Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 09-20-2018, 03:29 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 57,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
Anecdotally, I believe that if the Catholic Church was not of divine origin, it would have crumbled a long time ago.
Hinduism
Zorastrianism
Judaism
Jainism
Confucionism
Buddhism
Taoism
Shintoism

All of these have been around a lot longer than your sect.
Please point out the ones that have crumbled.
  #52  
Old 09-20-2018, 03:32 PM
EscAlaMike EscAlaMike is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
So, what hard evidence convinced you to become a Catholic? So far you've named attributes that many sects share, and "institutional integrity"...but you have yet to provide any evidence that supports your sect and your sect alone.
I'm not sure what you mean by "hard evidence", but my desire is to follow Jesus. Since I believe that Jesus is God, and since God is good, he deserves my worship and obedience.

1. Jesus told his disciples in John 6 that his flesh is true food and his blood is true drink. Whoever eats his flesh and drinks his blood will live forever.

2. Jesus told Peter in Matthew 16 that he would be the "rock" on which the Church would be built, and that the gates of hell would never prevail against the Church.

3. Jesus instituted the mass at his last supper with his disciples in which he gives us his flesh and blood to eat under the appearance of bread and wine.

Given these events from the Gospels, where else would I go but the Catholic Church?
  #53  
Old 09-20-2018, 03:33 PM
EscAlaMike EscAlaMike is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 453
Quote:
Originally Posted by elbows View Post
I don’t think you understand what the word integrity means.
Again I repeat:

THIS:
Integrity: the state of being whole and undivided

NOT THIS:
Integrity: the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness
  #54  
Old 09-20-2018, 03:36 PM
EscAlaMike EscAlaMike is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Hinduism
Zorastrianism
Judaism
Jainism
Confucionism
Buddhism
Taoism
Shintoism

All of these have been around a lot longer than your sect.
Please point out the ones that have crumbled.
These are religions, not institutions. I am not referring to the Christian religion, I am referring to the Catholic Church as an organized, cohesive, tangible institution.

I really don't see how this is so hard to understand.
  #55  
Old 09-20-2018, 03:36 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 57,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
Again I repeat:

THIS:
Integrity: the state of being whole and undivided

NOT THIS:
Integrity: the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness
Why would the former draw you to worship that particular sect, and not the latter??
  #56  
Old 09-20-2018, 03:37 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 57,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
These are religions, not institutions. I am not referring to the Christian religion, I am referring to the Catholic Church as an organized, cohesive, tangible institution.

I really don't see how this is so hard to understand.
Faith through institutionalism?
  #57  
Old 09-20-2018, 03:42 PM
elbows elbows is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 13,798
Please explain moving child molesting priests parish to parish for years, as it relates to moral uprightness.

That behaviour, standard procedure in the Catholic Church for decades, is the OPPOSITE of moral uprightness.

How is that NOT self evident?
  #58  
Old 09-20-2018, 03:44 PM
DCnDC's Avatar
DCnDC DCnDC is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Dueling Grounds
Posts: 11,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
I believe that Jesus really and truly rose from the dead. I believe this because I believe that the testimonies of those who witnessed it are credible.
And you believe that the oral tradition that passed down those stories for up to hundreds of years before anyone bothered to write them down are 100% accurate to their origin? Are you familiar with the children's game "telephone"? Why does no one ever remember the point of that game?

Here's a fun story: Elvis was fond of banana and peanut butter sandwiches. His mother insists she always made them with bacon. Elvis' former personal chef, and Kevin Kern, public relations director for Elvis Presley Enterprises, both insist that while the man loved his bacon, there was never any bacon on this particular sandwich. We are talking about a man who lived concurrently with a lot of other people who are still alive, we have reports from people who actually knew the man and prepared the sandwich for him, and they can't even agree on a simple 3-4 ingredient sandwich.

