You know, I've often wondered the same thing since I'm in the same situation.  My mom had me chirstened a catholic with no intention of actually taking me to church.  She said she did it "just in case"....in case of apocolypse, I guess.

As far as my religion practicing family tells me, if you're christened then you're always "catholic", whether or not you practice.  Doesn't make alot of sense to me, but as far religion goes, that wouldn't be the first thing.

My best guess for reversing the x-tian hex would be to undertake the blasphemy challenge.  In order to be excommunicated, you would have to be guilty of heresy.  Film yourself commiting the ultimate sin, tape it and mail it to the vatican.  Sit back and watch the red tape take care of itself.

 

Or, you could change your name to Galileo and hope for some kind of clerical error.

Wow, this is incredibly naive. One is excommunicated by heresy latae sententiae. The same is true of schism and apostasy. In all these cases, nothing needs to be said by the Church as they automatically impose the penalty.

Sadly, this is common. However, it is very reprehensible on the part of your mother. Grace is not the same as magic. I am glad, however, that she had a modicum of sense in seeing that she could at least give you initial sanctifying grace in baptism.

Baptism is said to impart a sacramental 'character.' This gives the soul the ability to act as a child of God, recieving grace in the sacraments and participating as a member of the body of Christ. In a certain sense, you are always a Catholic because you are always baptised. However, every sin (including unbelief) cuts one off from the mystical body of Christ, and excommunication cuts one off from both the mystical and earthly body.

Seems unfair to call it a hex. However, the Blasphemy Challenge does not remove anything in the way of sacramental characters.

I doubt anyone would care that you sent them this sort of thing; they get bunches every day undoubtedly.

However, I would likewise point out that the excommunication in this case is latae sententiae, or automatic. You don't have to do anything. You are automatically excommunicated also not as a heretic, but as an apostate. They are different things. A heretic is one who essentially denies only part of the Catholic faith while keeping the rest. An apostate abandons the Catholic faith. I would assume you are the latter.

My prayers and my heart goes out to you. I entrust you to Our Lady, Queen of All Hearts that she might lead you back into her Son's Church.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

PS - I likewise recommend talking to a priest about these concerns, as I can pretty much ensure that he can answer your questions sufficently. I also ensure that you are not the first person to have difficulties with the faith; answers exist, you just need to ask the questions to the right people. In fact, take the next step and read the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" which explains a great deal of the reasons for our beliefs.  

 

Yeah, I actually knew that at the time (although, I thought it was 1991.  I never was good with dates.)  I know, it was a poor attempt at humour.

Good reason to avoid hell and be baptised, then.

Yours In Christ,

StMichael

pwned 

Actually vampires/ the boogeyman are neither provable nor disprovable. Certainly can't prove they exist, and I know you can't prove they don't. And you can accept them on faith because they were revealed through childrens stories/horror novels/books/etc. Faith is just another word for wishful thinking.

You would, and what is more you have to, unless you don't mind beeing listed as a Catholic even tough you aren't one.

The process isn't as easy as St. Micheal would have you believe. You have to write a formal letter of apostasy, or you'll still be listed as a member of the church.

How this is handled from there pretty much depends on your local priests. Where I'm from they have a nasty habit of evading and delaying the requests for as long as they can, you see apostasy doesn't look good in the statistics.

Yeah, but the point is you're not excommuncated until you give a formal letter of apostasy, and the best part is that even then they will not always excommunicate you. 

 

That may be the law, but it has nothing to do with how it looks in practice. You could engage in blasphemy, heresy and whatnot, and chances are you will not be excommuncated.

There are people having trouble beeing excommunicated even after they file a letter of apostasy.

But I do take back what I said about statistics

Excommunication latae sententiae is automatic upon fulfilling the excommunicatable offence. There is no official decree needed upon the already promulgated Code of Canon Law. All that needs to be done is that one leaves the Church and they really and truly leave the Church, with a concurrent sentence of excommunication latae sententiae.

I quote the Code so that there is ABSOLUTELY no ambiguity in this:

Can. 1314 Generally, a penalty is ferendae sententiae, so that it does not bind the guilty party until after it has been imposed; if the law or precept expressly establishes it, however, a penalty is latae sententiae, so that it is incurred ipso facto when the delict is committed.

The only conditions in which this would not apply is:

Can. 1323 The following are not subject to a penalty when they have violated a law or precept:

1/ a person who has not yet completed the sixteenth year of age;

2/ a person who without negligence was ignorant that he or she violated a law or precept; inadvertence and error are equivalent to ignorance;

3/ a person who acted due to physical force or a chance occurrence which the person could not foresee or, if foreseen, avoid;

4/ a person who acted coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience unless the act is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls;

5/ a person who acted with due moderation against an unjust aggressor for the sake of legitimate self defense or defense of another;

6/ a person who lacked the use of reason, without prejudice to the prescripts of cann. ⇒ 1324, §1, n. 2 and ⇒ 1325;

7/ a person who without negligence thought that one of the circumstances mentioned in nn. 4 or 5 was present.

 

Show me.

Show me the Tooth Fairy. 'She' is clearly contrary to reason. 'She' is openly acknowledged as a fiction invented very recently (in the past hundred years alone). 'She,' according to her definition, is a natural being which possesses magical powers who flies into children's bedrooms and, taking their teeth which have fallen out, replaces the tooth with a gift. A clear test exists to determine her existence which can relatively easily be carried out: to place a fallen out tooth under a pillow and observe the results. Likewise, people openly admit acting as the 'tooth fairy.'

God does not fall into this category as He, while not being testable according to the same empirical standard (because He is not a body in the same way that a tooth fairy is). Rather, the existence of God is proven only because we can know that a first cause exists which is the cause of the observable universe and all things within it. We do not begin with a concept of what God is because we do not have an intuitive knowledge of what He is. The only way in which we can discover His existence is because we are effects His action in creating the universe.

 

Except that they are not able to be proven in the way that God is. Further, I do not have to use faith to believe in God or in any other god, but only my natural reason to discover that He exists. The truth of belief is another category of truth and 'that God exists' is a proposition which does not fall into it, except incidentally.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

 

PS - It doesn't matter anyway. You ought to return to the Church.

It is true that the Church cannot know whether you are in a state of apostasy, heresy, or whatnot. Just the same, you remain excommunicated and the Church imposes the penalty regardless. It requires nobody to say it or even know about it for the penality to be imposed.

 

You will not be barred from the sacraments unless you tell the priests. But it should not make any difference as you are not soliciting them anyway (you should as they are means of God's grace).

If you give them a declaration, you basically just tell the priest, "I am excommunicated," and it just makes it public knowledge so that the priest can impose the penality in the sacraments.

It is automatic in the eyes of the Church. I would probably ignore a request for excommunication if you sent one to me because it is silly and nonsensical as well as unnecessary. Further, the priest probably has your eternal welfare in mind and is trying to get you to change your mind. There is nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't change the fact that you were already excommunicated in the first place.

Well, first, the Church has no jurisidiction over people who are not Catholic (unbelievers). Only if someone is a Catholic can they can excommunicate them. Second, the law applies to the Church's power of the keys. The law applies the penalty in such a way that it applies according to the Church's power regardless of the individual declaration or knowledge of the excommunicable offense. The Church formally declares that an latae sententiae excommunication has been incurred, not that a sentence has been imposed (as in the case of those silly ladies who pretended to ordain each other recently; they incurred a latae sententiae excommunication due to simulating the actions of a cleric and they were merely declared to be in a state of excommunication).

