and deliberately deprived himself of food, even though his family had meager rations already. He did this all for love of God and souls, believing that through these sacrificial prayers made in union with the Passion of Christ, sinners would be converted. Padre Pio's quarters in his religious order also were extremely stark and austere, though huge amounts of money passed through his hands, because he was responsible for building a hospital project for the injured of World War 2, a project he started and spearheaded to completion. Padre Pio had great integrity and suffered much for love of people and of God.

Padre Pio'ss humility was also extreme. He lived in a tough Capuchin religious order, but he humbly obeyed all the orders he was given by his superiors, without complaint. When his superiors doubted his mystical gifts, they put him in isolation from the outside world for TEN YEARS, and he remained in isolation, cut off from all the people he had been helping and many people he loved. He submitted to this ten years of isolation, out of obedience. He could have left the religious house and formed his own church, like rejected false mystics have done, out of various loyal followers. He conquered his self-will by submitting to these ten years of isolation out of obedience. During those ten years, he endured many accusations from fellow religious of having invented the phenomenon he was experiencing and pouring out to others, but he was silent when accused and criticized, and would not defend himself. All this takes great humility.

Did Father Pio cure her husband, or did the husband's immune system or the medicine finally work. It could have been good timing.
I accept that one could argue some of Padre Pio's miracles might have been merely "good timing." The same is surely true with some of the miracles of other saints, as well. Some miracles could be very clearly only understood as miraculous whereas others could be interpreted as having natural explanations.

Originally Posted by michaeljournal.org
The “flying monk”
It is impossible to do justice to the entire array of miracles worked by Padre Pio. They are endless, and they have transcended his death. One day, recounts Ruffin, a priest named Padre Constantino "entered Pio's room and was struck by what he saw. 'His countenance was shining with a rosy flame of light such as I had never seen before and shall, I think, never see again. It was but for an instant, but I shall never forget it.' This phenomenon was observed in Moses when he came down from Sinai with the two tables of the Law in his hands."
As for the sky phenomenon: “There are many stories concerning allied pilots who attempted to bomb San Giovanni but were stopped by an apparition of a 'monk' standing in the air with his arms outstretched,” says Ruffin. “There are fliers who swore that they had sighted a figure in the sky, sometimes normal size, sometimes gigantic, usually in the form of a monk or priest. The sightings were too frequent and the reports came from too many sources to be totally discounted. Several people from Foggia, where thousands were killed in the air raids, said that a bomb, falling into a room where they had huddled, landed near a photograph of Padre Pio. They claimed that when it exploded, it 'burst like a soap bubble.' Others reported that while bombs were raining down upon the city, they cried, 'Padre Pio, you have to save us!' While they were speaking, a bomb fell into their midst, but did not explode.”
Bernardo Rosini, a general of the Italian Air Force, told a story: “At Bari was located the general command of the U.S. Air Force. I know several officers who told me of having been saved by Padre Pio during air missions.
“One day,” General Rosini continued, “an American commander wanted to lead a squadron of bombers himself to destroy the German arms depository of war material that was located at San Giovanni Rotondo. The commander related that as he approached the target, he and his pilots saw rising in the sky the figure of a friar with his hands held outward. The bombs released of their own accord, falling in the woods, and the planes completely reversed course without any intervention by the pilots.”
Someone told the commanding general that in a convent at this little town of San Giovanni Rotondo, there lived a saintly man, a friar in the odor of sanctity. At war's end, the general wanted to go meet this person. “He was accompanied by several pilots,” Rosini continued. “He went to the convent of the Capuchins. As soon as he crossed the threshold of the sacrisity, he found himself in front of several friars, among whom he immediately recognized the one who had 'stopped' his planes. Padre Pio went forward to meet him, and putting his hand on his shoulder, he said, `So, you're the one who wanted to get rid of us all!'”



Of all of Padre Pio's healings, one of the most remarkable may have been a blind girl from the Palermo area named Gemma DiGiorgio. (See pictures above, the day of her First Communion.) “I had no pupils in my eyes,” said Gemma in 1971, several years after Padre Pio's death. “I had no sight at all. When I was three months old, my mother took me to a very famous eye doctor in Palermo. He told her that, without pupils, I would never be able to see.”
In 1946, when the girl was seven, a nun took it upon herself to write Padre Pio on her behalf, and received a note saying that the girl should be brought to Padre Pio in San Giovanni Rotundo. That's exactly what Gemma's grandmother did: brought the girl to see the famous monk, who heard the child's First Confession and gave her her First Communion — then made the Sign of the Cross on her eyes. After the blessing, Gemma was able to see.

The eye reappears
More astounding still may be the thoroughly-documented cure of a construction worker named Giovanni Savino, who was severely injured on February 15, 1949, in a dynamite mishap. When Dr. Guglielmo San- guinetti, a physican, and Padre Raffaele, another Capuchin, and Father Dominic Meyer rushed to the injured man's side, “all three men noted that among Savino's numerous injuries, his right eye was gone entirely. They agreed that 'the socket was empty',” reports biographer Bernard Ruffin. Other doctors confirmed that the eye was completely annihilated and the other one badly damaged.
It looked like Savino was also going to be totally blind. For three days, the worker lay on a hospital bed with his head and face bandaged. When a surgeon entered the room three days later, Savino reported that Padre Pio had visited him — something Savino recognized because he had detected the beautiful aroma so often reported around the priest. A week later, at about one a.m. on February 25, 1949, Savino felt a slap on the right side of his face — the side where the eye was completely gone. “I asked, 'Who touched me?'” testified Savino. “There was nobody. Again I smelled the aroma of Padre Pio. It was beautiful.”
When later the ophthalmologist — an atheist — came to examine the remaining eye, there was a shock. “To their amazement,” writes Ruffin, “the doctors found that his shattered face was fully healed and covered with new skin. Savino, however, was most delighted at the fact that he could see. 'I can see you!' he said excitedly to the eye specialist.”
And indeed, as is medically documented, the doctor saw, to his “utter astonishment”, that Savino had his right eye back. Somehow, the eye had materialized. (“Now I believe too,” exclaimed the doctor, “because of what my own hands have touched!”) As Ruffin notes, it's one thing when diseases disappear; this is exciting. It's tremendous to hear of diabetes or arthritis or even cancer leaving a person. “For a missing part of the body to be restored, however, is another matter,” noted the expert biographer.