Think about that.
  #59  
Old 09-20-2018, 03:45 PM
EscAlaMike EscAlaMike is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Why would the former draw you to worship that particular sect, and not the latter??
It doesn't. There are bad people in the Church, but there are also saints.
  #60  
Old 09-20-2018, 03:46 PM
EscAlaMike EscAlaMike is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Faith through institutionalism?
No, it was an anecdote.
  #61  
Old 09-20-2018, 03:47 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 57,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
It doesn't. There are bad people in the Church, but there are also saints.
Same as other sects.
  #62  
Old 09-20-2018, 03:48 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 57,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
No, it was an anecdote.
No, it wasn't.
it was a vague and unsubstantiated reason to pick that sect over others.
  #63  
Old 09-20-2018, 03:49 PM
EscAlaMike EscAlaMike is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 453
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCnDC View Post
And you believe that the oral tradition that passed down those stories for up to hundreds of years before anyone bothered to write them down are 100% accurate to their origin?
Your assertion is false. Most scholars agree that the gospel accounts were written in the 1st century. Whether they are 100% accurate to their origin is irrelevant. I don't worship a book, I worship Jesus.
  #64  
Old 09-20-2018, 03:51 PM
EscAlaMike EscAlaMike is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
No, it wasn't.
it was a vague and unsubstantiated reason to pick that sect over others.
Did you miss Post #52?
  #65  
Old 09-20-2018, 03:53 PM
DCnDC's Avatar
DCnDC DCnDC is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Dueling Grounds
Posts: 11,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
Your assertion is false. Most scholars agree that the gospel accounts were written in the 1st century. Whether they are 100% accurate to their origin is irrelevant. I don't worship a book, I worship Jesus.
And where do you get your information about Jesus?
  #66  
Old 09-20-2018, 03:53 PM
EscAlaMike EscAlaMike is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 453
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCnDC View Post
And where do you get your information about Jesus?
Primarily from the Catholic Church.

But the information isn't nearly as important as Jesus himself, who is physically present at every Catholic mass under the appearance of bread and wine.

Last edited by EscAlaMike; 09-20-2018 at 03:55 PM.
  #67  
Old 09-20-2018, 03:54 PM
DCnDC's Avatar
DCnDC DCnDC is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Dueling Grounds
Posts: 11,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
Primarily from the Catholic Church.
Who get their information from...?
  #68  
Old 09-20-2018, 03:56 PM
EscAlaMike EscAlaMike is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 453
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCnDC View Post
Who get their information from...?
Apostolic Tradition, of which Scripture is a part.
  #69  
Old 09-20-2018, 03:57 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 57,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
Did you miss Post #52?
So the Catholic church's interpretation of those anecdotes convinced you to switch religions?
  #70  
Old 09-20-2018, 03:58 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 57,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
Apostolic Tradition, of which Scripture is a part.
Again, this is true for other sects.
  #71  
Old 09-20-2018, 03:59 PM
EscAlaMike EscAlaMike is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
So the Catholic church's interpretation of those anecdotes convinced you to switch religions?
I guess you could say that. The Catholic interpretation of those "anecdotes" is the only logical one.
  #72  
Old 09-20-2018, 03:59 PM
DCnDC's Avatar
DCnDC DCnDC is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Dueling Grounds
Posts: 11,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
Apostolic Tradition, of which Scripture is a part.
And what is the definition of "Scripture"?

Last edited by DCnDC; 09-20-2018 at 04:00 PM.
  #73  
Old 09-20-2018, 04:01 PM
EscAlaMike EscAlaMike is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 453
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCnDC View Post
And what is the definition of "Scripture"?
Well I don't have my Catechism handy, but it's the 73 books that make up the Holy Bible, defined at various times by the Catholic Church, notably at the Council of Carthage in the 4th century.
  #74  
Old 09-20-2018, 04:04 PM
Regallag_The_Axe's Avatar
Regallag_The_Axe Regallag_The_Axe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: United States of Leifholm
Posts: 3,077
It would take more than a "miracle" to convince me to convert to a religion, and I'll tell you why. A "miracle" is an event that cannot be explained by those who witness it. Something that I cannot explain is just that. There are any number of possible explanations, so rather than choosing one I simply say, "I don't know."
  #75  
Old 09-20-2018, 04:06 PM
EscAlaMike EscAlaMike is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Regallag_The_Axe View Post
It would take more than a "miracle" to convince me to convert to a religion, and I'll tell you why. A "miracle" is an event that cannot be explained by those who witness it. Something that I cannot explain is just that. There are any number of possible explanations, so rather than choosing one I simply say, "I don't know."
That is a very reasonable and rational response.
  #76  
Old 09-20-2018, 04:11 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 57,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
That is a very reasonable and rational response.
You might even say it was...logical.
  #77  
Old 09-20-2018, 04:27 PM
kunilou's Avatar
kunilou kunilou is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 23,955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Who were these people?
Avelino de Almeida, a reporter for O Seculo, wrote a series of articles about his experiences at Fatima. His conclusion was that he saw something strange and inexplicable.