The practical way in which this would be relevant would be the sacrament of confession. If you confessed a particular offense, such as having procured an abortion, which is punished by a latae sententiae excommunication, the priest needs to have recourse to a higher authority in order to remit the excommunication. Some of these offenses are reserved to the bishop of the penitent, or to the Pope for forgiveness (such as desecration of the Blessed Sacrament) and require him to remit the excommunication. Any priest or bishop can remit any offense, however, in the danger of death of the penitent (being granted extraordinary jurisdiction in this case). 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

 Excommunication, strictly speaking, means "out of communion" or "outside of communication [with]." Excommunication is where the Church places somebody outside of communion with the Body of Christ. It chiefly involves a denial of the sacraments (other than Penance, of course, by which you are readmitted to communion). The old ritual of excommunication says, "We exclude him from the bosom of our Holy Mother the Church, and we judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate, so long as he will not burst the fetters of the demon, do penance and satisfy the Church." The Church, by the power of the keys, judges somebody guilty of a crime and cuts them off from communion with Christ's body spiritually and physically. The Church used to forbid association with the excommunicated (in fact, this still holds true, with somewhat different circumstances); the spiritual effect of excommunication is the lack of grace by the sacraments.

 

 

Well, that is a different matter. In excommunication, the Church judges somebody guilty of hellfire and cuts them off in order that they do penance. Arguably, in almost every case where people died in a state of excommunication when they were impenitent, it would be the natural consequence that they went to hell. However, of course there are exceptions. If one repents, one does not merit hell (recall Dante's Purgatorio, where the excommunicates who repented at the last moment are admitted to heaven after a long period of purgation). Also, if one had invinicible ignorance, God judges the sin according to the intent of the sinner. However, in any case, it won't presumably go well.

That depends what you mean. If you mean, "Why would someone who does not believe what the Catholic Church teaches continue to remain in sacramental communion," (which I believe is the meaning of that statement) then there is no reason why one ought to do so, and furthermore I would say that I have a positive obligation as your Catholic priest (which I am not, btw) to prevent you from committing sacrilege by recieving them.

However, that doesn't mean that you oughtn't to recieve the Sacraments, which I believe is necessary to salvation.

It might be. But it would be misguided.

I suppose that is the best response as an atheist. However, again, you should go to church. (btw, refer to my writings earlier about how there is no paperwork in being latae sententiae excommunicated)

 

I hope that I can show people that Catholicism/Christianity is not contrary to reason. In fact, it is a dogmatic truth of the Catholic religion that it is not.

I also hope not just to answer objections from others to my own satisfaction, but to yours. If you have an objection, please, voice it and I will try to answer it in a way you find satisfactory.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

 

PS - You are all in my prayers. May the prayers of Our Lady, Seat of Wisdom, and Our Holy Father Dominic bring you to God.

First, the Catholic Church has always prayed for heretics, schismatics, apostates, sinners, and for the conversion of all pagans from the moment it was founded by Christ. Now is no exception.

Second, you have not committed any irrevocable sin and I am praying for your conversion. It was you who read the Scriptures the way you wanted to, not me. The Catholic Church and Sacred Tradition have taught that the particular passage in Matthew does not apply in the sense that you do.

Third,

First, there are no "equally provable gods." I hope to show how that is apparent in a second. Further, I do not "believe in God by reason," I know that God exists by use of my intellect (without God's special aid and revelation); it is not a matter of faith. 

The absolute beginning of motion (change, not local motion/movement of place) in the universe is necessary to posit that the universe exists now. In this, we notice that, in the world, there are things in motion (by motion, I mean a mix of potency and actuality - things are changing). Whatever is in motion is only set in motion by a mover. Nothing can move itself in the same way and in the same respect. Whatever is in motion, is thus put in motion by another. If these things in motion are in motion, they must have been put into motion by another. This could not go on ad infinitum as there would be no first mover, and hence no subsequent movers (because these movers move only insofar as they are moved by the first mover). Hence, it is necessary to arrive at an unmoved mover, put into motion by no other, which we call God.

The first cause cannot be any material cause, because a material cause contains a division and potency in, for example, its mathematical divisibility. A material body cannot be purely actual, and hence cannot be the first cause. Also, as is clear from the above, a body is only in motion if put into motion by another. But we must posit that the Prime Mover is not in motion. Hence, God is not a body. Lastly, as the most noble of beings, we can see that animate bodies are more noble than inanimate bodies. But they are noble only insofar as they are animate/are moved by souls, not as bodies. Hence, God is immaterial and not a body.

 How does this show that God is the Prime Mover? First, because Christianity/Judaism explicitly defines its God as the same as the First Cause. Second, because the term "god" points toward a cause of things and the First Cause possesses this in the highest and most proper degree. Third, every other god concieved by man does not fulfill the conditions required to be the first cause (assuredly all polytheistic, pagan gods, because they do not posit that God is One, which would be apparent from the nature of the First Cause; Protestantism and Judaism being the only clear exceptions, Islam not applicable for different reasons).

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

It will take a bit more than a couple sentences to adequately answer you, and I don't have much time, but I hope to answer your questions as much as possible (if not today, with more clarification after your response).

I don't know what your mystical experience was about nor can I claim to really know about it much. God could have been attempting to bring you to Himself again after atheism, and thus accomplished His purpose by giving you a clear answer to your questions. However, it is clear that we ought not to base our faith or our reason in our mystical experiences (whatever they may be), because mystical experiences are very untrustworthy even spiritually. And, if God wishes to impart a grace or consolation, it is accomplished by Him immediately without us having to determine the source of the experience. I do not want to discount your experience at all, but I merely want to caution about trusting them in general (as, for example, the Devil sometimes works such things to decieve). However, I will assume, as the case may be, that God wished by this special gift to draw you back to Himself, which it seems He rather has, even though I believe it to be a misguided response.

The Scriptures are not on the Index (as it doesn't exist anymore), nor ought they ever be. The Scriptures are foundational to Catholicism as well as Protestantism. The Catholic Church encourages (by enriching the reading of Scripture with indulgences, and by encouraging it in its documents) and in fact mandates (in Mass and the other liturgies) its faithful to recieve the Scripture. Saint Jerome: "Ignorance of the Scriptures are ignorance of Christ."

However, Scriptures are not an isolated event. God did not plop a book into our laps from the sky. Rather, He used human people to write a book under His inspiration and used human people to spread His message. Grace always perfect nature, never destroying what is there naturally. God uses human agents. The Revelation of God is not static, in a book or document. The Revelation of God is a message, with the message existing historically in Christ and His Apostles, in their writings, and in their successors' teachings. God did not come to write a book when He chose to take flesh of the Virgin Mary, but to found a Church. Christ never is depicted as having written any document. Rather, He gave to His Apostles the promise, "the Spirit will lead you into all truth," and "the gates of hell shall not prevail against [my Church]," and "you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church." The point is not to ignore what your conscience tells you when reading the Scriptures, but to read them in the spirit with which they were written, as well as the Spirit with a capital "S." God gave this Spirit to His Church. Even the eunuch asked St. Philip, "How can I understand unless someone explain it to me?"

Even in Protestant religion, one needs a minister of God's word and preacher of the Gospel as an intermediary between God and man. The difference is that Christ established them with His own Spirit and they act in His name on earth in all ways, "giving them the power to forgive sins," not just to teach, but to sanctify and cleanse.   

What is the history of the Church? The history of the Church was never one of conversion by the sword or by killing pagans. Christ did not come with an earthly kingdom, nor did His followers. The pagan emperor was converted by God and allowed tolerance of a religion that merely wanted its own independence of the state. For all the years of Christian existence up to then, Christians had never offered resistance to their pagan oppressors, but rather rendered unto Ceasar what was his, and to God what was His (which was often the price of their own blood for their beliefs). The tolerance did not result in a commandeering of the state for conversion of others. Pagans continued to exist for years after the conversion of the state to Christianity and only died out for lack of any interest in their religion. It is likewise never mentioned that no true Christian ever stepped forward to protest what would have been, if we accept the Protestant thesis, an imposition of false Christianity.

