St. Januarius, Miracles, and the Proof of God.

[kaylasdad99]

@begbert2

There are probably more than a few people who call themselves atheists that really aren’t - they don’t lack belief so much as reject a specific church without having switched to another one. I knew a person like that - she’d ‘rebelled’ and fallen in with a bad crowd, stopped going to church, got pregnant, had the kid, and left the bad crowd - but didn’t start going to church again right away. (She went back eventually, a few years later.)

The existence of ‘atheists’ like this are probably part of why theists sometimes claim that actual theists are just pretending not to believe: because that actually happens with some people. Just not actual atheists.

Conversely, there are probably more than a few people who DON’T call themselves atheists, yet who live their lives as though the question of whether a deity exists in a way that is relevant to their lives is worthy of consideration ONLY when they are directly asked to consider it. Of course, when they ARE asked, they will naturally respond “Yes,” and forget the entire topic until they are confronted with the question again. There’s a pretty good case to be made that they are actually atheistic themselves, insofar as there is an effective absence of a god or gods in their experience (cf. abacterial; characterized by an absence of bacteria).

[begbert2]

@kaylasdad99

Conversely, there are probably more than a few people who DON’T call themselves atheists, yet who live their lives as though the question of whether a deity exists in a way that is relevant to their lives is worthy of consideration ONLY when they are directly asked to consider it. Of course, when they ARE asked, they will naturally respond “Yes,” and forget the entire topic until they are confronted with the question again. There’s a pretty good case to be made that they are actually atheistic themselves, insofar as there is an effective absence of a god or gods in their experience (cf. abacterial; characterized by an absence of bacteria).

Many people who fall into that category call themselves agnostic. (They hold the opinion that “agnostic” means “I don’t know” and is thus a middle ground between theism and atheism, which I don’t agree with.) It’s a way to be an atheist but not have to admit it in polite company.

[Voyager]

@begbert2

Many people who fall into that category call themselves agnostic. (They hold the opinion that “agnostic” means “I don’t know” and is thus a middle ground between theism and atheism, which I don’t agree with.) It’s a way to be an atheist but not have to admit it in polite company.

I think a lot of them would say they are still the religion of their parents, since that is a lot safer. They don’t go to church except when dragged during holidays. A lot of people in Europe are like this now. They go to religion class in school and they get married in church, but they don’t really believe.

[Voyager]

@rat_avatar

People in general have a hard time conceptualizing that while some events are quite rare, the shear number of rare things means rare events actually happen with a surprising frequency.

This is called Occam’s Scissor.

[BwanaBob]

@EscAlaMike

Don’t know, but I will say that it is not required of Catholics to believe in any reported miracles, apparitions, etc. Of course some purported miracles are integral to the faith (i.e. the resurrection of Jesus) and are required, but one doesn’t have to believe in Fatima, Our Lady of Guadalupe, or the blood of St. Januarius to still be a good Catholic.

Agreed 100%. I don’t think signs and/or miracles are as powerful to change one’s beliefs as many would like to assert, both believers and non-believers.

Catholics are not required to believe ANYTHING based on zero evidence or science that contradicts. Even something as outlandish as the resurrection of Jesus Christ is not based on zero evidence. You are also mischaracterizing the Bible. Catholics do not believe that everything in the Bible is applicable to today’s culture/society, and it wasn’t all meant to be applicable for all times and places.

Why are you asserting that in order to be a Christian, one must practice the Old Testament in its entirety? What Christian made this claim?

So what? Some rules have nothing to do with universal morality, and so they are relative and apply only to specific people in specific situations and at specific times for a specific purpose. Some rules are a part of basic human morality that applies to all people in all societies at all times.

If you think that shellfish and human sexual relations are equivalent issues, then I fear that you greatly misunderstand Christian moral teaching and its basis.

Sorry, eating shellfish and f*cking are both human behaviors. If both are condemned, they are condemned equally. Anything else is someone applying their own ick factor into the issue. Morality should be “not doing that which is forbidden”, no shades of gray there. How convenient it would be to handwave the forbidden acts you indulge in as unimportant and slam those you don’t. Does the word hypocrisy come to mind?

[EscAlaMike]

@BwanaBob

Sorry, eating shellfish and f*cking are both human behaviors.

Putting on socks and shooting someone in the head are also both human behaviors. Your point is?

@BwanaBob

If both are condemned, they are condemned equally.

Says who? You? You don’t think it’s relevant as to WHY the particular acts are condemned or forbidden?