There were others who wrote eyewitness accounts, but de Almeida is generally considered to be the least religious and most skeptical of the contemporary witnesses.
  #78  
Old 09-20-2018, 04:31 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 57,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by kunilou View Post
Avelino de Almeida, a reporter for O Seculo, wrote a series of articles about his experiences at Fatima. His conclusion was that he saw something strange and inexplicable.

There were others who wrote eyewitness accounts, but de Almeida is generally considered to be the least religious and most skeptical of the contemporary witnesses.
The claim was that he, and an unnamed scientist, converted.
  #79  
Old 09-20-2018, 04:49 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 57,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
The Catholic interpretation of those "anecdotes" is the only logical one.
I have to admit-of all the Catholics I have spoken to over the years, including the ones that post on this board, you are the first I've heard say anything like this.
  #80  
Old 09-20-2018, 04:56 PM
EscAlaMike EscAlaMike is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
I have to admit-of all the Catholics I have spoken to over the years, including the ones that post on this board, you are the first I've heard say anything like this.
Well damn, why be Catholic if you don't believe it? It's not exactly the kind of organization I can say I'm proud to be a part of. But as messed up as it is, its claims are true, and it's where Jesus is.
  #81  
Old 09-20-2018, 04:57 PM
begbert2 begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 11,209
So putting aside whether the Catholic church is awesome because it has old buildings or whether there's no other possible explanation for a bunch of stuff that was clearly made up, and getting back to this miracle business:

Is there any particular reason that I should think that any particular god caused the theorized miracle? I mean, absent proof otherwise, I'd say the most likely instigator of any earthly miracles is the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I mean, he's the most plausible god I've ever heard of, by a pretty significant margin.
  #82  
Old 09-20-2018, 05:05 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 20,124
As far Fatima is concerned, the skeptical response would seem to be: They had cameras, so why didn't they take a picture of the weird stuff?

Which seems fair to me.

The further explanation would seem to be that the kids talked the crowd into staring at the sun for too long and they started to get dizzy / partially blinded and between that and being there to look for something weird, they were able to achieve it.
  #83  
Old 09-20-2018, 05:21 PM
D'Anconia D'Anconia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by elbows View Post
Please explain moving child molesting priests parish to parish for years, as it relates to moral uprightness.

That behaviour, standard procedure in the Catholic Church for decades, is the OPPOSITE of moral uprightness.

How is that NOT self evident?
He's explained his use of integrity twice now. You may disagree, but he's been clear on that point. What is so hard to understand?
  #84  
Old 09-20-2018, 05:25 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 15,822
Speaking as a Jew, I constantly recall that the Moses-and-Aaron show didn’t impress the pharaoh because, well, some other guys were standing right there who could do that same magic; we’re told this happened repeatedly, with ‘snake’ magic and ‘frog’ magic and — of particular relevance to this thread — ‘blood’ magic.

But we’re to pay them no mind; their magic proves nothing; near as I can tell, it’s the point of Deuteronomy 13: who cares if a guy is some kind of prophet or wonder worker? Once he uses those irrelevant bona fides to talk up another deity, it should be met with (a) no points, and (b) the famous quote from Billy Madison.

(This is also the short answer to Why I Am Not A Christian.)
  #85  
Old 09-20-2018, 06:34 PM
DavidwithanR DavidwithanR is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 3,674
Most religions consider themselves conclusively proved by the miracles they assert to have happened. No religion has objectively better miracles than the others. Therefore, if you accept the miracles of one religion, integrity (both meanings of integrity together) forces you to believe all of them from all religions, and to accept all religions as equally valid and important in your own life.

This is why miracles are a ceramic container with excrement in it.