The Church is often likewise neglected in the ages before this. The earliest Christians, like Justin Martyr, or Irenaeus, or Ignatius of Antioch (who personally knew Saint John the Apostle and Mary) most certainly rejected most, if not all, positions held by the Protestants. They were Catholics and they held Catholic doctrine, disciple, and sacraments. They believed virtually the same things we hold today.

Saint Ignatius is one of the first sources we have to speak of the primacy of the Pope as head of the Church:

"Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father" (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).

"You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force" (ibid., 3:1).  

Likewise, no one regarded any of these sayings as odd or in conflict with Christianity. Even before this, Pope St. Clement I (in 80 AD) had said similar things about the Pope of Rome, as did Hermas (in 80).

Euseubius, the "father" of Church history, writing on the advent of Constantine's decree of tolerance, likewise witnessed to the Catholic doctrine of earlier ages and to the Catholics of his own day. If you could, I encourage you to read this wonderful document.

The Middle Ages in terms of the intellectual death of the period was due to the Roman Empire's collapse, which was inevitable due to internal forces and fractioning. The invasion of Rome by the Vandals marked the end of the Empire. However, the Church did not cause it and in fact was the agent by which learning and knowledge was preserved during this time. The independence of the Pope from the control of secular rulers by the existence of the Papal States ensured that learning could again exist as the Church could be the foundation on which Western civilization was rebuilt. Without the learning of Saint Benedict's monasteries, knowledge would very likely have been lost in the West forever. The Church was likewise the cause by which we emerged from this period of loss. The monasteries preserved and created a stable foundation on which the world could build. They created learning in cathedral chapter schools and in the public training the monks offered in the arts. One only need read Saint Anselm to understand the learning of the period was being cultured. Later, the mendicant friars, the Dominicans in particular, founded the university system as we know it today. This began to flourish into the Renaissance and into the modern period. The advent of Protestantism came shortly thereafter, but that is enough of a history.

The Church has always upheld morality in every age, even when it was viewed as unpopular. However, the Church was always right. Looking back to slavery, the Church objected to the treatement of slaves in the New World and, by the influence of pens like that of Bartholomew de las Casas, eventually condemned the treatment such slaves were shown. The people of the time did not like such a ruling, yet today we find the Church's toleration of slavery in the least a barbaric proposition.

Today the Church upholds certain principles which ensure the right of human beings to life from conception until natural death. What can we say after such horrors as Nazi eugenics and the other theories driving the Holocaust? Human life is merely a means to an end? Stem cell research is not opposed by the Church; killing babies to obtain stems cells is. And now, we have apparently discovered that amniotic cells are exactly the same without having to kill anyone. Too bad we didn't kill babies.

Condoms and contraceptives were predicted by Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae to bring about a number of consequences, of which we see the effects today:

"Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards."

"Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires...."

"...careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. ...they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife...."

We need to only look at the Communist China's "One Child" policy to see the ramifications of the last prediction.

In the end, I ask you, where does the Spirit lie? We do not come to Christ on our own powers, for we are born not of blood, nor of the will of flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God! Christ established His one Church, washing it in His own blood and cleansing it from every stain and impurity by the water and the word so that it might be holy and without blemish. He founded His Church upon the Rock of Peter and his successors, not upon my own will, but upon the Spirit who guides His Church. And this is the great sacrament of our salvation. And let the wife love her husband and submit to him.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

 

The basic problem is that you misunderstand the idea of 'motion' as I use it in the proof. Motion is the movement from potency to acutality in the absolute sense, not limited to material, "local" motion.

The universe needs to come into being. Thus, it needs a first mover to "move" it from the state of possible existence to actual existence.

I would also point out that there is no necessity for the proposition that, if matter in the universe was eternal, that it would not need an agent to move it. The universe would require a moving agent for matter even if the moving matter in the universe was eternal.

Aristotle discovered the Christian God. I object to the fact that you have to interject and call Him, "a figment of someone else's imagination." You can argue that is so, but it is purely unnecessary and begs the question if you do so here.

It is not a god-of-the-gaps argument at all. Again, the problem is the assumption of motion as purely physical (which, I admit, is the colloquial usage in English).

Except that vacuum fluctuations require a vacuum to exist in. And a vacuum is not truly a vacuum where it exists in space. Space has being, even if it is devoid of matter.

Except that science can never answer a metaphysical question about the origin and dependence of being itself. That is proper to metaphysics.

Further, the argument is not "a priori" at all. The term "a priori" indicates that the proof proceeds from the cause to the effect. The proof proceeds the other way around, "a posteriori," or from effect to prove the cause.

Further, it is not a "leap of faith" at all. It has nothing to do with faith. It demonstrates that it is logically necessary to posit an necessary prime cause/mover of the universe.

It is not a long way to move in this direction. There are many reasons, but I wish to merely point out that the Christian and Jewish religions identify their God with the first cause of the universe explicitly many places in Sacred Scripture, as well as by official teaching of the Catholic Church. I quote the book of Sirach: "But the Lord hath made all things, and to the godly he hath given wisdom" (43:37).

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

 

Sweet. Good stuff to know.

Though you might want to reconsider your recommendation to speak to a priest. Last priest-type-guy I spoke to about religion ended up turning his back on it.

Motion is a physical phenomenon. It's observable every day, and it makes sense. The "motion" which you are referring to, which is not physical, sounds to me like nonsense. Though, looking back at Aristotle, it does seem to be consistent with what he said.

The problem is that this explanation fails to actually explain anything. How did the unmoved mover come to exist? He couldn't bring himself into existence, he would have to exist already to do that. Couldn't whatever magical property you give to him, hypotheically, be given to the universe itself? This isn't an explanation, it's just moving the problem.

That isn't quite how it happened. Christians came to revere the Greek philosophers, and so they tried to steal their ideas for their god. It's true, he did invent a form of monotheism, but Christianity's god has scriptures, and churches, and heaven, and hell, and Satan, and Jesus, and a whole bunch of things that Aristotle didn't mention. You could say with just as much truth that aristotle discovered the Muslim god.

Consider this. Aristotle claimed that the unmoved mover would be unmoving. You claim to define this as god. Christians claim that Jesus was God. Jesus was described in the Bible as moving on many occassions. Therefore, Jesus could not be both God, and a living, breathing, moving man.

It would beg the question, if it were part of my main point. However, it was in parentheses because it was not part of my main point. It was a simple acknowledgement that I cannot guess in full detail what the god that you believe in is like.

Well, that's just an example of a way that things can come into existence with physical motion.

It's true that science can't address metaphysical questions. But that means there's no way to verify metaphysical theories, which means that believing in any metaphysical theory is a leap of faith. Reasonable sounding theories can be wrong, and unreasonable sounding ones can be right. In situations where we can't use science to confirm or reject theories, it's really just a bunch of guessing, no matter how intelligently done. If I did guess about metaphysical questions, which generally I don't, I would not elevate that guess to belief status, because it can't be proven.

Well, if you want to define your god as the unmoved mover, that's fine. However, many Christians would object to that definition, because they base their faith on the Bible. Protestents do not accept the book of Sirach as canon, nor do Jews (although it is occassionally quoted in the Talmud). You aren't required to conform to the ideas of other Christians, but the fact that not all Christians and Jews agree with your definition deserves to be mentioned. Christianity would be unrecognizable if it did not include Jesus, and the Jesus myth is incompatible with the belief that god is the unmoved mover.

