logo Sign In

Religion — Page 118

Author
Time
 (Edited)

RicOlie_2 said:

I’m in love with the Catholic faith and I think it’s important, which is why I want to share, though it might come across as aggressive.

I don’t really understand the “love for the Catholic faith” as opposed to just “the Christian faith”. To my mind, the whole point is to love God and love your neighbor, since the whole law and prophets hang on those two commandments (Matthew 22). Doctrinal disagreements, in my opinion, are fairly minor in the grand scheme. To me, the different denominations are essentially separate parts of the Body of Christ. None is less important even if one does not understand the use of another (1 Corinthians 12).

Frankly I don’t think God cares if you’re Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, Church of Christ, Assembly of God or Seventh-Day Adventist. I happen to be Baptist, and there are certain doctrinal beliefs and activities (or lack thereof) that come along with that, but it doesn’t make my faith less meaningful or my life less useful to Him.

Also, I’m not really overly concerned with the “official” stance of the (Catholic) Church to a certain degree. If the “official” view was that God actually literally created everything, from the space-time continuum itself to human life on this planet, in 6 days—that is, only 144 hours—when to begin with a 24-hour day would have no meaning before our planet existed, then I don’t agree with that. I agree that He could if He wanted to, but I don’t believe that He did. I believe that, among God’s many other amazing qualities, He is also the Great Scientist, and I enjoy learning about what our science has revealed that speaks to the wonder of His handiwork.

God is still teaching me about Himself, and I’m learning more about myself and about His creation. He’s just at a different place with me than He is with someone else.

TV’s Frink said:

chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.

Author
Time

chyron8472 said:

RicOlie_2 said:

I’m in love with the Catholic faith and I think it’s important, which is why I want to share, though it might come across as aggressive.

I don’t really understand the “love for the Catholic faith” as opposed to just “the Christian faith”. To my mind, the whole point is to love God and love your neighbor, since the whole law and prophets hang on those two commandments. Doctrinal disagreements, in my opinion, are fairly minor in the grand scheme. To me, the different denominations are essentially separate parts of the Body of Christ. None is less important even if one does not understand the use of another (1 Corinthians 12).

Frankly I don’t think God cares if you’re Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, Church of Christ, Assembly of God or Seventh-Day Adventist. I happen to be Baptist, and there are certain doctrinal beliefs and activities (or lack thereof) that come along with that, but it doesn’t make my faith less meaningful or my life less useful to Him.

Also, I’m not really overly concerned with the “official” stance of the (Catholic) Church to a certain degree. If the “official” view was that God actually literally created everything, from the space-time continuum itself to human life on this planet, in 6 days—that is, only 144 hours—when to begin with a 24-hour day would have no meaning before our planet existed, then I don’t agree with that. I agree that he could if He wanted to, but I don’t believe that He did. And I enjoy learning about what our science has revealed that speaks to the wonder of His handiwork.

God is still teaching me about Himself, and I’m learning more about myself and about His creation. He’s just at a different place with me than He is with someone else.

It’s clear from the Bible that doctrine was important to the early Church. Take the dispute about circumcision, for instance. Jesus himself spoke strongly about various doctrinal issues that many Protestants disagree with (e.g. his condemnation of divorce, his statement that “unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life within you”). He also prayed “that they may be one as we are one,” so clearly unity was important to Jesus. And to extend that line of thought, because Jesus is God, and Jesus cares about the unity of Christians, God does in fact care about what we believe because if we all believe different things, we aren’t unified.

Not to mention that most Protestant denominations just don’t have that much to offer in comparison to the Catholic Church. They don’t have the Eucharist (or most of the other sacraments), the tradition, the depth of theology, the saints, or any number of the things that set the Church apart and make it so incredibly rich. Different denominations have incompatible beliefs regarding salvation. The fact is that we can’t all be right, and if we boil down the Christian faith to what we all have in common, we’re not left with a whole lot of substance.

As a side note, the Church has no official stance on how quickly the earth was created. I would say most Catholics accept the scientific data in this regard.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

RicOlie_2 said:

Not to mention that most Protestant denominations just don’t have that much to offer in comparison to the Catholic Church. They don’t have the Eucharist (or most of the other sacraments), the tradition, the depth of theology, the saints, or any number of the things that set the Church apart and make it so incredibly rich.