It is not rational to say that all Padre Pio's miracles "do not constitute evidence." For even if a situation arose where one could make a strong case against one of them, one would still be debating against evidence. Perhaps the evidence is "weak," "poor," or even "completely flawed," but to say it is not evidence at all is not true. If there wasn't any evidence whatsoever, there would be nothing to debate about. The question is how good the evidence is, not whether or not it exists. For it is indisputable that vast numbers of people claim Padre Pio performed real miracles. They bring up testimonies of people who experienced the miracles, as well as medical proofs of supernatural healings and of the stigmata Padre Pio experienced, and eyewitnesses to various other phenomenon like bilocation or levitation involving Padre Pio. It would be close-minded to say that all of this is simply "not evidence," because one doesn't believe in such things.


I think the same could be said for almost any source of evidence you posted.

I hope you are not the sort of person that will judge every article I've sent you without having even read them. Though I admit that several of them aren't written to persuade skeptics. I wasn't aware that that was your attitude, when I sent them to you.

I definitely recommend you read this article on Zeitoun, and the watch the following youtube presentation on the Eucharistic Miracle in Buennos Aires, at any rate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbg_dhI4XCs

http://www.zeitun-eg.org/zeitoun1.ht

The Archbishop's statement about the apparitions of Betania, which I sent you above in an earlier post, and the Catholic Encyclopedia article on stigmatists, are also written in a thorough fashion, covering these phenomenon.

I'd be glad to read it, if you post it here.

It is most beneficial if you go through the entire book, as it is has university-level tasks that guide the reader to understanding. Homework and so forth. It is not only relevant to religion and I think it costs under $20. It's the best book I ever bought, and I read it something like 5 times before I was 20. If you don't want to read it, so be it. But by reading it you will understand my thoughts on your thoughts 100%.


I am curious. Why do you believe that all of what I have sent you is "not evidence"?

Sorry you are right I should have been more careful. It is evidence, just not evidence that convinces me. I bite my tongue.


I hope you are not the sort of person that will judge every article I've sent you without having even read them.

No judgement. And you're right I did not read everything you linked to me. I said 'I think' because I have read near all the evidence there is for miracles and so forth as I was born a Christian, and am no longer one. I am no longer one due to thorough research. I don't feel the need to go detail by detail so much, as one's views on the quality of evidence will be near isomorphic across the board.


http://www.zeitun-eg.org/zeitoun1.ht

I read through it, and as a business-minded person, I can see how a hired magician could create loads of money for years to come with an act like this. There is a defined motive, and plausible scenarios like bright rooftop lights with an actor, and all-too-willing-to-believe observers.

The photos could have been themselves doctored. But I think what I first said was true.
---

Why can't God create miracles that are 'strong evidence' to an atheist? If he wants us to believe, he should do something about it.

In summary,

I apologize that my responses to you are lackluster. I am demotived when discussing religious evidence. Religious evidence is hocus pocus. Not because of the 'weak vs poor evidence' debate, but because it is not important to the purpose of religion - living a happy life.

Is Father Pio a fraud, is the Buddha real? The one who asks these questions is like the man shot with an arrow. He asks where it came from, and what material it is, before letting anyone pull it out.

edit: And that youtube link / Can't watch here in China as we have a nationwide firewall on youtube. I am willing to debate a few evidences further if you wish, but note that it is not important.

first off i wanna thank mindovermatter for his links, it appears you have done your research,and know where to get the documentation..



Why can't God create miracles that are 'strong evidence' to an atheist? If he wants us to believe, he should do something about it.

think about it..
if there were absolute,undeniable Proof of Gods existence..
i think..ppl would feel they have lost their free will..

If i were God and i wanted ppl to have the freedom to choose for themselves,i would not want any Proof of my existence to undo that freedom..

think of it like this, how do you treat your boss? when he tells you to do something, do you do it because you respect him and acknowledge that he knows best, or do you do it just because he is the boss and to go against him would be to ask for punishment..

it would be the same If God was proven, we would submit to him without question, we would ask him for instructions for everything (God do you want me to wear my blue shirt or green shirt?) we would become needy..look how many 'christians' feel that way now, or better yet, look how many atheist argue against God because of this concept (belief=obedience=no free will)

for God to prove himself would de-evolve us as a species..

and
belief in the context you have used is slightly off..
God does do things to help us to believe,
you do not need to believe the fire is hot and you will burn yourself if you touch it, you know that will happen.
believe does not equal know.
'know' in the context of belief equals; God has provided overwhelming evidence to convince one that it is True.
this does not mean the same in the context of science, in science,to know means every time you measure it, it will always be the same, for every one.

It is most beneficial if you go through the entire book, as it is has university-level tasks that guide the reader to understanding. Homework and so forth. It is not only relevant to religion and I think it costs under $20. It's the best book I ever bought, and I read it something like 5 times before I was 20. If you don't want to read it, so be it. But by reading it you will understand my thoughts on your thoughts 100%.

I'm sure it's a good book, but you're right, I don't want to read it. However, would you do me a favor?

I've taken a good deal of time to write up for you some of the reasons I believe as I do. You seem to believe that critical thinking and logical reasoning rule out the possibility of miracles. Would you do me the favor of explaining why you think the way you do, on this?

Is there a quote in the book, which you could post here, that explains in a clearly logical way why there cannot be miracles? I am curious why you believe what you do on this. Requiring that I buy a book on a subject I've already studied, a book that I don't believe will prove me wrong, in order to try to prove myself wrong, isn't very useful to me, though I know you respect the book very much. Would you answer my question directly, instead?


Sorry you are right I should have been more careful. It is evidence, just not evidence that convinces me. I bite my tongue.

No judgement. And you're right I did not read everything you linked to me. I said 'I think' because I have read near all the evidence there is for miracles and so forth as I was born a Christian, and am no longer one. I am no longer one due to thorough research. I don't feel the need to go detail by detail so much, as one's views on the quality of evidence will be near isomorphic across the board.

What books did you read, in your research?



I read through it, and as a business-minded person, I can see how a hired magician could create loads of money for years to come with an act like this. There is a defined motive, and plausible scenarios like bright rooftop lights with an actor, and all-too-willing-to-believe observers.

You haven't looked into this phenomenon at all. Scientific studies have been done on the Eucharistic Hosts. All Eucharistic Hosts have blood type AB, and are human flesh taken from a human heart with surgical precision. Some experts have been able to trace from signs of stress on the heart and such that the man the heart belonged to was tortured severely. The surgical precision with which the heart was cut did not exist in the centuries many of these Hosts date from. In the case of the Eucharist of Lanciano, they found that the globs of flesh weigh the same amount if one of them is on the scale as if all of them were on the scale together -- a mystery that defies physics. The Eucharistic Host from Buennos Aires was found to be a living heart that was still alive while it was being examined. This stunned the scientist studying it (who was not aware he was studying a Eucharist, at the time).

Also, what you say requires a massive conspiracy theory and impinges on the characters of a great many priests without evidence.