Yes, this is precisely the point. Why does god get a special exepmtion from the need for a cause? What is the difference between god and the Universe that makes it more satisfactory to say that god does not need a cause. Please explain. It's not good enough to just claim that he doesn't need a cause when the universe does. Perhaps the entire first cause model is broken.

"Revelation", otherwise known as making stuff up and telling people they're going to hell if they don't believe you without evidence.

The problem with that is that you have defined 'god' to contradict 'man'. As god, he can't move or change. So, how could he be born as man without changing? The fact that it's basic doctrine doesn't make it automatically make sense.

The problem with just using logic is that you can't really know for sure that you're right. Your whole metaphysical model could be wrong. Perhaps existence is intrinsic in the nature of a universe.

 

I know you're a catholic, and I don't expect you to defend all gods, but the way you stated your case as if all Christians and Jews think the same way.

"The word" cannot be made something with changing. God cannot change if he is the unmoved mover.

So, you don't know anything about god? The Muslims could be right, or the Jews, or a theistic religion that hasn't been invented yet? God could be unintelligent, could have no concern for humans, could have created the universe accidentally.

And, everything that gives motion to something else must be moving (or changing) in some way. How can god put something into motion without moving himself? The only way would be to grant him another special exemption from normal rules that everything else follows.

Ok, then cite evidence for some part of Christian faith. Something that couldn't just as easily be a delusion. You can pick the topic, but I'd be especially interrested in how you know that the revelations come from the unmoved mover.

I just don't see how one thing can be two different things at the same time. What connection could exist between a physical, flesh and blood human, and the transcendant unmoved mover?

I am attacking the logic of your claim with logic, in a situation where we started with no evidence in any direction, with the intention of undermining the foundation of your model, which is pure logic. In this case, I am not trying to prove anything by logic alone, I'm just trying to undermine and disprove your theory.

I also proposed an alternative to your metaphysical model, built upon logic alone. I did not ask you to believe my metaphysical model in which the universe is sufficient for its own existence, I only offered it as one possible alternative to your model in which there must be an umoved mover. There are other possible models, and since there is no evidence for any of them, I don't believe a single one. For instance, there could be an infinite regress of causes, with one universe causing another forever. However, the proof of god's existence by motion relies on the unmoved mover being the only possibility, which ties this line of thought back into my first approach.

Beyond those, if you would like evidence to support other positive claims that I have made, please ask.

Why? Doesn't creating a universe demonstrate some potential?

But "the word" is changed in its person. That's still change.

You can have 'revelations'. You can read and hear about the revelations that other people, some long dead, have had. But you can't objectively prove that the revelations you've had are right, with solid evidence, nor can you explain why different people at different times in different theistic religions have had conflicting revelations. I call that not knowing.

Or, there may be no first cause. It is entirely possible that there is an infinite regress of causes, such that you never reach a first one. It would certainly make more sense than claiming that god somehow does not need a cause when the Universe does.

No, you never said that. I said that. How could the unmoved mover create a universe without moving to do so? If it requires some act on his part, then it requires a movement, or a change, even if it's just a thought.

Reason H. Logic! I ask for evidence, in response to your claim that you don't accept 'revelation' without evidence, and you respond with dogma. Nothing, and no one is infalllible. The sooner you learn that, the better off you'll be.

Earlier, you said "The Catholic Church neither 'makes up' truths of faith, nor does it not require evidence". The above seems to contradict that. It states that catholics know thing in two ways, by natural reason and by divine faith, neither of which are evidence. So, evidence is not required for catholics to believe in a revelation and since this is an infallible document, you are required to believe in the twofold order of knowledge.

Wow, this is really cheating. You cannot define an assertion as 'totally false', just as you can't define all assertions that contradict the redness of the sky as false.

This kind of thinking is exactly what caused so much trouble for Galileo. It's a pitty the catholic church has gone to such great lengths to suppress science that doesn't fit it's narrow dogma.

Not much of a mystery. A prostitute gets pregnant, panics, and she and her fiance claim that god made her pregnant, and gives birth to a new religion along with her bastard child. That's the most obvious explanation. It's amazing what people will do to avoid being stoned to death. Of course, some people wish to believe the prostitute's story, based on faith, and develop an entire theology around it.

One of the ways that I am attacking your 'proof' is by attacking the internal logic of the metaphysical model you propose. I never said I was opposed to logic, only that logic alone cannot prove the existence of something. The only case in which logic alone can prove anything is if logic can eliminate all other possibilities. Usually, this is impossible, or at least very difficult, and I think this is one of those cases. Only observation, evidence, can choose one logical model and suggest that it is better then competing models that have only their logical consistency. I argue that your argument does not even have standing to compete on this basis because god needs to have potential to act in order to do anything, for instance to create the universe.

The second way that I am attacking your proof is by proposing possible alternatives to your model. One example of this is the model which allows the universe to be its own basis for existence. Another is the model in which there is not first cause, but rather an infinite regress of causes. As long as there are still other possibilities, your metaphysical model does not prove the existence of god, no matter how internally consistent it may be. The concept of a first cause is not a given.

Let's start with the obligatory flippant comment, shall we?

God, an omnipotent being, is impotent?

There, now to an actual question.

If the Prime Mover is "constantly in act" but also "without change", does this not contradict? You state several times that certain things "cannot be," for reasons that I assume are related to faith. However, for something to be acting -- causing change -- it must be with a state of change of some sort. Therefore, I don't understand why it is "logically necessary" for something that is contradictory and therefore illogical to be so for something to logically exist, in this case the universe.

How does one reach the conclusion -- using logic and reason, not religion or faith -- that the Prime Mover is paradoxical yet extant, preferably keeping this to a Prime Mover that is not necessarily (but could be) (a) God?

Forgive me if I've missed something. All these topics I've read lately are definitely starting to blend together. I just don't understand how something that is impossible, that of containing both aspects of an on-off state simultaneously (especially on a non-quantum level), can be reached by logic.

You claim to be able to learn things about god through revelation. So, I'm looking for proof that the revelations you receive are genuine and the ones that, for instance, Muslims receive are fake. How do you know the difference?

Lets see, no names (other then Edith Stein), no locations, no citation of peer-reviewed scientific studies, no citation of specific medical professionals who were present, or who examined her. Sounds fishy to me. Furthermore, this is all in the context of a canonization proceeding, which calls into question the objectivity of the people participating.

That said, it may be possible that a six-year-old girl could have survived massive Tylenol overdose. It seems to me that the most logical explanation is that, assuming there are these experts who can't explain it, our understanding of the effects of Tylenol on body chemistry are not fully understood.

This ties in to the question of "Why does god never heal amputees?". It seems like the only medical miracles ever even claimed are the sort that could just as easily be faked, or the results of a fluke, or a lacking in our understanding of medicine. If god really wanted to show his power, he would regrow a severed arm, and allow doctors to document it.

This begs the question. If there is no first cause, there would also be no second cause, nor third, nor fourth. But the only causes we have evidence of are the ones we experience, and the ones preceeding the ones we experience follow logically. But there is no gaurentee that if we keep following causes back, we would eventually reach a termination point where there is a first cause. We might continue to find more causes forever without end.

Keep in mind that this is not a proof, just a possibility. Because it is an exercise in pure logic, it cannot be verified by evidence. The point is that it is another possible answer to the problem of the origin of cause.

So, then, if the acts of the prime mover are things he does constantly, since he once created the universe, he must constantly be in a state of creating the universe.

You're dogma is sufficient evidence because it says that it is. So, if I claim to be all-knowing, it must be true because I'm omniscient and I claim to know it.