I’m not sure which denominations (if any) don’t have Communion, but mine certainly does. Whether it is bread and wine or unleavened cracker and grape juice, or if it uses intinction (dipping the bread into the wine) or not, or having individual breads/crackers and cups, is irrelevant. It’s the symbol that is important.

And no, I don’t turn to or reference the saints in prayer. I pray to my Father, my Savior, and the Spirit. Jesus intercedes for me, and the Spirit empowers me. I don’t need additional intercessors. And, for another thing, God is omniscient; the saints are not, so I’m not sure how that works given the number of people here who simultaneously pray constantly.

Different denominations have incompatible beliefs regarding salvation. The fact is that we can’t all be right

No, we can’t.

if we boil down the Christian faith to what we all have in common, we’re not left with a whole lot of substance.

What we’re left with is: We are imperfect, and sinful, and God is absolutely pure and holy. But God loves you. He loves you so much that He sacrificed His own child—His own self, on a Roman cross, as the penalty to redeem you from your our own sin and selfishness. We don’t deserve it, but it is given to us freely and all we need to do is accept His sacrifice and His forgiveness. Then the Spirit gives us power; and the Scripture, given power, is made clear as the Spirit reveals it to us. By that power, we are called to become more like Him, and to share the good news of His sacrifice to the world.

And that is really what is important.

TV’s Frink said:

chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.

Author
Time

Stepping in to mention that the Protestant church I grew up in (Episcopalian), we absolutely had the Eucharist every service. Hell, the only differences I ever noticed between my church and my uncle’s Catholic church was the extra bit at the end of the Lord’s Prayer, deemphasis of confession, and the ability of priests to marry and have children. Everything else seemed pretty much identical.

Author
Time

chyron8472 said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Not to mention that most Protestant denominations just don’t have that much to offer in comparison to the Catholic Church. They don’t have the Eucharist (or most of the other sacraments), the tradition, the depth of theology, the saints, or any number of the things that set the Church apart and make it so incredibly rich.

I’m not sure which denominations (if any) don’t have Communion, but mine certainly does. Whether it is bread and wine or unleavened cracker and grape juice, or if it uses intinction (dipping the bread into the wine) or not, or having individual breads/crackers and cups, is irrelevant. It’s the symbol that is important.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think Ric’s point is that, to Catholics, it’s more than a “symbol.”

.

Author
Time

chyron8472 said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Not to mention that most Protestant denominations just don’t have that much to offer in comparison to the Catholic Church. They don’t have the Eucharist (or most of the other sacraments), the tradition, the depth of theology, the saints, or any number of the things that set the Church apart and make it so incredibly rich.

I’m not sure which denominations (if any) don’t have Communion, but mine certainly does. Whether it is bread and wine or unleavened cracker and grape juice, or if it uses intinction (dipping the bread into the wine) or not, or having individual breads/crackers and cups, is irrelevant. It’s the symbol that is important.

What I was referring to is the Catholic belief in transubstantiation. It’s not just a symbol. It is the physical presence of Christ himself, as testified to in Scripture (John 6, the Last Supper narratives) and the Fathers of the Church (including St. Ignatius of Antioch and Justin Martyr in the early-mid 1st century). Yet only the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have retained this belief.

And no, I don’t turn to or reference the saints in prayer. I pray to my Father, my Savior, and the Spirit. Jesus intercedes for me, and the Spirit empowers me. I don’t need additional intercessors. And, for another thing, God is omniscient; the saints are not, so I’m not sure how that works given the number of people here who simultaneously pray constantly.

I was referring more to the example and the writings of the saints than their intercession, to be clear. The saints may not be omniscient, but they are also in heaven, which means that they are not necessarily bound by time in the same way we are on earth.

if we boil down the Christian faith to what we all have in common, we’re not left with a whole lot of substance.