What you just said reminds me of the atheists' conspiracy theories about the Miracle of the Holy Fire in Jerusalem. Each Easter, in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, around the tomb of Jesus Christ, the patriarch of Jerusalem goes into the church with unlit candles. A luminous flame, sometimes shaped like a dove, appears out of nowhere, floats over to the candles and lights them for him. The candles of other people, including many onlookers, spontaneously light also. Sometimes the luminous dove or hovering flame flies out and lights the unlit torches or candles of many other people who are present.

This miracle has been occurring regularly in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre on Easter for 2,000 years. The first written record of it is in the 4th century, describing how this miracle started happening in the 1st century with the Apostle Peter. There are many records of this miracle from the 4th century to the present. The enormity of the conspiracy theory required to explain this phenomenon is immense. All the patriarchs of Jerusalem for 2,000 years, including some extremely holy and virtuous men, would have to have been liars. Also, candles have been being catching aflame spontaneously since the early days of the miracle, long before the existence of trick candles, matches or lighters. There have always been large numbers of witnesses of these phenomenon. So the kinds of atheistic conspiracy theories surrounding the Miracle of the Holy Fire have to be very outlandish. So much so I considered for a while writing a fiction book to make fun of them, a book that has a premise that the conspiracy theories are true, and then goes on to show the ludicrous extremes the Orthodox Church had to go to in order to keep the miracle's cover and keep it going.



The photos could have been themselves doctored. But I think what I first said was true.

Many of these Eucharistic Miracles are visible to all. All you have to do is go to the local church where the Eucharist is kept and it's kept out where the public can see it, or paraded out for veneration from time to time. So doctoring the photos would be pointless. Besides, why doctor the photos if you're going to allow scientists to do studies on the Hosts? The Church has allowed numerous scientific studies on the Hosts, as it is interested in examining these phenomenon.


Why can't God create miracles that are 'strong evidence' to an atheist? If he wants us to believe, he should do something about it.
God has provided compelling enough evidence to convert countless atheists over the course of history. Sometimes He gives this evidence in the form of a personal supernatural encounter, sometimes in the form of philosophical proof, and sometimes an objective experience or proof that they cannot explain away. He reaches out to atheists in many ways and proves His reality to them. Many atheists eventually convert to Christianity or Catholicism.

However, you are right that God could do MORE. He could provide such impressive wonders that everyone on Earth would have no choice whatsoever but to believe. But He doesn't behave in that way.

The reason is that He wants us to have freedom. He doesn't want to force us to worship Him or choose Him. He wants us to choose to love Him freely. If He proved Himself in such ways that everyone was forced to believe, whether they wanted to or not, then they would not have truly given their hearts to Him and they would have no choice in whether or not to give themselves to Him (even as He gave Himself to them, on the Cross). Many would conclude, "well, that's it, God exists, so I guess I have to believe in Him and do what He wants."

God wants everyone to desire Him and come to Him with love, freely. So whenever someone really wants God, they seek Him, and they find Him. He gives them enough evidence, or He speaks to them directly -- He reveals Himself in some sufficient way to inspire faith in their hearts. But when people don't want to know God, He gives them the freedom in this life to choose not to come to Him, live in His Life or love Him. He gives sufficient evidence to reach out to those that really want Him, while He hides Himself enough that those who don't want Him have the freedom to continue to reject Him.

And among those who seek God, there are false seekers of God and true seekers of God. There are people who claim to be seeking God, but will only accept a God who fits into a certain pre-conceived description, and thus these people sometimes rule out the real God because they are more attached to their current beliefs about Him, and aren't willing to humbly seek the reality, even if it differs from what they now believe. They are more attached to mistaken beliefs about God than they are to the search for truth, so they wouldn't let go of their errors even if the truth was presented in a highly compelling way. To a large extent, you know, people believe what they desire in their hearts to believe.

Also, there are people who think of themselves as seeking God, but who prefer themselves, their own lifestyles, their own way of doing things, sinful habits or possessions to any truth or reality that might require sacrifice of them, or might require them to put God ahead of these things. So these people also may be seeking God, but they shut Him out of their lives by preferring other things and not being willing to seriously consider a reality or truth that contradicts what they have or want right now.

Then there are seekers after God who are really willing to put Him before everything and seek Him first, and He is most important to them. These people are humble. God gives these people whatever they need to convince them of the truth, and if they don't have enough evidence given them in this life, they will nonetheless be saved because they put Truth first in their lives and sought it first. Christ is Truth, so when they sought truth so sincerely and faithfully, even if they did not find it in this life because it was not well presented to them or they never came in contact with Catholicism, by putting truth first, they were putting Christ first in their lives. He said not only, "I am the Omega," but also, "I am the Way," so these people seeking truth are already on the way of truth, living for Christ. So they inherit Him.

He said in the Gospels that everyone who seeks finds. Everyone who really is interested in truth and willing to conform themselves to it even if they don't like it will be saved. They are the real seekers. But those that aren't seeking it don't really want it, and they won't join God when they die because they never actually wanted to be with Him.

In summary,

I apologize that my responses to you are lackluster. I am demotived when discussing religious evidence. Religious evidence is hocus pocus. Not because of the 'weak vs poor evidence' debate, but because it is not important to the purpose of religion - living a happy life.

I don't understand what you said here. Could you clarify it for me?


Is Father Pio a fraud, is the Buddha real? The one who asks these questions is like the man shot with an arrow. He asks where it came from, and what material it is, before letting anyone pull it out.

edit: And that youtube link / Can't watch here in China as we have a nationwide firewall on youtube. I am willing to debate a few evidences further if you wish, but note that it is not important.
Dr. Ricardo Castañón, P.H.D., gave this presentation at a Faith and Science Conference. The actual presentation is an hour long. What was provided in the link I gave you is only a clip from it.

The man was an atheistic scientist, but he converted to Catholicism after spending years studying the human brain, Eucharistic Miracles and some of the seers of the Catholic Church. This helped him to find the relationship between faith and reason.

think about it..
if there were absolute,undeniable Proof of Gods existence..
i think..ppl would feel they have lost their free will..

The Biblical account of God's dealings with mankind has him performing miracles, that many people were witness to, right from the beginning. Jesus certainly wasn't afraid to perform them in front of people, and they were of a much higher caliber than any of the ultimately unverifiable ones we hear about today. Probably the most impressive ones of course were walking on water, raising the dead and the resurrection of Jesus himself. Obviously, then, it is not Biblically consistent to argue that witnessing a bona-fide miracle would somehow compromise a persons freedom to choose to embrace God, or not.

You seem to believe that critical thinking and logical reasoning rule out the possibility of miracles.


No, critical thinking does not rule out the possibility of miracles. Anything is possible. However CT shows the examples thus far to be unconvincing. This is due to weak evidence.