This is that leap of faith I was talking about earlier. You believe, without evidence, that the Catholic church is infallible, so all your other beliefs flow from there. You'll believe science, but only to the extent to which it does not contradict your irrationally held belief.

Just some friendly advice. It helped me, and it could help you too if you would entertain it for a moment. But I suspect you won't for fear of hellfire.

No, it isn't, that is exactly what I am saying. Reason is not evidence. However, your argument is entirely reason-based, so reason is the proper tool to address its internal consistency. It's truth may be addressed by observation (evidence) if to turns out to be internally consistant by logical reasoning. But, since this is a metaphysical claim, it's truth cannot be evaluated using evidence, so we cannot conclude that it is true.

Let me give another example of how this works. Long ago, scientists theorizing on the origin of man created a hypothesis that man developed a large brain, and then needed the use of his foreward appendages for tool building and other dexterous activities devised by a large human-like brain, and so man evolved to walk bipedally. It was a reasonable hypothesis, it seemed to make perfect sense. But reason is only step one. In science, it isn't enough to have an elegent, plausible idea that seems to work, you need to back it up with evidence. And, as it turned out, as fossils of human ancestors started to turn up (evidence), scientists found that they had bipedal bone structure, but cranial capacity similar to chimps. So, the perfectly reasonable hypothesis of big-brain-first evolution was rejected, and an alternate hypothesis was supported, that of bipedalism first. And this sort of situation is the reason which reason alone cannot be evidence.

God cannot lie? But, I thought he was pure act, and not lacking any action. If that's true, since lieing is an act, he must be in an eternal state of lieing, which makes a certain amount of sense. After all, he tells one thing to Christians, another to Jews, and another to Muslims, and then tells them to all kill each other. (Crusades, Jihads, and the old testiment genocides commited by the Jews of the Bible). Have you considered the possiblity that god may hate humans and is trying to kill as many of us as possible?

They most certainly do not. Science is based on observation, faith is based upon itself.

The scientists I know would dispute that claim vehemently. In fact, I think you would find it hard to get any scholarly scientific source in modern times to agree with that.

That is a trivial distinction, and I find it no more satisfying. By putting people on trial for doing science in a way that the church doesn't like, scientists are restricted within the narrow bounds of what the church finds acceptable to research. We would never developed Darwinian theory, or reasonable physics, or geology, or many of the other lines of scientific inquiry under such conditions.

Galileo was a catholic. He wouldn't really have had much of a choice in the matter, as he was an Italian living in the 17th century. He adhered strongly to experimental results, which seems to contradict your world view in which science is subject to approval by faith, and did not let church beliefs quiet him until he was put on trial and imprisoned. Any recantation at that point seems suspect as likely under duress.

As for the fact that his daughter was a nun, I would point out that both his daughters were sent to a convent because they were born outside of wedlock, another thing which the church sticks its big nose into far too deeply.

On the contrary. There is enormous scientific and reliable evidence that women do not get pregnant without the introduction of male sperm, and do not like to be stoned to death. In fact, no counterexample to the assertion that pregnancy requires sperm has ever been reliably documented. This explanation is very ordinary, but the explanation through virgin birth is quite extraordinary, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Incidentally, Jesus was not the only mythical being in the region who was said to be born of a virgin. Mithra predated Jesus substantially, and could have been part of the basis for the part of the myth surrounding Jesus.

Mathematical truths are different from physical ones. Math is entirely built upon logic, and is thus entirely abstract. Pure math does not deal with physical realities. When a mathematician says "There exists a whole number between 3 and 5", he is not stating the physical existence of the number 4. In fact, the existence of 4 is independent of all physical reality because it is entirely abstract. Proving that a non-abstract thing exists requires evidence from observation, because 'existance' has an entirely different meaning.

The existence of non-abstract (physical) things can only really be proven by evidence. And, before you say anything, I know, god is posited to be a non-physical thing. But he is also posited to have phyical effects (which seems to me to be a contradiction, but we'll pretend for now), and he is certainly not posited by theists to be totally an abstraction.

Now, it may be true that the universe is an instantiation of a mathematical model, in which case it is theoretically possible to completely predict the universe, given a complete understanding of the model. This would be why math has many applications in the real world. This would make logic sufficient to prove things, however, it probably isn't possible while remaining strictly within this universe because the storage space required for the intermediary calculations would be larger than can be stored with all the matter in the universe. So, we are left with the uselessness of reason alone to predict the realities of the universe.

It's not at all arbitrary. Imagine for a moment two different proposed metaphysical models to answer the same metaphysical question. The first requires the existence of a celestial teapot. The second requires the existence of a flying spaghetti monster. Imagine that the models are distinct and mutually exclusive, and both internally consistent logically. Can you conclude that there must be a celestial teapot? Or a flying spaghetti monster? You can't, because you have no basis for saying that one is right and the other is wrong without evidence. You can't even say that it must be one or the other, because of the possibility that there is yet another theory not yet created.

I've proposed another theory as alternative to the unmoved mover model, that can do everything that the first cause theory can do, without creating a nasty special case for god. The very existence of an alternative model prevents the logical conclusion that because of the unmoved mover model, there must be a god.

Lastly, I think Eggplant had a good point. If god has not potency, he can't be omnipotent. You claimed that they are different types of potential, but you failed to actually draw the distinction. How are they different? I would love to see an answer to that.

Although Islam, like Christianity, has spawned a number of dangerous fundamentalist strains based on faith alone, it is not unwilling to use reason to attempt to discover god. For instance, the Kalam Cosmological Argument, similar in some ways to your own. Furthermore, I don't see how the willingness of a cult to adopt a particular proof of the existence of god bears any relevence to the validity of its revelations.

Most of today's Jews would probably disagree with that, and these prophesies you're talking about are Jewish prophesies after all.

It is definitely in the church's best interest to only accept miracles that have a low chance of being disproven. If they were regularly disproven, even the most devout believer would be forced to doubt the church.

But, ultimately, it takes place within the church. None of the extraordinary medical claims are studied or published by reliable researchers outside of the context of a church proceeding. I'll admit that the more detailed story is better because it contains some real information, but it's all still from a proceeding that occurred within the church.

Kids can be so resilient.

This doesn't sound very reliable to me.

Unless one of your underlying assumptions turns out not to be true. For instance, the assumption that there must be a finite number of causes preceeding the current ones.

Calculus, along with other parts of mathematics, have been proven to apply to the real world with evidence.

The dogma that you produced talked about 'natural reason' and 'divine faith'. Neither of those are evidence, which is what I asked for in the first place.

So, you accept that the universe is billions of years old, that life evolved on earth with no guidence from any designer, and that everything was not created in six days?

Or, perhaps faith alone is not a valid basis for truth at all.

You still haven't proven (or even supported in any way) that there must be a finite regress of causes, so the first cause is not a given.

It can't be certain unless you address the problems with it that I have mentioned, such as the reliance upon special pleading for god's existence, and the possibility of other explanations which do not involve a first cause. So far, you haven't even aknowledged that you understand these problems, let alone addressing them.

But, you can't prove that. Your standing to claim that god has spoken to people in your religion is equal to that of Muslims.

Well, battles still involve people killing each other.

Sounds like god commanded a lot of killing to me.

Then why would he have bothered with Noah's flood?

And then why did he not just destroy the people who were in the land he wanted to give to the Israelites?

I agree that science cannot make metaphysical claims because it cannot make the necessary observations, however this means that there is no way to assert the truth of any metaphysical model with certainty. As I have attempted to explain, all metaphysical models rely on some assumptions which are not given, and therefore they cannot be proven by logic alone.