Last edited by DavidwithanR; 09-20-2018 at 06:38 PM.
  #86  
Old 09-20-2018, 07:01 PM
etasyde etasyde is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
THIS:
Integrity: the state of being whole and undivided

NOT THIS:
Integrity: the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness
Uh... so we have this thing called history... and all the Schisms, Great Schisms, Protestant movements and Heresies kinda put paid to that insane idea. I mean, you went from, what, five patriarchs (the pope being the first among equals) to one?
  #87  
Old 09-20-2018, 07:19 PM
OldGuy OldGuy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Very east of Foggybog, WI
Posts: 4,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
THIS:
Integrity: the state of being whole and undivided.
I guess that's because when Catholics and Orthodox split, the Orthodox no longer count as part of the whole, when the Protestants split off, they no longer cont as part of the whole, when the Church of England split off, it no longer counts as part of the whole.

I guess you think Russia is all of the Soviet Union as well.
  #88  
Old 09-20-2018, 07:46 PM
elbows elbows is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 13,798
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
He's explained his use of integrity twice now. You may disagree, but he's been clear on that point. What is so hard to understand?

Because NOT reporting child sexual abuse to police, then moving the perp to a new parish does not in any way reconcile with the definition he’s using. That’s why.

What’s unclear about that?

His complete refusal to address how his definition is at odds with such behaviour, is ultimately just more silence about sexual abuse. And indicative of exactly why integrity is NOT, in fact, characteristic of the Catholic Church.
  #89  
Old 09-20-2018, 08:05 PM
D'Anconia D'Anconia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by elbows View Post
Because NOT reporting child sexual abuse to police, then moving the perp to a new parish does not in any way reconcile with the definition he’s using. That’s why.

What’s unclear about that?

His complete refusal to address how his definition is at odds with such behaviour, is ultimately just more silence about sexual abuse. And indicative of exactly why integrity is NOT, in fact, characteristic of the Catholic Church.
Try reading:

He is using the following definition, by his own words.

Quote:
THIS:
Integrity: the state of being whole and undivided
That has nothing to do with child abuse, silence, or moving people around.
  #90  
Old 09-20-2018, 08:55 PM
elbows elbows is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 13,798
His definition included uprightness, which hiding child sexual abuse does NOT reconcile with, clearly.

Except to those being purposely obtuse of course.
  #91  
Old 09-20-2018, 11:01 PM
rat avatar's Avatar
rat avatar rat avatar is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Seattle, Wa
Posts: 4,595
As a non-theist and talking about modern context

The canonisation of Mother Teresa was due to the supposed miracle the healing of a tumour in the abdomen of an Indian woman after the application of a locket containing Teresa's picture.

To me Mother Teresa's 'cult of suffering' where she intentionally withheld basic medical care like aspirin and tied dieing children to beds because she believed that through suffering, like Christ, that they would be closer to god. Doing this while taking millions of dollars in donations that were handed to the church and not to provide basic medical care to suffering children is just about the most evil as a person can get IMHO.

This inhuman "caring for the sick by glorifying their suffering instead of relieving it" make canonisation the main problem. The fact that cancer does sometimes go into regresion, yet this was the proof of the miracle makes it hard to trust built on top of that celebration of torture. Add in that no one has ever been able to scientifically document any form of any supernatural effects means I am not going to believe in a claim that one is somehow the action of some Abrahamic god. If people could still summon she bears to slaughter dozens of children who teased them about being bald or divide bodies of water at will in a reproducible fashion I may give a chance for them to explain their claims.

To me the universe is amazing, wonderful and uplifting enough without attributing it to a god; and I don't need to resort to invoking a god to be OK with the fact I may not understand it all.

So the Catholic church would need to offer a repeatable miracle, could at least be proven to be with an explanation why it is supernatural and why it is attributable to one particular god out of the 1000's that have been believed in over time.

There are enough "rare" things in the world that they happen all of the time, randomly connecting events to your own beliefs without evidence is not enough. Especially when an organization has a history of providing accolades to child abusers and glorifying sadistic self-serving infliction of suffering on innocent children puts the church at a disadvantage compared to the average soothsayer on the street who's world view is probably closer to my own desires to avoid inflicting suffering on others as much as possible. Or at least not glorifying the suffering of others to serve ones own vanity, which I know is in the book but seems optional.