Is there a quote in the book,
Sorry the book is not with me. I ditched all my books to lighten my load as I pedaled through Laos a few months ago.

Again, miracles are possible. However the evidence for them is unconvincing.


What books did you read, in your research?
A guide to Critical Thinking helped me the most. I never read a book on miracles - my research was done on the Internet over a span of a few years in my early teens.


Eucharistic Host
Please show me the evidence for transubstantiation. You may have seen some flesh - but have you actually seen the bread *poof* into a heart?

Millions go to Vegas to be fooled by magicians.


This stunned the scientist studying it
Give me a name and their credentials. First show me evidence the scientist is achieved in something scientific. Then let me read his words on religion.


Many of these Eucharistic Miracles are visible to all.
And no I don't believe they are doctored photos. I believe it was a show comparable to a magician's.


Also, what you say requires a massive conspiracy theory and impinges on the characters of a great many priests without evidence.
But my theory is more likely. Because there is a clear motive, and a method to carry it out. I don't need to rely on the supernatural to explain it. I don't intend to impinge on character - the Catholic church does this themselves. Most recently with worldwide child abuse scandals. Surely not everyone in the Catholic church are true Catholics.


his miracle has been occurring regularly in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre on Easter for 2,000 years.

Have you witnessed this first-hand? I might be persuaded if I did, otherwise not.


He wants us to have freedom

He doesn't want to force us to worship Him

He wants us to choose to love Him freely

God wants everyone to desire Him and come to Him with love, freely

He gives sufficient evidence

He speaks to them directly

He reveals Himself in some sufficient way to inspire faith in their hearts.

He hides Himself enough

He draws a subtle line in the sand, revealing just enough (weak evidence) to encourage those true seekers, and discourage the rest (because the rest seek strong evidence.) It is that simple.


I don't understand what you said here. Could you clarify it for me?

My replies are in haste. They are not thoroughly thought out word by word. This is because I am not motivated to do so. I apologize my posts are not more convincing to you or elegant or however one may put it.

---

The bottom line is whether one believes in miracles or not is unimportant. What is important is leading a happy life. The belief in miracles does not in any way effect one's happiness. Religion should be about living a happy life - not about believing in miracles.

The Swami says it better than I:


“Feel like Christ and you will be a Christ; feel like Buddha and you will be a Buddha. It is feeling that is the life, the strength, the vitality, without which no amount of intellectual activity can reach God."
-Vivekananda

If you meet Christ, kill him. If you meet Buddha, kill him. If you see a miracle, kill it. Don't attach to anything, and live life as it is. The question of miracles is unimportant. If a miracle happens in your life, in a first-hand experiential way, embrace it! And then move on.

To the question of miracles - provide me with strong evidence or give up says my rational mind.

and here is the point that atheist/theist get into battles about..
just because an atheist dismisses the evidence, does not mean it is not evidence.The issue is whether what you provide is even evidence at all.

Ask yourself this, if you change the stories about Pedro Pio to some Muslim cleric in the 1800s living in Pakistan and healing people in the name of Allah would you believe it? Would you just accept the word of a bunch of uneducated Muslims who don't know anything about medicine and who provide nothing but their say so? I doubt it. In the eyes of an atheist, actually in the eyes of a rational sceptic who may even be a theist, there's no reason to think of the claims as evidence at all.

If you say your name is Bob then I'll take you at your word because it is a small claim and even if you aren't called Bob ultimately that has no ramifications of any importance. If you claim you've got supernatural powers then I am not going to take you at your word. In my experience no one has supernatural powers and thus if someone outside of my experience is claiming to have them I will require more evidence because it flies in the face of every single bit of knowledge I have. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Hence saying "You're dismissing this evidence" is not true, as you haven't given evidence, only a claim.


it is evidence for him.
(now we are back to 'what applies to one, applies to the other')If you have a level of evidence whereby you accept things, no matter how grand or world altering. just on people's say so then you'd be believing all kinds of contradictory things. You'd be a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu, a Scientologist, everything. Obviously you're not so you're dismissing the claims of say Scientology. Why? If all you need is someone's say so then why dismiss one religion over another? Because you already have a conclusion and you're looking for things to justify it, even if the justification is so pathetic a rational person would dismiss it.


If there's a section in the book, "A Guide to Critical Thinking," that shows in a logical way that miracles cannot exist or be proven beyond reasonable doubt, I'd be glad to read it, if you post it here. You have it backwards. It isn't that you accept something until proven wrong but that you should not accept something until proven true. Do you believe in elves, unicorns, Big foot, the tooth fairy, Santa, the gods of Norse mythology, the greek gods etc? I doubt it. Can you provide evidence they don't exist anywhere in the universe? Nope. So you aren't following your own logic.

In every single other aspect of our lives we dismiss fantastical claims unless someone can justify them with evidence. If I said I could fly and shoot lasers from my eyes you'd say "Oh yeah? Prove it!", you'd want to see me to do as it's a pretty fantastic claim. You would disbelieve it until it is supported by evidence. You're making a special case for your god because you already know what you want to believe and you want to find anything to support that. There are plenty of stories is Islam of people with special healing powers, with plenty of eye witnesses. Why don't you believe them, they have the same level of 'evidence' as your stories? Because you've got a predetermined conclusion and so you're just picking and choosing what to accept to try to convince yourself you've justified your faith. You haven't.


Also, Padre Pio laid down his life for others, suffering terribly in body and soul for love of other people.* You know, in the Catholic Church, we believe that suffering can be offered up as a prayer to heal others, draw them into holiness or in other ways change their lives for the better.
I've already been over this with you. By your logic suicide bombers are evidence Islam is right.

The actions of people isn't evidence because people can be 100% committed and convinced and still be wrong.


All this takes great humility.
None of which is evidence.

Come on, you can't seriously be so stupid as to think that counts? There are Hindus who'll spend years doing some arduous and stupid task like pushing a rock with their nose for 1000 miles to please some god or other. Are they proof Hinduism is right? Cutting the skin off your penis is a pretty extreme thing, are Jews proving Judaism is right? People being humble and kind doesn't prove their claims are true. Buddhists and Janes are humble and kind, does that prove their religions are true?


I accept that one could argue some of Padre Pio's miracles might have been merely "good timing."
You've already skipped over the critical point which is to question whether the 'miracles' happened at all! You seem to lack any kind of critical thinking.