I find it hard to believe that the Jesuits would have ever devised theories such as natural selection which contradict the church's understanding. This is important science, and I chose my examples because they are disciplines which have run afoul of religious dogma in the past. If dissent from that dogma had not been tollerated, they would never be the meaningful sciences they are today.

His insistence on experimental result is what contradicts your world view, not his specific results in this case.

Just as there is little evidence to support the actual existence of Mary or Jesus. However, you can devise many scenarios more logical than the virgin birth.

Perhaps, unless people believed her. It may be that it only had to work on her fiance at the time. If he did not expose her, but helped protect her, the legitimacy status of the child may never have been discovered.

I don't claim to know the truth of the situation, but there are ample explanations that do not require such extraordinary events as a virgin birth that are much more likely, so I don't see this as much of a mystery.

They had excellent possible reasons to create such a myth, the same reasons that Joseph Smith had in writing the Book of Mormon. Being the father of a religion gives a person enormous power over their believers, and that power can be very tempting to some con artists. But even if they had no good reason, the fact that thirteen people from over 2000 years ago decided arbitrarilly to do something without a good reason is not enough to convince me to believe in such absurdities.

There's just no way to know this. Even if no record survives today, there is no reason to believe that no one doubted the virgin birth at the time, especially in a world that is mostly illiterate.

If god didn't exist, there's no way he could cause a pregnancy.

Actually, Mithra was known in Persia (Iran) in the 300's BCE.

In order to use mathmatics to predict the existence of something in the universe, you need a complete mathematical understanding of the universe, and then you can do all the calculations to simulate the universe. However, because this involves doing all the computations that the universe requires over it's life span, you need to be able to store a lot of computations.

Doing a computation requires enough storage to keep track of all the numbers involved. In order to add 1 and 2, you first need to keep track of the numbers 1 and 2, and then after doing the addition, you need to keep track of 3, the result. Mathematical truth is abstract, but doing calculations requires the ability to store numbers.

You can know that you are thinking with certainty, because you experience the effects of thinking, which is evidence. I can't know that you are thinking unless I see evidence of it. For instance, if you were to say something that reflected thought, I could conclude based on evidence that you were thinking.

Yes, that's exactly my point. At least one (the flying spaghetti monster or the celetial teapot) must be wrong, and both may be. So you see that your metaphysical model (the unmoved mover) could be wrong if there is another possible model that answers the same question (the infinite regress of causes). And if it could be wrong, it can't be used to prove the existence of god.

Okay, maybe that wasn't very clear. 

There are many different literary forms in the scriptures.  Some people insist that we should interpret all of them as if they were narrative factual accounts.  It is my position that if one interprets the scriptures that way, the scriptures are indefensible.

I recognize that there are some parts of scriptures that are supposed to be interpreted as narrative factual accounts.  The Gospels are an example.  While the Gospels contain some narrative that is, to put it mildly, extraordinary, I can see how a rational person could defend the Gospels.

I cannot see how a rational person can hold that Genesis could be a narrative factual account.  The creation story is clearly counterfactual.  The flood narrative obviously doesn't describe anything that actually happened.  The Tower of Babel account can't be even intended to describe historic fact.  The Psalms are obviously poetry.

In order to understand those parts of scripture that are not to be taken literally, you have to have some other way of looking at them.  If you don't have some framework to understand them, the stories are meaningless.  One way would be to take the teachings of Christianity--or perhaps even more narrowly Roman Catholicism--and interpret the scriptures in light of what you already believe.  I think that's what most Christians do.  But if you do that, aren't you assuming the result you want to reach?

I've struggled with the scriptures.  I've really tried.  It's hard to make heads or tails out of most of them.  I guess I could impose my own preconceived  notions on the scriptures if I had any.  Once I found that Church dogma really didn't work for me, I didn't have a good fallback position.

Is it your understanding that you need faith first in order to understand scripture?  If so, should a seeker just put the scripture to one side and seek faith elsewhere?

The problem is that I can't just simply elect to believe something.  If I could, frankly, I'd pick either what you believe, or what the Baptists believe.  I'm not sure which I would like better.  Both are attractive.  I like the Baptists' idea that once saved always saved.  I like things I can't screw up, because I can screw up just about anything.

I say that I would elect to believe what you believe even from the standpoint of my current belief that the Divine is not limited to the God of Christianity.  I wouldn't mind being wrong, though, if I could have the gift of faith and stop struggling with religion.

But I can't simply elect to believe.  My beliefs go wherever my admittedly limited logic and reason lead them, whether I like it or not.  They change a lot.  What it looks to me like right now is that there is a divinity.  I don't know much about that divinity, but neither does anyone else.  There are countless paths to the divine.  Whatever path leads a person to communion with the divine is right for that person.  The divine is not definable in any material terms.  Descriptions such as male or female, singular or plural, large or small, hairy or bald, etc. just don't apply.  Neither does it make much sense that the divine does material things.  For these reasons the exercise of rationally figuring out that there must be a God and if there's a God He must have the following characteristics (good, omniscient, omnipresent, eternal) doesn't lead us anywhere.  The divinity may or may not have created the universe, and it doesn't matter much if it did or didn't.

It seems inconsistent with the universality of spirituality and the general convergence of our consciences and moral codes that any one of the multiple faiths is the one true faith and all the rest are wrong.  Feelings of spirituality and communion with the  divine are near universal (a handful of these atheists excepted).  Human consciences are remarkably consistent with each other when you adjust for different circumstances.

In some ways, of course, the Catholic Church is true.  It is a legitimate and effective means for many people to commune with the divine.  But it's not the only means.  Do you deny that Muslims, Pagans, Buddhists, Hindus, Zoroastrians, and even Baptists feel the same connection to the divine that you do?

As to the Catholic Church's persecution of pagans and paganism, I rely on far more than a single Wikipedia entry.  I have read several books on the topic.  For example, Closing of the Western Mind by Charles Freeman.  I read that one several years ago.  I have some others lying around the house, too.

As to why the Bible doesn't condemn slavery.  I deny that slavery was ever a "necessary evil."  I think it has always been an unnecessary evil, regardless of how universal the practice was until a few centuries ago.  It's true that the pagans had no scruples against keeping slaves.  I just wonder why, if God was doing his job as the ultimate lawmaker and source of moral teaching, he didn't bother to let us know that slavery is just wrong, period, while he was putting his book together.  He could have left out one of the descriptions of how to build an ark of the covenant.

As to abortion, I have to concede that your argument is an intriguing one, far better than I usually hear from religious people.  The argument usually goes, "God said it, that settles it."  At least you recognize the possibility someone else might not accept your affirmation that "God said it."  If we all agree we don't know if something is a human being, we can all agree we shouldn't kill it.  I don't see how something without a nervous system can be a human being, but you've given me something to think about.

I like birth control because it keeps unwanted children from being conceived.  While there may be some acts that are intrinsically evil, I don't believe having sex is one of them.  If we were "designed" by a designer, it seems obvious to me that the designer wanted us to have sex.  The designer wanted us to enjoy sex.   If he didn't, he really screwed up when he designed and built us.  The designer made us different.  Most of us will be most fulfilled and satisfied in a monogamous heterosexual relationship.  Some of us are more satisfied in polyamorous situations, and some of us are homosexuals.  And some of us have no sex drive at all and are asexual.  I'm "normal" in that I was designed for monogamous heterosexuality, but I don't suspect for a moment that those whose sex drive is different are any less fulfilled or happy in their relationship.   Even monogamous heterosexuals want to have sex when they don't plan to have children.  And there's a name for people who rely on the rhythm method, "Mommy and Daddy."