I want to be clear that the OP asked for an opinion but I have no problem with individuals and their own beliefs and their own bodies. Wear a hairshirt and self flagellate if it works for you but invoking or glorifying the suffering on others is so far from OK in my belief system that the gap is probably impossible to bridge to be honest.

Last edited by rat avatar; 09-20-2018 at 11:03 PM.
  #92  
Old 09-20-2018, 11:44 PM
D'Anconia D'Anconia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by elbows View Post
His definition included uprightness, which hiding child sexual abuse does NOT reconcile with, clearly.

Except to those being purposely obtuse of course.
He stated the definition he was using twice, and I repeated it as well. THE DEFINITION HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH UPRIGHTNESS.

There is someone being obtuse, and it ain't me or the poster in question.
  #93  
Old 09-20-2018, 11:56 PM
Measure for Measure's Avatar
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Twitter: @MeasureMeasure
Posts: 13,801
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim B. View Post
My question is simply this. If any one miracle could be proven, even just shown to be without easy explanation, would that be proof of God? Or maybe that is a bit too strong.

So let me put it this way. If you are an atheist. And if something the Catholic church offers as a miracle, could at least be proven to be without immediate explanation, would that be enough to make you question your staunchly held beliefs? I trust you can see what I am trying to posit.
I'm an agnostic. Given the track record of these alleged miracles, I'll need a higher bar than, "...at least be proven to be without immediate explanation..."

Let me posit two types of miracles. The first are granted by the His grace, but are fully consistent with known science. Rock and roll. The second type involves extraordinary claims. If such claims were put forth, and they stood up to scrutiny (both immediate and rigorous) then I would adjust my beliefs (or rather my subjective probabilities) accordingly. Then again, I'm an agnostic: I do that routinely.

However, the poor track record of extraordinary supernatural claims deserves note and perhaps emphasis.
  #94  
Old 09-21-2018, 12:07 AM
kaylasdad99 kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 30,006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
I have to admit-of all the Catholics I have spoken to over the years, including the ones that post on this board, you are the first I've heard say anything like this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
Well damn, why be Catholic if you don't believe it? It's not exactly the kind of organization I can say I'm proud to be a part of. But as messed up as it is, its claims are true, and it's where Jesus is.
What if Jesus one day decides that He would prefer His Church to prioritize modelling the second definition of "Integrity" over the first? Think he'll stick around?

(Excuse me.) Think He'll stick around? Or does He have less free will than we normal human beings? Or is He stuck because the RCC is the "Bride of Christ," and He can't countenance divorce?



As to your first question, I came to realize that I don't, so I'm not.

Last edited by kaylasdad99; 09-21-2018 at 12:08 AM.
  #95  
Old 09-21-2018, 12:17 AM
kaylasdad99 kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 30,006
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
He's explained his use of integrity twice now. You may disagree, but he's been clear on that point. What is so hard to understand?
Quote:
Originally Posted by elbows View Post
Because NOT reporting child sexual abuse to police, then moving the perp to a new parish does not in any way reconcile with the definition he’s using. That’s why.

What’s unclear about that?

His complete refusal to address how his definition is at odds with such behaviour, is ultimately just more silence about sexual abuse. And indicative of exactly why integrity is NOT, in fact, characteristic of the Catholic Church.
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
Try reading:

He is using the following definition, by his own words.



That has nothing to do with child abuse, silence, or moving people around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elbows View Post
His definition included uprightness, which hiding child sexual abuse does NOT reconcile with, clearly.

Except to those being purposely obtuse of course.
Sorry, elbows, he specifically excluded the uprightness portion of the definition as applying to the RCC for the purposes of favoring it over other churches.

That is, he's impressed enough by the ability of the RCC to trace Popes going back to Peter. With those kinds of credentials, it's GOT to be the real McCoy.
  #96  
Old 09-21-2018, 12:21 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,835
Every time this topic comes up, I'm reminded of the start of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Y'know, where Vogons show up and suddenly every person on the planet knows who they are and what they want. God has never met that standard.

And here's some food for thought - if the vogons had instead announced that they were god, and the rapture was starting, would we be justified in believing that that was god? There's never been a miracle that held up to that standard, and I think a fair number would be (wrongly) convinced.