@BwanaBob

Anything else is someone applying their own ick factor into the issue.

Familiarize yourself with Catholic moral theology before you make such an ignorant statement.

@BwanaBob

Morality should be “not doing that which is forbidden”, no shades of gray there.

You sound like a fundamentalist, and you are failing to see that a dietary restriction has nothing to do with morality.

@BwanaBob

How convenient it would be to handwave the forbidden acts you indulge in as unimportant and slam those you don’t.

It’s not an issue of importance. It’s an issue of applicability and purpose.

[Czarcasm]

It’s an issue of making artificial separations after the fact between different types of “dasn’ts” to justify following some rules and not following others.

[EscAlaMike]

@Czarcasm

It’s an issue of making artificial separations after the fact between different types of “dasn’ts” to justify following some rules and not following others.

I disagree. It’s not artificial. Some human actions are moral actions, and some are amoral.

[Czarcasm]

@EscAlaMike

I disagree. It’s not artificial. Some human actions are moral actions, and some are amoral.

Some churches put some items in one category, and some churches put the same items in another category.
It’s artificial.

[EscAlaMike]

@Czarcasm

Some churches put some items in one category, and some churches put the same items in another category.
It’s artificial.

Morality is universal and unchanging. If “some churches” as you say have arbitrarily tried to redefine what is right and wrong, then they have shown themselves to be imposters and are therefore not trustworthy.

[Czarcasm]

@EscAlaMike

Morality is universal and unchanging. If “some churches” as you say have arbitrarily tried to redefine what is right and wrong, then they have shown themselves to be imposters and are therefore not trustworthy.

Thank you for reminding us that you belong to the Catholic Church.
This may come as a shock to you, but it is entirely possible to read the same Bible as you do and come to different conclusions as to meaning and context…and(being an atheist) I am not inclined to take your particular sect’s interpretation as The One And Only True Interpretation Of The Bible.

[EscAlaMike]

@Czarcasm

This may come as a shock to you, but it is entirely possible to read the same Bible as you do and come to different conclusions as to meaning and context…

This is not a shock, but is one of the biggest reasons why I am Catholic. Scripture needs an interpreter. It can’t be every man as his own Pope, or else you have theological chaos (i.e. Protestantism).

@Czarcasm

and(being an atheist) I am not inclined to take your particular sect’s interpretation as The One And Only True Interpretation Of The Bible.

No problem, but you’ll find plenty of confusion, incoherency, and/or contradiction outside the Barque of Peter.

[Czarcasm]

And the same(if not more) within.

[EscAlaMike]

@Czarcasm

And the same(if not more) within.

Example?

[Voyager]

@EscAlaMike

Morality is universal and unchanging. If “some churches” as you say have arbitrarily tried to redefine what is right and wrong, then they have shown themselves to be imposters and are therefore not trustworthy.

Says the person whose Messiah threw out a bunch of the moral laws in the Bible.

[EscAlaMike]

@Voyager

Says the person whose Messiah threw out a bunch of the moral laws in the Bible.

Example?

[Czarcasm]

@EscAlaMike

Example?

sigh Remembering that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, I will pretend that he haven’t danced this dance before.

1. How many people entered the tomb when the rock was rolled away?
2. Who did they tell?
3. What happened to all those zombies Matthew mentioned?

[Voyager]

@EscAlaMike

I disagree. It’s not artificial. Some human actions are moral actions, and some are amoral.

Which explains the difference between putting on socks and killing someone.
But how is sex or eating shellfish immoral, except that one of your founders said so?
Why is divorce immoral? It isn’t in the Real Bible. How about birth control?

[EscAlaMike]

@Czarcasm

sigh Remembering that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, I will pretend that he haven’t danced this dance before.

1. How many people entered the tomb when the rock was rolled away?
2. Who did they tell?
3. What happened to all those zombies Matthew mentioned?

You are missing the entire point of the narrative. You are reading the text in a modern analytical fashion in which it was not intended to be read. Do any of these details have any significance as to whether or not Jesus actually rose from the dead? No, they don’t.

[Czarcasm]

@EscAlaMike

You are missing the entire point of the narrative. You are reading the text in a modern analytical fashion in which it was not intended to be read. Do any of these details have any significance as to whether or not Jesus actually rose from the dead? No, they don’t.

I didn’t think you would actually answer the question that you yourself brought up.
edited to add: And, once again, you totally skipped the part about the zombies.