Abstinence is a joke.  It just doesn't happen all that often.  When you start hearing confessions I bet you'll learn that.

I have no idea how risky sex is now as opposed to 100 years ago.  It seems to me that 100 years ago we hadn't cured gonorrhea and syphilis yet, so they were as deadly as AIDS is today.  I could be wrong on the dates.  I can say, however, that whether 100 years ago or today, sex with condoms is safer than sex without.

I certainly don't see a parallel between eugenics and voluntary birth control.  You'll have to explain that one.  I do see a parallel between eugenics and banning birth control.  In both instances, government tells people whether to have children.

It does not work to compare "legalizing homicide."  Homicide is evil because it results in killing people.  If there were some way to have homicide without hurting anyone, I'm not sure it would be evil.  Sex, on the other hand, can be had without hurting anyone.

Is your faith really not based on spiritual experiences?  You really place all your faith in your philosophical reasoning and what people have told you God has revealed?  And that revelation is a combination of scripture and the teachings of the Catholic Church?  If that works for you, I envy you.  Even if you're completely wrong, you're a lot happier than I am.  I've got to keep looking.  Maybe it's because I did have this spiritual experience.  I find it hard to believe you can maintain faith without it.

As far as talking to a priest is concerned, no priest has time to listen to all my objections.  The priest at the closest Catholic church to me could not carry on this conversation with me because he barely speaks English.  Thanks to your church's insistence on celibacy, many of the priests serving American churches have to be imported.

Thandarr

Well, the only way to interpret the Scriptures is to read them with the original intent in mind. The Scriptures cannot interpret themselves. We must look, for one, at historical fact. What did the early Church believe as it was writing the Scriptures? What senses were various phrases given in? The same goes for Old Testament scholarship. But we also know from history and from the Scriptures that the Church exists in order to teach doctrine necessary for salvation, and it does so on God's mandate with His promise that they shall never fall into error (The gates of hell shall not overcome it). 

I quote the book of Acts of the Apostles: "How shall I understand unless I have somebody to teach me?" The eunuch to Saint Philip the deacon. The same goes for Scripture: it is difficult to understand and requires a great deal of study in order to understand properly. It likewise requires a living agent of authority to mediate the meaning of the Scriptures and ensure its correct interpretation. Hence, the Pope, bishops, and priests and the rest of the Sacrament of Holy Orders (putting the Church in order).

 

The Scriptures ought to be studied, but all I said was that they are difficult to understand without placing oneself both in a position of faith and without placing oneself outside of the Church. The teaching of the Church, not just its dogma, helps to ensure a proper interpretation of Scripture.

I never said blind faith is the only option. It's just that the Scriptures are not the only thing in the Church. I would point, in order to bolster someones faith, to the many miracles and examples throughout history that attest to the divinely instituted character of the Church - the miracles performed by saints, the miracles performed by Christ, the prophecies of Scripture and of His saints, and the dissemination of the Gospel (which would be a great miracle if it never occured with a single miracle). I would also show how reasonable, intrinsically, it is to hold the articles of faith that I hold as compared to other religions, or just by themselves.

Well, I find the Baptists' position contrary to Scripture and to common sense. If everyone was saved sine cum merita, then all men would be saved without any effort on their own part (you ought to already be saved, as would I). But this is absurd. At least, we would have to maintain an act of faith in Christ is necessary, which is in fact a form of meritorious action before God (because it proceeds from free will) Unless of course we're Calvinists, in which case we're all screwed according to the lots given us by God, damning some to hell or saving others (which is likewise incorrect because God does not predestine anyone to hell). In other words, there are grounds to our beliefs.

Faith is a gift, but it does build on what we already know by reason.

Well, I would argue a good amount of things can be learned about God from metaphysics (which is a natural knowledge of God from His effects in creation). This could rule out a great deal of error. I would recommend reading Saint Thomas' Summa Theologica (htpp://www.newadvent.org/summa) in order to get a full account of these naturally knowable properties of God.  

Well, you are partially true. But we must have a correct idea about God before we can worship Him (orthodoxy "right belief" -> orthopraxis "right practice&quot. Thus, I would argue that our reason alone can light the way at least to the point at which we can see that God could reveal Himself to us, and in fact must, in order to properly unite us to Himself (as this is our goal in life and nature does nothing in vain; further, we cannot attain Him by ourselves, only His grace can help us to know Him). But there will always be only one right answer. There is only one such way in which the fulness of truth subsists and one true way to become united to God, even though truth might exist in various degrees elsewhere.

This would be correct in a manner of speaking. God transcends all these characteristics, but we can speak about Him in this way by analogy from the creatures to Him.

Of course it does. These terms at least can tell us what God is not, and more than that can give us some analogical knowledge of Him. But also, Revelation gives us a knowledge of God in Himself, which surpasses this knowledge.

 

It does very much. We don't need to know what God is in Himself to discover that He created the universe. Further, this is important because it indicates His position to us (as ruler of the universe, what we owe Him out of justice by worship, whether we can be united to Him at all, whether we can know Him at all, ect.).

This contains a great deal of the truth the Catholic Church believes. God is naturally knowable, hence it is reasonable that most people know of a god in general, if not the God (In Him we move, and live, and have our being). Further, God's creation of our nature gave us an connatural knowledge of the general moral principles we are to live by (the Law was written on their hearts); this is "natural law." Human beings naturally tend toward God by virtue of being created by Him with Him as their goal. Thus, religion is common among all places and times. But that does not mean that multiple truths exist. Only one path is the complete truth about God. Only one contains the entire account of human goal in life. If one does not know where to end the race, or where to go, how can one run the race? Thus, God reveals Himself to us. God became man for precisely this reason.

Well, there is a difference between "feeling" and "having" a connection to God, as feeling something is not an indication one has one. But, no, I would agree that most other religions share some elements of truth and goodness in terms of their moral teachings and so forth. They are good in so far as they unite the person to God. But they are not good because they are not the full and complete way. It is better that a man be a Baptist than an atheist, but it would find its fulfillment if he could be a Catholic. Even an atheist could find a path to heaven by his natural reason and moral code combined with God's sufficent grace, but this is only given through Christ. Nobody gets to heaven without the Catholic Church, but some people can be implicit members of Christ's Body by their acceptance of God's grace. It is also good the note that this never exists without Christ and His Church and that it yearns fundamentally to be united to a perfect communion with His Church. This is the goal.

The Catholic Church more or less absorbed pagan thought rather than eliminate it. Look at Aristotle or Plato or Plotinus or the Stoics. I recommend How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization. Just reading the review of the book you spoke of on Amazon came up with this review by Publishers Weekly, which I believe contains a great deal of what I would have said: "Freeman repeats an oft-told tale of the rise of Christianity and the supposed demise of philosophy in a book that is fascinating, frustrating and flawed. He contends that as the Christian faith developed in the first four centuries it gradually triumphed over the reigning Hellenistic and Roman philosophies. Christianity's power culminated when Constantine declared it the official state religion in 312. Freeman points to Ambrose, the bishop of Milan, as the figure who showed Constantine that the bishopric could wield power over the state. From then until the Middle Ages, Freeman argues, the church ruled triumphant, successfully squelching any challenges to its religious and political authority. Yet Freeman (The Greek Achievement) fails to show that faith became totally dominant over reason. First, he asserts that Paul of Tarsus, whom many think of as the founder of Christianity, condemned the Hellenistic philosophy of his time. Freeman is wrong about this, for the rhetorical style and the social context of Paul's letters show just how dependent he was on the philosophy around him. Second, Freeman glosses over the tremendous influence of Clement of Alexandria's open embrace of philosophy as a way of understanding the Christian faith. Third, the creeds that the church developed in the fourth century depended deeply on philosophical language and categories in an effort to make the faith understandable to its followers. Finally, Augustine's notions of original sin and the two cities depended directly on Plato's philosophy; Augustine even admits in the Confessions that Cicero was his model. While Freeman tells a good story, his arguments fail to be convincing."