(Of course, the main difference between vogons and modern conceptions of god is that, at least in principle, it's possible to test a hypothesis that "it's the vogons".)

When we're faced with a phenomenon we cannot explain, what we have is exactly that - a phenomenon we cannot explain. Throwing in explanations apropos of nothing ("God did it!") has never been right.

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 09-21-2018 at 12:23 AM.
  #97  
Old 09-21-2018, 12:29 AM
kaylasdad99 kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 30,006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Measure for Measure View Post
I'm an agnostic. Given the track record of these alleged miracles, I'll need a higher bar than, "...at least be proven to be without immediate explanation..."

Let me posit two types of miracles. The first are granted by the His grace, but are fully consistent with known science. Rock and roll. The second type involves extraordinary claims. If such claims were put forth, and they stood up to scrutiny (both immediate and rigorous) then I would adjust my beliefs (or rather my subjective probabilities) accordingly. Then again, I'm an agnostic: I do that routinely.

However, the poor track record of extraordinary supernatural claims deserves note and perhaps emphasis.
I watched Bruce Almighty with my daughter the other day. One line from a later scene struck me as highly profound.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Morgan Freeman (or maybe it was God)
Parting your soup is not a miracle, Bruce, it's a magic trick. A single mom who's working two jobs, and still finds time to take her kid to soccer practice, that's a miracle.
  #98  
Old 09-21-2018, 12:50 AM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 9,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim B. View Post
My question is simply this. If any one miracle could be proven, even just shown to be without easy explanation, would that be proof of God? Or maybe that is a bit too strong.

So let me put it this way. If you are an atheist. And if something the Catholic church offers as a miracle, could at least be proven to be without immediate explanation, would that be enough to make you question your staunchly held beliefs? I trust you can see what I am trying to posit.
The answer is "no", and it's "no" for the same reason that I don't believe in UFOs as being evidence of visiting aliens. Given the absence of persuasive evidence, given the depth of our scientific understanding of the world, and given the propensity of social institutions to create myths and mythologies, almost any explanation for either miracles or visiting aliens would be far more likely than the mythological one. It's an extreme application of Occam's Razor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
Firstly, there is not "always" a simpler explanation. Secondly, "a magic daddy in the sky" is a pretty specific definition of a very vague concept (conscious source of all things).
No, there is always a simpler explanation, as I already noted. Usually, in fact, the simplest explanation lies in the proclivity of human societies to create mythologies that goes back to prehistory.

"Magic daddy in the sky" is actually a very generic description of the typical theist's God. He's your daddy (he looks after you, and in Christianity is literally referred to as "Father"), he is generally said to live up in the sky, and he definitely works magic. What could be a more perfect description?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
Given what we can observe about the world (matter does not spontaneously come into existence), there must be a source that brought it into existence.
First of all, the first part is wrong. Matter can and does come into existence spontaneously at a quantum level, if not in everyday experience. Examples: the Big Bang, quantum fluctuations in a vacuum, Hawking radiation. Second, the "must be a source" argument is logically circular because the same argument must apply to the origin of the source. "No, because it's God, and God is, like, special" is not philosophically meaningful. One could of course make the argument that "God" is something timeless and eternal, but Stephen Hawking has presented a much more persuasive mathematical model that shows that the same concept could be applied to the universe itself, which thereby requires neither a creator nor a moment of creation.
  #99  
Old 09-21-2018, 01:10 AM
Nava Nava is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 39,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by elbows View Post
Never in conflict with science? What about that invisible all knowing, all judging guy? Science says Nope!
Actually, Science doesn't have an opinion on the subject.
__________________
Evidence gathered through the use of science is easily dismissed through the use of idiocy. - Czarcasm.
  #100  
Old 09-21-2018, 02:13 AM
etasyde etasyde is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nava View Post
Actually, Science doesn't have an opinion on the subject.
Not quite. Science cannot disprove of some divine figure who does nothing, but as soon as this divinity supposedly interacts with reality, Science is all over that.

Virtually everything assigned to a divine being can be explained without one. Nothing in reality can be absolutely proven, but insofar as it can be, science has said a lot.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:37 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017