What we’re left with is: We are imperfect, and sinful, and God is absolutely pure and holy. But God loves you. He loves you so much that He sacrificed His own child—His own self, on a Roman cross, as the penalty to redeem you from your our own sin and selfishness. We don’t deserve it, but it is given to us freely and all we need to do is accept His sacrifice and His forgiveness. Then the Spirit gives us power; and the Scripture, given power, is made clear as the Spirit reveals it to us. By that power, we are called to become more like Him, and to share the good news of His sacrifice to the world.

And that is really what is important.

If only we had that much in common. Jehovah’s Witnesses, for instance, do not believe that Jesus was truly God’s son. Armstrongists don’t believe in a divine Holy Spirit. Various Christians throughout history have rejected these beliefs as well. Scripture varies between Christians. Some early Christians rejected much of the New Testament as we know it. Different Orthodox Churches also have variations in their New Testament. The Scriptures do not seem to be made clear across denominations, as there are so many interpretations of it.

I agree with you that what you listed as core Christian doctrine is more important than, say, whether or not contraception is moral, or whether or not Jesus had two wills and two natures, or whether bishops are distinct from priests in more ways than just jurdically. I don’t think you can say that it’s the only thing that’s important though. Jesus gave many specific instructions and teachings, as did the apostles, that not all Christians accept today. Why would he bother to teach these things if they were simply not important?

Author
Time

The idea that any church has more to offer seems weird to me. What does that have to do with truth? Who cares if a religion offers more? Shouldn’t all you care about is whether there’s sufficient evidence to justify a belief in it? At least protestants don’t offer nearly two millennia of failure to help the poor while their religious leader lives in a solid gold palace. Not that protestants don’t have their share of con-artists taking money for personal gain, but it’s on a smaller scale.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

ChainsawAsh said:

Stepping in to mention that the Protestant church I grew up in (Episcopalian), we absolutely had the Eucharist every service. Hell, the only differences I ever noticed between my church and my uncle’s Catholic church was the extra bit at the end of the Lord’s Prayer, deemphasis of confession, and the ability of priests to marry and have children. Everything else seemed pretty much identical.

I can certainly accept that some denominations are closer to Catholicism than others. Arguably though, Episcopalianism/Anglicanism isn’t even Protestant, but more akin to Orthodoxy, which separated from Catholicism over primarily political issues, with doctrinal differences becoming more prominent later on.

Author
Time

RicOlie_2 said:
his statement that “unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life within you”

Dumb question from a non-christian: I realize that most Christians do not literally eat his flesh and blood (as I do not believe Jesus was trying to condone cannibalism, especially not of himself), and that really it refers to a sacred wine and I think bread (If I recall, though I might not have the specifics right.) However, why were those two food items chosen? Is there a Bible passage where he explains them to be allegories for his flesh and blood? If not, why those items (Though I maybe get the wine, as it might also be an extension of the whole, “turning water into wine,” thing.)

Author
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

The idea that any church has more to offer seems weird to me. What does that have to do with truth? Who cares if a religion offers more? Shouldn’t all you care about is whether there’s sufficient evidence to justify a belief in it? At least protestants don’t offer nearly two millennia of failure to help the poor while their religious leader lives in a solid gold palace. Not that protestants don’t have their share of con-artists taking money for personal gain, but it’s on a smaller scale.

What evidence are you referring to? Failure of individuals to live up to a religion’s doctrine doesn’t constitute evidence against that religion, unless that itself runs contrary to the tenets of said religion.

It’s also noteworthy that those whom the Church upholds as examples to follow did in fact help the poor. Sts. Martin of Tours, Francis of Assisi, Mother Teresa of Calcutta, and Nicholas all come to mind. Note that there are very few popes from the Middle Ages and Renaissance that the Church honours as saints. It isn’t as if we think they were all good popes. Many were corrupt and immoral, and some were rebuked by saints such as Catherine of Siena or Bernard of Clairvaux.

Author
Time

flametitan said:

RicOlie_2 said:
his statement that “unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life within you”

Dumb question from a non-christian: I realize that most Christians do not literally eat his flesh and blood (as I do not believe Jesus was trying to condone cannibalism, especially not of himself), and that really it refers to a sacred wine and I think bread (If I recall, though I might not have the specifics right.) However, why were those two food items chosen? Is there a Bible passage where he explains them to be allegories for his flesh and blood? If not, why those items (Though I maybe get the wine, as it might also be an extension of the whole, “turning water into wine,” thing.)