Perhaps the evidence is "weak," "poor," or even "completely flawed," but to say it is not evidence at all is not true.
Oh come on, seriously? You admit the 'evidence' could be completely flawed and yet think it is still evidence? Evidence which is completely flawed ISN'T EVIDENCE. It's bullshit.


first off i wanna thank mindovermatter for his links, it appears you have done your research,and know where to get the documentation..No, he's just spouting out logical fallacies and nonsense. He hasn't shown he has any capacity to rationally evaluate the things he's saying are evidence.


for God to prove himself would de-evolve us as a species..
Just because you can't imagine life without the crutch of your faith doesn't mean the rest of us have your short comings. And you misuse the notion of 'evolve', which wouldn't be the first time a religious person has done that....


it would be the same If God was proven, we would submit to him without questionI would accept he believes but I wouldn't 'submit' to him in the sense of worship. I can't think of any instance where I'd unconditionally worship someone or something. I'd give reverence if earnt but if the Christian god exists and the bible is an accurate account of his past deeds he doesn't deserve worship. He's an egomaniacal psycho.


you do not need to believe the fire is hot and you will burn yourself if you touch it, you know that will happen.But if I want I can put my hand in a fire and test the claim "The fire is hot". I cannot test god and whenever a person of faith proclaims a manner to do it their claims fall on their face. For instance, this Saturday is supposed to be the end of the world according to the Family Radio Christian group. When Sunday rolls around they'll get laughed at, as it demonstrates their current beliefs false in some regards.


Also, what you say requires a massive conspiracy theory and impinges on the characters of a great many priests without evidence. That's what they said a decade ago about the child abuse cases in the Catholic church and now look at it.....

The Biblical account of God's dealings with mankind has him performing miracles, that many people were witness to, right from the beginning. Jesus certainly wasn't afraid to perform them in front of people, and they were of a much higher caliber than any of the ultimately unverifiable ones we hear about today. Probably the most impressive ones of course were walking on water, raising the dead and the resurrection of Jesus himself. Obviously, then, it is not Biblically consistent to argue that witnessing a bona-fide miracle would somehow compromise a persons freedom to choose to embrace God, or not.

very true but only because of highlighted underlined words..
i was talking in the context of the majority of ppl who do not study the bible (theist and atheist alike) (IMO)
they only see 'obey or goto hell'..
not saying ALL ppl who do not study the bible are 'obey or goto hell' ppl.
AND
was in the context of a miracle not being direct proof of God.

to me a miracle would be strong evidence of God, but not necessarily proof of God, Satan can do miracles also.

if ppl were to see a person disappear before their eyes some would assume a miracle,until we discover there is such a thing as
UFO's and they have teleportation..then the miracle would be explained..
(if you have a prob with UFO's then substitute technological advances)

-----



Ask yourself this, if you change the stories about Pedro Pio to some Muslim cleric in the 1800s living in Pakistan and healing people in the name of Allah would you believe it?
i can believe in alternate realities. that very thing could be happening (have happened?) right now..
the point of the prophet is to communicate..
IMO if the message is valid, then it matters not who spoke it.



Would you just accept the word of a bunch of uneducated Muslims who don't know anything about medicine and who provide nothing but their say so? I doubt it.
um..1; there are highly educated ppl who believe in God..
2; i have heard lots of good arguments about how the bible had medicinal value (cleanliness is the more obvious one)
and if enough of them believe then at least one must wonder that there must be something to this God-thing..



In the eyes of an atheist, actually in the eyes of a rational sceptic who may even be a theist, there's no reason to think of the claims as evidence at all.
think of the claims as testimonies, the more the various testimonies line up, the more evidence you have.
(a testimony is not a predefined script)


If you claim you've got supernatural powers then I am not going to take you at your word.
Good..
<concentrates real hard and imagines Alphanumerics spouse giving him a beer as he reads this..>
(thought about goosing you, but beer is more probable..)


In my experience no one has supernatural powers and thus if someone outside of my experience is claiming to have them I will require more evidence because it flies in the face of every single bit of knowledge I have.
test all things hold on to what is good.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Hence saying "You're dismissing this evidence" is not true, as you haven't given evidence, only a claim.
everyone values according to their own..
what you value as evidence is not the same as what others (or I) value as evidence.
this is human nature..we judge everything..(some may substitute 'scrutinize' for 'judge')
so my statement of "You're dismissing this evidence" still stands..


If you have a level of evidence whereby you accept things, no matter how grand or world altering. just on people's say so then you'd be believing all kinds of contradictory things.
bold is the only point i will argue with..
this says you have to 'do as your told' when you believe in God.
I believe God is a 'think for yourself' God.
other than that see above about testing all things..


You'd be a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu, a Scientologist, everything.
what i believe lines up with all those..or at least it should, to be true.


Obviously you're not so you're dismissing the claims of say Scientology. Why?
i read the book Dianetics, very thought provoking..i didn't think it was worthy of a religion, but insightful anyways..dunno how they turned it into a religion..


If all you need is someone's say so then why dismiss one religion over another?
its not about taking one mans word for it..this is 'do as your told'.


Because you already have a conclusion and you're looking for things to justify it,
can't argue with that, because it is true.
that justifications comes in the form of acceptance for me.
(we know your screwed up, but we like ya anyway..:rolleyes:)


even if the justification is so pathetic a rational person would dismiss it.
it is good to not believe a pathetic excuse, you will find your own excuses, some may even think of them as pathetic..but they will be yours.
---

You have it backwards. It isn't that you accept something until proven wrong but that you should not accept something until proven true.
that statement breaks down under definition of things that one accepts.
i will accept ppl till they wrong me (ignoring the forgiveness part to make the point)
i will not invest money into things that aren't proven (again susceptible to own humanity..IE; i believed what they said..)


You're making a special case for your god because you already know what you want to believe and you want to find anything to support that.
human nature..irrelevant point..

LOL..you do not realized how many times in this post that i was responding to your comments to MindoverMatter, thinking you were talking to me..got very confusing after a bit..(IE..where did i say that?..)

No, critical thinking does not rule out the possibility of miracles. Anything is possible. However CT shows the examples thus far to be unconvincing. This is due to weak evidence.

Then why were so many of the world's most brilliant minds, including St. Paul of Tarsus, St. Augustine, the Venerable Bede, Roger Bacon (who devised the scientific method), St. Albert the Great, Saints Cyril and Methodius, St. Thomas Aquinas (who explained cause and effect relationships), Nicolaus Copernicus, Galileo Galilei (in spite of his trial), Blessed Nicolas Steno, Johann Gutenberg, Isaac Newton, Leonardo da Vinci, Gregor Mendel, "the father of modern genetics," Louis Pasteur, James Prescott Joule, Antoine Henri Becquerel, etc. etc. etc., devout Catholics?

These people examined their beliefs carefully and had compelling reasons for believing as they did. They didn't merely "flirt" with religion, by any means. A vast number of other, less brilliant, believers, also have strong reasons for believing as they do.

