It’s a very vague definition unless you describe the entity you are referring to and show that only the deity that you describe fulfills the qualifications, as opposed to all the others.
In other words: Who’s your Daddy?
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.
What hard evidence convinced you to become a Catholic?
If there was a phenomenon that I could not explain through ordinary means, would that make be become a Christian?
No, no it would not. Because the universe is filled with things that I can’t explain. What is dark matter? What’s up with Quantum Mechanics? Why does 2 + 2 = 4? What happened to a stuffed rabbit I had when I was a kid?
The list of thing I can’t explain is very long. And figuring out one thing doesn’t shorten the list, because every time I figure something out it just makes me aware of a bunch of other stuff that I haven’t figured out that I hadn’t even known that I didn’t know.
So no, seeing a vial of red stuff turn liquid when a priest plays with it isn’t going to convince me to become a Christian, because even if I don’t know exactly what’s happening I do know that there are dozens or hundreds of possible explanations that are not miraculous. I might not know which explanation is correct, but not knowing doesn’t mean I reach for the miraculous explanation. Just like when I watch a guy pull the Ace of Spades from behind a kid’s ear. I have no idea how he did it, but I do know that it’s just a clever trick. I suppose he could be using real miracles to pull out that card, but guess what, he’s not.
And so I have no idea what is going on with the miracle of St Januarius. And I have no interest whatsoever in figuring it out. Am I passing up my chance to investigate a real miracle? Maybe, but I’m willing to bet my immortal soul that I’m not.
It’s not so much a competition of different deities. It goes back to philosophy.
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.
Based on further observations, religious traditions have given their interpretations of what this ultimate source must be like, but yes the definitions of “God” tend to be pretty vague.
I think you will find that the Christian, Muslim, Jewish, and even Hindu definitions of ‘God’ are remarkably similar.
Keep in mind that American Evangelical Christianity is an extremely small minority flavor among the world’s Christians, and doesn’t exactly have what most would call an intellectual or philosophical tradition.
Except for the parts where they differ wildly, of course.
I don’t recall bringing them up.
I never said or implied anyone was required to believe in miracles.
Please provide the proof of the resurrection.
Never in conflict with science? What about that invisible all knowing, all judging guy? Science says Nope!
I didn’t say anyone had to follow the the Old Testament, but if we got two books to work from which shall we follow? I know, let’s have a little of both, as and when, it suits us!
The point was if every body gets to pick what applies when, and what can be overlooked when it suits. That’s less doctrine than flimsy, ever changing personal preference dressed up as religious faith, in my opinion.
Which opens the door to all the god fearing Christians lining up and cheering for the quoting of scripture to support slavery, subjugation of women, racism, burning of witches and many other horrors. The Klu Klux Klan start their meetings holding up their bibles after all.
You’re counter arguments are fully making my case for me, keep up the good work!
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. I also find the incarnation of Jesus, along with his life, death, and resurrection to be too good of a fulfillment of Old Testament promises and prophecies to be a coincidence.
Anecdotally, I believe that if the Catholic Church was not of divine origin, it would have crumbled a long time ago.
Where do they differ wildly?
Not explicitly, but your characterizing of God as a magic sky daddy or whatever shows that your impressions regarding Christianity have been much more influenced by American evangelicalism than by classical Christianity. Or maybe it was another poster who used that terminology? If so, I apologize.
The first sentence doesn’t differentiate the Catholic church from hundreds of others, and your anecdotal supposition about the long life of your particular sect can be applied to other religions.
Again I ask: What hard evidence convinced you to become a Catholic?
edited to add: Were your parents of that particular faith, and when did you start going?
I didn’t say there was proof. I said that there is evidence.
Then what is science? If science only deals with the physical world, then the concept of a spiritual deity is outside its scope. Being outside the scope of science is very different from science saying “Nope!”
Jesus didn’t institute a book (or two). He instituted a Church. We follow Jesus and his Church, not a book (or two).
You have just thoroughly discredited Protestantism. Thank you.
You have just attributed quotes to me that I never said, multiple times. I do NOT thank you.
OK, so why am I specifically Catholic. Gotcha.
First let me quibble with your claim that “your anecdotal supposition about the long life of your particular sect can be applied to other religions.” Please refute my supposition. Can you name anything, religious or otherwise, to match the institutional integrity of the Catholic Church? I don’t believe you can.
But no I was raised in mostly non-denominational and Baptist churches. We went to church every week growing up.
I became Catholic about 4 1/2 years ago. I came to realize that if the central claims of Christianity are true, then Protestantism and its claims on the Bible make no logical sense. The Reformation of the 16th century was utterly illogical and absurd. Me becoming Catholic was more of a rejection of Protestantism at first, because I saw how full of holes it was. I was raised to be very anti-Catholic, so even getting to the point of thinking that Catholics don’t worship idols was a big step for me. But now I’ve definitely come around to being fully accepting of Catholicism.
Ahh, sorry, it was elbows, and it won’t let me edit. I’m not exactly the most computer-savvy person, so quoting in this format is a bit of a challenge.
It would depend on the nature of the alleged miracle. Solids liquefying and re-solidifying is nothing miraculous, so that wouldn’t do. On the other hand, if it were scientifically proven that a piece of rock could produce and exude haemoglobin, this would basically mean that all I’ve ever learned of physics, chemistry and biology were utterly wrong from the start, so I guess God would rank pretty far down on my list of worries…
I can’t follow the link at the moment, but I’m not talking about the age of the religion. I’m talking about institutional integrity.
Define “institutional integrity” in a way that isn’t just taking certain traits of your sect and calling it that.
Institutional integrity? The Catholic Church? Seriously? Ever read a newspaper? I’m in Pennsylvania, where apparently you can’t swing a dead cat without hitting someone who’s been raped by a priest.
Hinduism
Zorastrianism
Judaism
Jainism
Confucionism
Buddhism
Taoism
Shintoism