It’s a great question actually, and it has to do mainly with Jewish traditions. For one, “Eucharist” means “thanksgiving” and there is a connection with thanksgiving offerings (Todah) of the Old Testament, which consisted of bread, wine, and I believe meat. There is also the connection with the Passover (which is when the gospels record Jesus’ celebrated the first Eucharist/last supper), where unleavened bread, wine, and roast lamb were eaten. The question of course arises, why didn’t he use lamb instead of bread? I can’t give a definitive answer there, but I can give some hypotheses (see also this article and its comment section): unlike lamb, wine and bread do not exist in nature and are produced by humans using products of nature, perhaps symbolizing a cooperation between God and man; the Eucharist replaced “bloody” sacrifices (the Eucharist is a sacrifice that re-presents (makes present again) Jesus’ crucifixion, which was the ultimate “bloody” sacrifice), and thus meat wouldn’t be suitable because it would require the shedding of blood; and bread is more universal than meat, and especially compared to lamb. Jesus also speaks of himself as the “bread of life” come down from heaven in his discourse of John 6. There, he connects this notion with the Eucharist: “whoever does not eat [the Greek word used is a more graphic word for eating, like gnawing or chewing[ my flesh and drink my blood has no life within him.”

Author
Time

RicOlie_2 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

The idea that any church has more to offer seems weird to me. What does that have to do with truth? Who cares if a religion offers more? Shouldn’t all you care about is whether there’s sufficient evidence to justify a belief in it? At least protestants don’t offer nearly two millennia of failure to help the poor while their religious leader lives in a solid gold palace. Not that protestants don’t have their share of con-artists taking money for personal gain, but it’s on a smaller scale.

What evidence are you referring to? Failure of individuals to live up to a religion’s doctrine doesn’t constitute evidence against that religion, unless that itself runs contrary to the tenets of said religion.

It’s also noteworthy that those whom the Church upholds as examples to follow did in fact help the poor. Sts. Martin of Tours, Francis of Assisi, Mother Teresa of Calcutta, and Nicholas all come to mind. Note that there are very few popes from the Middle Ages and Renaissance that the Church honours as saints. It isn’t as if we think they were all good popes. Many were corrupt and immoral, and some were rebuked by saints such as Catherine of Siena or Bernard of Clairvaux.

There’s no concrete evidence for the existence of God or Jesus Christ. I know it’s based on faith, but there’s also clear evidence of Church corruption on a grand scale that would point towards it not being a particularly holy institution.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

RicOlie_2 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

The idea that any church has more to offer seems weird to me. What does that have to do with truth? Who cares if a religion offers more? Shouldn’t all you care about is whether there’s sufficient evidence to justify a belief in it? At least protestants don’t offer nearly two millennia of failure to help the poor while their religious leader lives in a solid gold palace. Not that protestants don’t have their share of con-artists taking money for personal gain, but it’s on a smaller scale.

What evidence are you referring to? Failure of individuals to live up to a religion’s doctrine doesn’t constitute evidence against that religion, unless that itself runs contrary to the tenets of said religion.

It’s also noteworthy that those whom the Church upholds as examples to follow did in fact help the poor. Sts. Martin of Tours, Francis of Assisi, Mother Teresa of Calcutta, and Nicholas all come to mind. Note that there are very few popes from the Middle Ages and Renaissance that the Church honours as saints. It isn’t as if we think they were all good popes. Many were corrupt and immoral, and some were rebuked by saints such as Catherine of Siena or Bernard of Clairvaux.

There’s no concrete evidence for the existence of God or Jesus Christ. I know it’s based on faith, but there’s also clear evidence of Church corruption on a grand scale that would point towards it not being a particularly holy institution.