I've listed for you some of the grand miracles of Church history. Zeitoun, Fatima, Betania, Lourdes, the Eucharistic Miracles, the stigmatists, as well as a handful of the great wonderworkers of Catholic history. Padre Pio and the Curé d'Ars are particularly good examples here, because they are so modern and so exhaustively studied, but there are dozens of other great miracle workers whose lives are strong reasons for belief. Nobel Prize winning author and Medieval historian Sigrid Undset converted to Catholicism because of her extensive studies on the lives of the Medieval mystics, for example.

Miracles such as these are well studied and verified, and can convince true reason. But it is possible for people to cling to skepticism as though it's a religion, and not believe what all the evidence points to, in spite of a miracle being obviously the most logical interpretation of the evidence. Skeptics are many times very unreasonable, even though they think themselves the most reasonable and enlightened. Often, if they can come up with any far-fetched means of ditching the miraculous explanation, they will hold to that, no matter how unlikely, and as if this "miracle" was the only such reported and well supported event of its kind in Earth history. And if they can't come up with any explanation of the evidence, they'll just say, "it's a mystery," and go on believing that miracles don't happen. I've seen both these attitudes, and the irrationality of it is very frustrating.



Sorry the book is not with me. I ditched all my books to lighten my load as I pedaled through Laos a few months ago.

Okay.



Again, miracles are possible. However the evidence for them is unconvincing.

What you mean is that what you've read so far has not been sufficient to convince you (which hasn't included any books, but only Internet searches). What many of the world's most brilliant minds have seen, studied or experienced has been sufficient to convince them, though. What many less brilliant people, like me, have seen, studied and experienced (some firsthand and some through people I know are trustworthy) has been enough to convince us. We aren't all hanging on weak evidence or unreasonable faith. But a truth doesn't have to be proven in a test tube to be credible and reasonably believed. Who can prove their parents' or children's love for them? There are many things about life, some of which are the most important aspects of life, and we trust in them daily, without scientific proof. There is very good and strong reason to believe in these truths, though our evidence in these cases is not scientific. Even so, there is a lot of evidence supporting Catholicism, such as eyewitness testimony of various supernatural events (and we can examine the eyewitnesses for credibility) that doesn't require science to be credible.

Though Eucharistic fasts, Eucharistic miracles, stigmata and the like are scientifically verifiable and have been scientifically studied, and sometimes discredited by science, and other times authenticated by it.



A guide to Critical Thinking helped me the most. I never read a book on miracles - my research was done on the Internet over a span of a few years in my early teens.

That's fine, and a fair start, but hardly sufficient for you to make the kinds of sweeping claims you've made about all miracles, including many big ones that I've presented to you, and which you haven't researched at all.



Please show me the evidence for transubstantiation. You may have seen some flesh - but have you actually seen the bread *poof* into a heart?

Millions go to Vegas to be fooled by magicians.

The articles I've presented to you have given names and dates for studies, and have outlined the conclusions they've been able to make about the Eucharistic Miracles

He draws a subtle line in the sand, revealing just enough (weak evidence) to encourage those true seekers,

That's not what I said. It's overwhelmingly sufficient evidence for me. For many others, too! But we are "open" to the possibility of the supernatural, whereas you presume everything you hear about the supernatural is false, and are willing to assume the truth of any skeptical theory you hear rather than seriously consider the possibility that God is intervening. That's prejudice masquerading as reason.



and discourage the rest (because the rest seek strong evidence.) It is that simple.

He gives plentiful evidence to those who desire Him and seek Him. To those that are closed to Him, though, He allows them sufficient wiggle room to irrationally deny and reject Him.



My replies are in haste. They are not thoroughly thought out word by word. This is because I am not motivated to do so. I apologize my posts are not more convincing to you or elegant or however one may put it.

That's completely okay; I have no issues with it :)



The bottom line is whether one believes in miracles or not is unimportant. What is important is leading a happy life.

No, what is important is living a truly loving life, a truly holy life. Happiness is secondary to doing what is right and being a good person. Many of the best people have suffered and died for their beliefs (like Martin Luther King Jr.), because they were so actively good, and they didn't make their own happiness the ideal of their religion.

Religion is not just a set of rules, though. True religion is a relationship with a Person, and He infuses His Life into us to draw us into this holiness and deeper and deeper union with Him. That is the journey of sanctification, the way of the cross, the mystical road into the Heart of Christ. He infuses us with grace and supernatural help, as we pray, fast, do good works and seek Him, and through this special help He provides, we become increasingly holy.

Jesus proved His identity through one incredible miracle: His Resurrection. His other miracles proved His identity in a secondary way. He uses miracles to reach us, as well as philosophy, and for other people, science, etc. He reaches out to us through many different means to prove the truth of the Catholic faith to us, so that we can know Him in His fullness, in the Eucharist.



The belief in miracles does not in any way effect one's happiness. Religion should be about living a happy life - not about believing in miracles.

Belief in miracles does affect our happiness massively. Because we believe in the Resurrection of Christ, we believe that we will be raised if we follow Him. So we follow Him and we find deeper and deeper union with Him in this life, and this relationship spills overwhelming joy into the lives of many! :) Without faith in His Resurrection, we would not come to Him in the Eucharist and receive His fullness. The Eucharist is the gem of all delights



Give me a name

Dr. Ricardo Castañón Gomez, P.H.D., gave the following presentation at a Faith and Science Conference in Mexico City. The man was an atheistic scientist, but he converted to Catholicism after spending years studying the human brain, Eucharistic Miracles and some of the seers of the Catholic Church. This helped him to find the relationship between faith and reason, which I believe he describes in the presentation.

The following is Part 2 of his presentation: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9179467206976930820# It's about an hour long. It starts discussing Eucharistic miracles about 23 minutes in. The prior 23 minutes are about effusions of human blood, and crystal clear water and olive oil from statues and images, scientific studies done to verify these things, and such. After that, he discusses Eucharistic Miracles.

Here are a few books he's published, which are sold on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3ARicardo%20Castañon&page=1



and their credentials. First show me evidence the scientist is achieved in something scientific. Then let me read his words on religion.

Here's a short Wikipedia article about him:

Ricardo Castañón Gómez (25 de agosto de 1948) es un Neuropsicofisiólogo boliviano. Es Doctor en Psicología Clínica, realizó estudios universitarios en Alemania e Italia. Es especializado en Medicina psicosomática, Neuropsicofísiología cognitiva.
Asimismo, realizó estudios de especialidad de Psicoterapia en Londres, Patologías en Lyon-Francia, Toxicodependencias en Berkeley-California, Bioquímica en Wheil - Alemania, Psicología aplicada en Lovaina-Bélgica. Es autor de 13 libros y más de 400 artículos de ciencia y divulgación.