 

 I point out that the Old Testament did not endorse slavery. I emphasized earlier that the Old Testament's slavery was not the form that existed elsewhere, and further that the Jews were to treat the slave equitably (with, if I remember correctly, somebody who killed a slave was liable for murder) as not a piece of property, but a human being. Likewise, in the Jewish Law, slaves recieved equitable wages.

Further, Christianity did probably the most to help ameliorate the condition of slavery in the world. Early Christians were mostly slaves. Further, a good deal of the Church' early teaching involved valuing the slave as a human being (neither slave nor free, but one in Christ Jesus). While it was unable to turn over the institution in general (partly due to historical reliance on them as necessary for society due to a lack of technology, as well as due to other pressures), the Church consistently and adamantly preached charity toward slaves and equitable treatment.

I would argue that it does have a nervous system, but that is something else. At least we are in agreement here.

I would agree fundamentally with the statement that God made us with sexual organs and that sex is something good. However, it was for this reason that He instituted marriage. Contraception is just another form of lust. Lust does not fulfill why God made sex in the first place because sex is about creating life and sharing love with another person (aka, making love). Contraception contravenes this openness to life. By analogy, just because God created food and made eating good, there is no reason to believe that gorging oneself and having sexual relations with your entrees is a good thing as well. Our conduct in sex ought to follow the natural law governing what relations are good for. Contraception warps this proper relationship that God wants.

  

Well, I would argue that people are not designed in this way from the basic fact that our organs are clearly designed as a one-way street with a clear purpose in mind. While we were given bodily desires, we were likewise given those wonderful things called "minds" that enable us to act not just on natural desire, but in a rational manner. Lust warps God's design, so polymorphous relations are right out. I don't know what to think about homosexuals, because I don't think it clear whether nature made them such or whether it was their upbringing or both, so I don't care to make an argument on that either way. I think it is clear, however, that sex has a clearly defined purpose that ought to exist only in a monogamous union between a man and wife. I think all of these other conducts (adultery, polygamy, homosexuality, bestiality, masturbation, ect.)are contrary to the moral order intended by God.

I am not sure what this means exactly. But the rhythm method is not just the only form of this method. Our current knowledge of biology enables a much more expansively accurate account of when reproduction is naturally impossible. God already provided natural cycles of infertility; why not use them when these other methods are clearly evil? And even if you do not buy my argument that these other methods are evil, if you question that they are fully morally justified, there is reason to agree that this method is not contested as morally acceptable.

I beg to differ. Abstinence can happen and does more than you think. Further, temperance is a virtue in manners of sex as well as eating. We can control our appetites because we have minds to do so. There is no reason abstinence is impossible in practice between a man and wife for short periods of time.

Again, I believe this violates the principles laid down for sexual relations. And I think it is clear that it had disastrous consequences.

Why would making abortion illegal lead to eugenics? It is directly the opposite case in all examples.

Except, with abortion and birth control, the child. Many birth control methods (the pill, for instance) can cause abortions. Further, having sex when you have an STD is dangerous even with a condom; hurting people is a real and nearly definite possibility. I think also the societal consequences of using people as objects is good enough reason to condemn it.

Spiritual experience, when truly from God as in the sense of a vision or revelation, is an extraordinary event not given to most. Even if we had one, it would be very dangerous to rely on that as the source of our faith. We can be easily mislead by the devil or our own imaginations and feelings. That is why God gave us a mind - to know and do His will.

I am sure that they have more than enough time to listen to you.

Well, that's sad. Find a different priest, would be my advice. I am sure he himself might have recommended this.

It is not caused by celibacy. Other places in the world are doing just fine in priestly and religious vocations. The US of A had a bit of the problem in the 60s and 70s through the 90s with bad priests and formation of priests. It is what led to the whole crisis now with sexual offenders and so forth. It has nothing to do with celibacy. It has a lot to do with bad priests who did not practice or believe what the Church did, and who thought they could do whatever they wanted. Thankfully, most of these folks are dying out. I urge you again to find a priest who will be able to answer your questions. I am sure, positive, that you can find one.

 

 

That is not entirely true. First, the Proddies believe a great deal among their various sects. Second, the Muslims do not believe this today (it is a minority view in all major sects of Islam), and they likewise reject the Torah and the entire Scriptures as a corruption of the true doctrine that might have previously existed. Lastly, the condemnations in the Koran itself and the teaching of their theologians outweighs these considerations.

There are different senses of impossibiliy. It is not impossible, just improbable (even to a higher degree), but this is not say it is irrational.

Good question. Look into it. But many religions also do not claim to have miracles or they contradict reason. Hence, these are right out. The Catholic Church points to many examples from Christ's life and the lives of their saints. Further, I am not sure how many religions outside of Christianity and Judaism have an equivalent concept of the miraculous. I don't think that any that I know of view miracles in this way, including Islam.

Not arbitrary. Just based on good sense and investigation. Again, looking at natural reason rules out a good portion. Looking at miracles rules out another good portion. You are left, in my estimation, with a handful of alternatives.

You imply thus that they are untrustworthy. That is ad hominem.

"Considered within" what sense? There are many involved from "outside" the Church. The evidence is not "within the Church" but exists outside of it. The case itself must be decided upon for veracity by the Congregation, of course, because nobody else has the responsibility to/cares about declaring someone a saint.

I believe this has been done before, actually. I recall cases of this nature being published in medical journals or on review. I would have to look around, though, to find an example. But it still doesn't nullify the case that the miracles are nevertheless reviewed by experts in the field.

Because the Church has the process to verify the sainthood of the person, not to publish miracles in medical journals. Actually, I thought of examples of this. There have been numerous studies on many miracles in the Catholic Church that were published. I recall one on the blood of Saint Januarius (which reliquifies on his feast day and some other times every year) that was published some years ago. I also recall some done on the incorruptibles (some saints whose bodies resisted decay and rigor mortis for centuries and exhaled pleasant odors - like Saint Vincent de Paul and Saint Bernadaette). I also recall some done on Lanciano (of the miraculous Host that actually became flesh and the wine which became blood).

His existence is not a matter necessarily of faith, but can be proven of natural reason. I think I gave some reasons why God must exist earlier.

I admit my own lack of knowledge about such medical conditions, as I am not a doctor. I know, however, that the girl overdosed on more than a merely fatal dose of Tylenol, and that her recovery was medically impossible. Further, if it was the case that her recovery was naturally explainable in many cases of Tylenol poisoning, would it make sense for this doctor to remark that this case was extraordinary? I don't think my or your (which included all of a few minutes reading the Merck sheet on it) reasoning outweighs the testimony of the doctors who verified this case, who was a past president of some medical board according to that article (I think New England, which is rather prestigious).
 

I would agree but merely point out that is not impossible that such were the case. Even further, based on the evidence that miracles can occur (from such indications offered by saints recently), it would seem reasonable to conclude they were of the same character whether 90 or 1200 years ago.

And if there were no first cause and the string was infinite, no cause could exist now. Because motion exists only is so far as they thing is moved, motion is impossible without a mover. If there is no primary mover, no motion is possible.

What logical or mathematically true proposition does not apply to reality? Logic and mathematics are merely forms of describing reality and deducing conclusions from the nature of reality.

 

Science is the first type. Science is a form of natural reason based on observation. It is natural because we can discover these truths without God's help or revelation.