No concrete evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ? What about the gospels, Josephus, Tacitus, etc.? Jesus’ existence is just as well attested as many other historical figures of the time. There are also scientifically inexplicable miracles, still visible in the Shroud of Turin, the Tilma of Juan Diego, the Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano… The universe has no explicable origin without God. Matter doesn’t just spontaneously generate itself. Not to mention the unliklihood of life simply coming to be through a chemical reaction of some kind. The fact that you believe these things occurred is itself an example of faith without concrete evidence.

Church corruption was no greater than any other organization in history. It should have been far less, of course. However, if you were to look only at those Catholics who have actually tried to live out their faith, I suspect you will see very little corruption. The Church doesn’t magically make people holy. Virtue requires personal effort, whether or not you’re Catholic. Finally, the Church has often been likened to a hospital. You expect to find sick people in a hospital, but that doesn’t discredit the hospital.

Author
Time

RicOlie_2 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

RicOlie_2 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

The idea that any church has more to offer seems weird to me. What does that have to do with truth? Who cares if a religion offers more? Shouldn’t all you care about is whether there’s sufficient evidence to justify a belief in it? At least protestants don’t offer nearly two millennia of failure to help the poor while their religious leader lives in a solid gold palace. Not that protestants don’t have their share of con-artists taking money for personal gain, but it’s on a smaller scale.

What evidence are you referring to? Failure of individuals to live up to a religion’s doctrine doesn’t constitute evidence against that religion, unless that itself runs contrary to the tenets of said religion.

It’s also noteworthy that those whom the Church upholds as examples to follow did in fact help the poor. Sts. Martin of Tours, Francis of Assisi, Mother Teresa of Calcutta, and Nicholas all come to mind. Note that there are very few popes from the Middle Ages and Renaissance that the Church honours as saints. It isn’t as if we think they were all good popes. Many were corrupt and immoral, and some were rebuked by saints such as Catherine of Siena or Bernard of Clairvaux.

There’s no concrete evidence for the existence of God or Jesus Christ. I know it’s based on faith, but there’s also clear evidence of Church corruption on a grand scale that would point towards it not being a particularly holy institution.

No concrete evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ? What about the gospels, Josephus, Tacitus, etc.? Jesus’ existence is just as well attested as many other historical figures of the time.

Not really. The gospels were written much later than he was supposed to have lived. Definitely long enough later that there’s no reason to believe they are quoting him verbatim. And there’s definitely no historical documentation that would point towards those documents being credible. I’m not sure what historical figures you’re talking about so I can’t attest to that.

There are also scientifically inexplicable miracles, still visible in the Shroud of Turin, the Tilma of Juan Diego

There are images that look like certain things appearing in everything. I just googled around a found examples of chicken nuggets shaped like Abe Lincoln. What about the “face on Mars”?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cydonia_(region_of_Mars)

Doesn’t anyone believe in coincidence anymore? If we’re taking all of these as literal divine interventions just because they look like something or because someone claimed it happened, then you have to accept all other similar claims made by other religious people or even nonreligious people or you’d be intellectually dishonest. My brother claims to have seen a ghost in our childhood apartment. Was that apartment haunted? What makes him less credible than eye-witnesses to other such apparitions?

the Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano…

How could you possibly say that a priest 1300 years ago claiming to have found flesh in his eucharist is a scientifically inexplicable miracle? I guess if we had any reason to believe that it actually happened, it’d be a scientifically inexplicable miracle. But there are people every day that claim to have meetings with aliens, or Elvis. Do you believe them? I have a theory about the miracle of Lanciano: the guy lied. Or at best was totally mistaken.

The universe has no explicable origin without God. Matter doesn’t just spontaneously generate itself. Not to mention the unliklihood of life simply coming to be through a chemical reaction of some kind. The fact that you believe these things occurred is itself an example of faith without concrete evidence.

Where’d God come from? Why doesn’t he need an origin, but the universe does? And I don’t “believe” in anything. That’s something you’ve attributed to me. I don’t know how the universe came into being. Haven’t claimed to, don’t plan on it. Not to mention, even if I granted that a god was a necessity, that grants no credibility to any particular religion.

Church corruption was no greater than any other organization in history. It should have been far less, of course. However, if you were to look only at those Catholics who have actually tried to live out their faith, I suspect you will see very little corruption.