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricardo_Castañón_Gómez

Just google his name and you'll find lots of websites talking about him and his work.

His Facebook page describes his expertise and accomplishments at greater length:

Es Doctor en Psicología Clínica, realizó estudios universitarios en
Alemania e Italia. Es especializado en Medicina psicosomática,
Neuropsicofísiología cognitiva.
Asimismo, realizó estudios de especialidad de Psicoterapia en Londres,
Patologías en Lyon-Francia, Toxicodependencias en Berkeley-California,
Bioquímica en Wheil - Alemania, Psicología aplicada en Lovaina-Bélgica.
Es autor de 13 libros y más de 400 artículos de ciencia y divulgación. Ha
dictado conferencias en la Universidad de Georgetown en Washington, en
la Universidad de Austin, en el Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo,
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Universidad de Valladolid, Saint
Joseph College de Sydney.Australia. Con el mismo motivo ha visitado,
Corea, Egipto, Israel, EEUU, Europa y las Américas realizando hasta el
presente más de 1000 conferencias.
Por su aporte científico ha sido distinguido con el Esculapio de Plata por el
Comité de Defensa Civil de las Naciones Unidas y es Académico de la
Legión de Oro, correspondiente a la Academia Tiberina de Roma.
Actualmente es Presidente e investigador del "Grupo Internacional para la
Paz", con sede en Madrid, una organización privada, sin fines de lucro,
interesada en promover la relación existente entre la ciencia y los valores
interiores del hombre.
El Dr. Ricardo Castañón Gómez, psicólogo clínico con conocimiento especializado en la relación entre el cerebro y el comportamiento humano, ha llevado adelante una investigación acerca de las hostias que han sangrado en 1996 en Buenos Aires - Argentina; luego de más de cinco años de estudio e investigación se ha llegado a la conclusión que las muestras de las hostias son músculo de corazón.

I don't have English translations for the Spanish.



And no I don't believe they are doctored photos. I believe it was a show comparable to a magician's.

Judging before examining is not scientific or rational. Many scientists have examined these phenomenon in depth, like the science expert in the link I've provided, and have found fascinating and inexplicable results. Prejudice can close people from finding truth and from discovering what can give them the most joy. Be careful with these matters, and not so cavalier.



But my theory is more likely. Because there is a clear motive, and a method to carry it out. I don't need to rely on the supernatural to explain it.

I'll wait till you've listened to the youtube link I provided you earlier, or watched the longer presentation above, before responding.



Have you witnessed this first-hand? I might be persuaded if I did, otherwise not.

I haven't witnessed this miracle firsthand, but I think the recorded experiences of crowds of people for 2,000 years should be strong enough to convince any rational person.

I've witnessed other things firsthand, though, and there are lots of close friends of mine, as well as less close acquaintances, who have experienced other extraordinary things firsthand.

to me a miracle would be strong evidence of God, but not necessarily proof of God,

Once upon a time we lived in a world where belief in God was an almost universal phenomenon, and it's easy to understand why. If there's no-one to provide a naturalistic explanation for seemingly miraculous phenomena (thunder, lightning, the sun, the moon, the stars etc) then it's natural to invoke some kind of supernatural agency to account for them (Zeus, Helios, Artemis, Astraios, or even just a single supremely powerful god). In those days, God (or gods) was/were everywhere and in everything. The average person hardly had an excuse not to believe. Yet as if that wasn't enough, biblical accounts tell us that God had a penchant for directly communicating with mankind and interacting with the world in an obvious physically tangible way, which culminated in him taking human form for 30 something years at the end of which he performed a series of absolutely spectacular miracles, which included causing an earthquake that busted open a bunch of tombs, and then raising a bunch of holy people from the dead who then wandered around the city of Jerusalem "appearing" to people. Many found this stuff so incredible that they had no choice but to exclaim “Surely he was the Son of God!” (Matt 27:54).

If I had been witness to all that, my skepticism would have surely taken a critical hit as well, no matter how much of an atheist I was. And let's not forget that even after Jesus gave up his earthly residence, he imparted to his disciples the ability to perform many other miracles in his name, for the purposes of confirming God's word (Mark 16:15-19).

So tell me, what was so special about the people of ancient times that in addition to the existence of God being all but "obvious" (due to a distinct lack of naturalistic explanations for seemingly incredible phenomena), God was happy to further confirm his existence to them by either directly or indirectly performing absolutely spectacular miracles?

Of course I am aware of the argument that such miracles served as a testimony in lieu of the canonization of the complete written word (which then took over the role), but honestly, that just sounds like a bunch of convenient bullshit to me. God is a lot less "obvious" in the world today, since we now have naturalistic explanations for seemingly incredible phenomena. Additionally, we have also been overwhelmed with an abundance of religious scripture that is not consistent with what we find in the Bible, yet at the same time seems to be equally significant with regard to the quality of it's insight into the human condition. In other words, it is easy to demonstrate that one can achieve similar benefits by embracing a different set of "revelations", some of which don't even advocate for the worship of a supreme being. So if anyone, at any time throughout human history, was in legitimate need of a spectacular miraculous intervention or two, not for the purposes of providing absolute proof but rather to give us a fighting chance, then it is us.

Realize however that I am not demanding such, I am simply responding to the suggestion that any provision for such by God wouldn't make sense, or be ultimately useful. Of course it would, as supported by precedent.

The articles I've presented to you have given names and dates for studies, and have outlined the conclusions they've been able to make about the Eucharistic Miracles


http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#9
9. The Argument from Miracles
...
This means that the setting of a supposed miracle is crucially important. Not just the physical setting, and not just the timing, but the personal setting is vital as well—the character and the message of the person to whom this event is specially tied. Take, for example, four or five miracles from the New Testament. Remove them completely from their context, from the teaching and character of Christ. Would it be wrong to see their religious significance as thereby greatly diminished? After all, to call some happening a miracle is to interpret it religiously. But to interpret it that way demands a context or setting which invites such interpretation. And part of this setting usually, though not always, involves a person whose moral authority is first recognized, and whose religious authority, which the miracle seems to confirm, is then acknowledged.

Abstract discussions of probability usually miss this factor. But setting does play a decisive role. Many years ago, at an otherwise dull convention, a distinguished philosopher explained why he had become a Christian. He said: "I picked up the New Testament with a view to judging it, to weighing its pros and cons. But as I began to read, I realized that I was the one being judged." Certainly he came to believe in the miracle—stories. But it was the character and teaching of Christ that led him to accept the things recounted there as genuine acts of God.
...

IOW, the debate of miracles is pointless unless the other person understands their religious setting.

Without a religious interpretation, some oddities are just oddities, not miracles.