I have higher expectations for God’s representatives on earth and there are plenty of irreligious people that have been just as great as Catholics that have tried to live out their faith. And it’s definitely not true that it’s no more corrupt than any other organization in history. What, is the Women’s Christian Temperance Union as corrupt? What about SETI? Or the Free Masons? How are you gauging the level of corruption?

The Person in Question

Author
Time

RicOlie_2 said:

There are also scientifically inexplicable miracles, still visible in the Shroud of Turin,

I thought the Shroud of Turin was proven to be not old enough, via carbon dating?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Ric, I might be interested in discussing what doctrine I hold to vs. what you, or Warb, or _ender or whoemever else holds to. But I am not interested in having to continually defend why Protestant belief is not inferior to Catholicism. Whether whichever position is more sound might be up for debate, but that still doesn’t invite disdain or condescension.

TV’s Frink said:

chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.

Author
Time

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

There are also scientifically inexplicable miracles, still visible in the Shroud of Turin,

I thought the Shroud of Turin was proven to be not old enough, via carbon dating?

Is carbon dating between different faiths allowed?

Author
Time

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

There are also scientifically inexplicable miracles, still visible in the Shroud of Turin,

I thought the Shroud of Turin was proven to be not old enough, via carbon dating?

Is carbon dating between different faiths allowed?

That’s potassium-argon dating.

Author
Time

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

There are also scientifically inexplicable miracles, still visible in the Shroud of Turin,

I thought the Shroud of Turin was proven to be not old enough, via carbon dating?

Yep.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

I doubt the historical Jesus looked like popular European depictions of him, anyway.

Author
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

RicOlie_2 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

RicOlie_2 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

The idea that any church has more to offer seems weird to me. What does that have to do with truth? Who cares if a religion offers more? Shouldn’t all you care about is whether there’s sufficient evidence to justify a belief in it? At least protestants don’t offer nearly two millennia of failure to help the poor while their religious leader lives in a solid gold palace. Not that protestants don’t have their share of con-artists taking money for personal gain, but it’s on a smaller scale.

What evidence are you referring to? Failure of individuals to live up to a religion’s doctrine doesn’t constitute evidence against that religion, unless that itself runs contrary to the tenets of said religion.

It’s also noteworthy that those whom the Church upholds as examples to follow did in fact help the poor. Sts. Martin of Tours, Francis of Assisi, Mother Teresa of Calcutta, and Nicholas all come to mind. Note that there are very few popes from the Middle Ages and Renaissance that the Church honours as saints. It isn’t as if we think they were all good popes. Many were corrupt and immoral, and some were rebuked by saints such as Catherine of Siena or Bernard of Clairvaux.

There’s no concrete evidence for the existence of God or Jesus Christ. I know it’s based on faith, but there’s also clear evidence of Church corruption on a grand scale that would point towards it not being a particularly holy institution.

No concrete evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ? What about the gospels, Josephus, Tacitus, etc.? Jesus’ existence is just as well attested as many other historical figures of the time.

Not really. The gospels were written much later than he was supposed to have lived. Definitely long enough later that there’s no reason to believe they are quoting him verbatim. And there’s definitely no historical documentation that would point towards those documents being credible. I’m not sure what historical figures you’re talking about so I can’t attest to that.

I’m referring to most historical figures who weren’t kings or something similar. I can’t think of a lot of good examples because there simply aren’t many non-Biblical people from the first century or so who are well known. But Pontius Pilate is only known, aside from one partial inscription, from the gospels (c. 70-100), Josephus (c. 75-95), and Philo (died c. 50). This isn’t much different from Jesus, who is attested in the Epistles of Paul (c. 50-60), the gospels (c. 70-100), Josephus (c. 93), and Tacitus (c. 115). There is a fringe theory that Jesus did not exist, but it seems to stem more from an implicit desire to disprove Christianity than from genuinely wanting to reconstruct history.

There are also scientifically inexplicable miracles, still visible in the Shroud of Turin, the Tilma of Juan Diego

There are images that look like certain things appearing in everything. I just googled around a found examples of chicken nuggets shaped like Abe Lincoln. What about the “face on Mars”?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cydonia_(region_of_Mars)

Doesn’t anyone believe in coincidence anymore? If we’re taking all of these as literal divine interventions just because they look like something or because someone claimed it happened, then you have to accept all other similar claims made by other religious people or even nonreligious people or you’d be intellectually dishonest. My brother claims to have seen a ghost in our childhood apartment. Was that apartment haunted? What makes him less credible than eye-witnesses to other such apparitions?

Images looking like certain things certainly doesn’t apply to the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe on the Tilma of Juan Diego, unless you’re referring to details in the eyes, etc. As for the Shroud of Turin, this certainly doesn’t hold true (see here for a detailed forensic examination of the shroud). The carbon dating to the 14th century is more convincing. I had thought that had been explained away, but I guess the argument that thousands of people fingering the shroud contaminated it may not hold water after all.

I suspect most so-called visions and apparitions are fake (which is why the Church doesn’t typically approve them), but I am willing to accept that some ghost sightings could potentially have a supernatural nature. I also think it’s possible to imagine things or to hallucinate.

the Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano…

How could you possibly say that a priest 1300 years ago claiming to have found flesh in his eucharist is a scientifically inexplicable miracle? I guess if we had any reason to believe that it actually happened, it’d be a scientifically inexplicable miracle. But there are people every day that claim to have meetings with aliens, or Elvis. Do you believe them? I have a theory about the miracle of Lanciano: the guy lied. Or at best was totally mistaken.

It was scientifically analyzed by Dr. Odoardo Linoli and found to have not decayed despite not containing preservatives or being in a hermeneutically sealed container, and, like in other Eucharistic miracles, the blood type is AB, among other things. Now, the text of the study is unfortunately not freely available, so I can’t personally attest to its validity. But I certainly can’t dismiss it off-hand.

The universe has no explicable origin without God. Matter doesn’t just spontaneously generate itself. Not to mention the unliklihood of life simply coming to be through a chemical reaction of some kind. The fact that you believe these things occurred is itself an example of faith without concrete evidence.

Where’d God come from? Why doesn’t he need an origin, but the universe does? And I don’t “believe” in anything. That’s something you’ve attributed to me. I don’t know how the universe came into being. Haven’t claimed to, don’t plan on it. Not to mention, even if I granted that a god was a necessity, that grants no credibility to any particular religion.

God doesn’t need an origin because he is being itself, and is immaterial. Sorry for putting words in your mouth, I made a presumption which I thought was fair, but clearly wasn’t.

Church corruption was no greater than any other organization in history. It should have been far less, of course. However, if you were to look only at those Catholics who have actually tried to live out their faith, I suspect you will see very little corruption.

I have higher expectations for God’s representatives on earth and there are plenty of irreligious people that have been just as great as Catholics that have tried to live out their faith. And it’s definitely not true that it’s no more corrupt than any other organization in history. What, is the Women’s Christian Temperance Union as corrupt? What about SETI? Or the Free Masons? How are you gauging the level of corruption?

Are any of these plentiful irreligious people as great as the saints? While it may well be my own fault that I can’t think of any, none come to mind. I suppose I wasn’t very clear when talking about corruption, so my claim isn’t very meaningful. When I think of corruption, I’m thinking in more religious terms, where it can refer to any sort of immorality. In fact, what I should have said is “individual Catholics are no more likely to be living immoral lives than anyone else, and in fact those who actually attempt to live out their faith are far less likely to be doing so,” or “corruption in the Catholic Church is not disproportionate to the amount of wealth and prestige it has enjoyed.”

The truth of the matter is that there is no other comparable institution on earth. You mention the Women’s Christian Temperance Union, but that was never a potential means of power as becoming a clergyman in the Catholic Church once was. The same applies to Freemasonry. SETI does not have any bearing on one’s personal life. Any number of other organizations have either been relatively short-lived, do not require any moral commitments from their members, do not offer opportunities for power and wealth (this comes with size and prestige).

Author
Time

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

There are also scientifically inexplicable miracles, still visible in the Shroud of Turin,

I thought the Shroud of Turin was proven to be not old enough, via carbon dating?

See my reply to mfm.