That's not what I said. It's overwhelmingly sufficient evidence for me. For many others, too! But we are "open" to the possibility of the supernatural, whereas you presume everything you hear about the supernatural is false, and are willing to assume the truth of any skeptical theory you hear rather than seriously consider the possibility that God is intervening. That's prejudice masquerading as reason.

He gives plentiful evidence to those who desire Him and seek Him. To those that are closed to Him, though, He allows them sufficient wiggle room to irrationally deny and reject Him.

Can you teach me how to become insensitive like that?

It must be great to not care about others!

IOW, the debate of miracles is pointless unless the other person understands their religious setting.

Without a religious interpretation, some oddities are just oddities, not miracles.
That is true. Yet the reverse is also true, that some oddities are so extreme that they demand a religious interpretation. The events in Zietoun, which I cited before, are I believe a good example of such a case. So are the events at Fatima. The fact that the apostles died for their belief that they had seen Jesus Christ resurrected from the dead, had spoken with Him and had eaten meals with Him after His resurrection, also is an "oddity" that cries out for faith.

The Eucharistic Miracle of Buennos Aires, which I cited for you, and numerous other Eucharistic Miracles, are further incredible events that call strongly for a religious interpretation. People who haven't studied them at all can dismiss them out of hand without thinking about them, because they are sure to begin with that a miracle did not take place. But they are not acting as reasonable people but as prejudiced people, when they make negative unsupported assumptions to dispose of the evidence.

Religious people sometimes can be too gullible in accepting miracle stories, yet skeptical people also can be too gullible in giving credence to any argument they read that purports to discredit a miracle. I probably tend toward the gullible, myself, because I've seen miracles in my life and so have many of my friends and family, who I know to be trustworthy. So because of my life experience and upbringing, I tend to know that such things happen and therefore am not surprised when I hear similar things from other people.

I've met plenty of people who tend toward the incredulous, though, and automatically distrust everything they hear, or give preference to any non-religious explanation they can come up with, however absurd. This is another form of gullibility and bias.

Skeptics are often gullible in accepting out of hand the skeptical arguments they hear, without investigation, while religious people also can be gullible in accepting what they hear too readily.

I've seen skeptical arguments win in some debates, and religious arguments win in others.

We live in a very big, complicated world. It's good to be open minded.

Yet the reverse is also true, that some oddities are so extreme that they demand a religious interpretation. The events in Zietoun, which I cited before, are I believe a good example of such a case. So

No way dude, it's just too ridiculous.

Have you ever seen a magic trick and not known how it was done?
Have you ever met a scam artist?
Has there ever been a 'bad' Catholic?

If you can answer YES YES YES, then by golly, it's logically no miracle!

Trust me, if God moved Mt. Everest I would believe it was a miracle. I'm not gullible enough to invest interest in the Zietoun though. People like you just encourage others to invent a cult-like websites with donations. I bet I could convince you to donate money to me judging by your gullibility.

Yes, it's good to be open minded. The simplest explanation is usually the right one. I can't say anymore, there seems little point. Every nook and cranny available for someone to make a buck - they will take it... people like that especially prey on magical thinkers.

Bahumbug this is FUBAR. This is my last post on this thread, why should I try to convince you? Keep believing. Just don't put a damn coin in that donation box, it's your hard-earned money.

That is true. Yet the reverse is also true, that some oddities are so extreme that they demand a religious interpretation.

That would be a trivialization of religion/religiousness.



The fact that the apostles died for their belief that they had seen Jesus Christ resurrected from the dead, had spoken with Him and had eaten meals with Him after His resurrection, also is an "oddity" that cries out for faith.

Perhaps you think this is an oddity, but I don't.

We live in a very big, complicated world. It's good to be open minded.
I can't stay away from this juicy thread. I am re-motivated to shoot again.

http://www.zeitun-eg.org/mrwagihr.htm
Take a look at those pictures. Am I being closed-minded for opening multiple interpretations of the 'unidentified flying object' above the Zeitoun?

They appear to be bedsheets with spotlights, if I'm not mistaken. It's probably more likely as no miracle is required for my claim.

You love miracles, they are close to you. Giving up miracles is not a fun sport - it rips the fantasy and fun right out of life. Imagine there really were no miracles... what a drab, what confusion there is that humans have such ultimate decisions. Without miracles nuclear weapons seem more powerful than ever. If you shift lenses and see the world without miracles it's not pretty. But it's logical. The evidence for Zeitoun hoax outweighs the evidence for Zeitoun miracle.

Zeitoun Hoax:

Many people have the ability to fool millions of viewers. Like flying saucers, crop circles, and Las Vegas magic shows. Having an audience of 1 million people fooled requires good talent but has been a normal showing in human history. Think of the Aztecs staring at the eclipse and being fooled of 'rapture' or something like that. A large number of people convinced something is true, does not make that thing true, as history constantly reminds us.

Most people are motivated by money, even Catholics. The Catholic church is many ways motivated by money, assuming that they did not acquire their vast wealth over centuries of luck.

Assuming that most Catholics are not after wealth, some probably are. Every large group will have a few dishonest members. There is a bad apple in every group in other words, and Catholics are not exempt from this as is evident in recent worldwide child-sex scandals.

So we can confident in two claims:
1. Some Catholics are 'bad', and motivated by financial gains.
2. Some people have the ability to fool millions of people.

Now how to we bridge the gap between those two claims to call the Zeitoun a hoax?

We would have to assume either the Catholic church at Zeitoun had the ability to fool millions or hired someone that did. How far-fetched is this? How far-fetched is calling it a miracle, when there is good evidence stating other possibilities? And shouldn't labeling something as 'miracle' only be reserved for those truly miraculous things like moving Mt. Everest? If you apply the label 'miracle' to things that can reasonably be logically viewed as scams, than you are abusing the word somewhat.

What is your best example of a miracle? Perhaps something of personal testimony?

People who haven't studied them at all can dismiss them out of hand without thinking about them, because they are sure to begin with that a miracle did not take place.

People who haven't studied them at all include very religious faith-based people. Those people might begin that the miracle did take place. Same goes for me, as goes for you. As for studying there are two methods to use
1. sponge - soak up all information
2. panning for gold - critically analyzing the information

So you see it is not enough to be studious, it is necessary to be critical too.


Yet the reverse is also true, that some oddities are so extreme that they demand a religious interpretation
I disagree. I never attributed the miracle property to something I didn't understand.

http://www.zeitun-eg.org/mrwagihr.htm

Not for a second have I doubted that this is not a miracle. I am sure that it is not.

I just hate it when someone shows me some blots of light, and then I am supposed to see something spiritual in it.

The spiritual is the mystical, and thus anything goes and anything can be spiritual! :bugeye::bugeye::bugeye: