Ask a Catholic

[Randy Carson]

That last part is the most interesting...which of your moral principles does Christianity violate?

The lack of acceptance of gays part is on my mind right at the moment. 

The Catholic Church has been pretty accepting and accomodating given that this can only go so far.

But also the don't tell lies part.  To pretend to believe is to lie. 

We don't want you to pretend. When you become a Catholic, it will be because you believe.

And then there would be promising to indoctrinate my children with a lie.

When it finally clicks that Christianity is not a lie but the greatest truth we can know, then you will WANT your children to know it, too.

[Randy Carson]

Sheesh. Another mod. Why does that continue to surprise me? Everyone's a mod but me.  

Since you're on vacation, you must have some time for reading. And since you want evidence for Jesus' existence, you can read Bart Ehrman's book, Did Jesus Exist?

Here's a brief snippet just to give you a flavor of what you can look forward to:

I'm not so mucha mod as I am a forum mascot, really. They keep me around cuz I'm a cute little bunneh. So don't worry about it  
I'll look into Mr. Bart Ehrman and his book and reply accordingly; however you did fail to show a relevant clip of why and what proof Bart has to believe in a historical Jesus.

I'm just reading the book now myself, but so far, he is citing the same Roman and Jewish sources that forum member Tim O'Neill has cited and that I have cited in the "Minimal Facts" Threads. You have the links to those posts.

Is the Jesus he claims to exist the same Jesus you worship?

So far, nothing has caused me to believe otherwise. Ehrman, of course, sees Jesus as a man only. I see him as that and God.

Is this supposed historian the only historian out there that concludes the existence of Jesus? 

No. The vast majority of ALL NT scholars - believers and skeptics alike - agree that Jesus really did exist.

[Jenny A]

The lack of acceptance of gays part is on my mind right at the moment. 

The Catholic Church has been pretty accepting and accomodating given that this can only go so far.

But also the don't tell lies part.  To pretend to believe is to lie. 

We don't want you to pretend. When you become a Catholic, it will be because you believe.

And then there would be promising to indoctrinate my children with a lie.

When it finally clicks that Christianity is not a lie but the greatest truth we can know, then you will WANT your children to know it, too.

Than when why suggest Pascal's Wager which is by definition to lie?

[c172]

Over the past week or so, I have realized that there are some folks in this forum who are not interested in real discussion or will not conduct themselves in a mature manner. Consequently, I have added them to my ignore list.

I didn't come to this decision quickly or easily. I have never ignored anyone before in the decade that I have been engaged in online apologetics, but there are simply too many trolls here for me to worry about. Conversely, there are others who are both interesting to talk to and interested in what I have to say. They deserve my attention, and they will get it.

If I'm not responding to you, now you know why. [Image: wave.gif]

...

*facepalm*

[c172]

You're the one that started a thread called "Ask a Catholic".

Why, yes...yes I am.

Is this something that I need to research for you?

I think I just did for you.

[rexbeccarox]

Over the past week or so, I have realized that there are some folks in this forum who are not interested in real discussion or will not conduct themselves in a mature manner. Consequently, I have added them to my ignore list.

I didn't come to this decision quickly or easily. I have never ignored anyone before in the decade that I have been engaged in online apologetics, but there are simply too many trolls here for me to worry about. Conversely, there are others who are both interesting to talk to and interested in what I have to say. They deserve my attention, and they will get it.

If I'm not responding to you, now you know why. [Image: wave.gif]

...

*facepalm*

And *eyeroll*

[Randy Carson]

The Catholic Church has been pretty accepting and accomodating given that this can only go so far.


We don't want you to pretend. When you become a Catholic, it will be because you believe.


When it finally clicks that Christianity is not a lie but the greatest truth we can know, then you will WANT your children to know it, too.

Than when why suggest Pascal's Wager which is by definition to lie?

Oh.

I think you may have a misunderstanding of Pascal's Wager. The goal of that is to give the person who is wavering between belief and unbelief a reason to move forward with belief by acting in ways that a believer would act such as going to church, reading the bible, praying, and posting in a good Catholic forum instead of in an atheist forum. Pascal's reasoning is that by doing the things that believers do, we become stronger in that self-identification.

For example, if I am not a hockey fan, but I think that there are advantages to being a hockey fan, then I might begin to go to hockey games, watch hockey games with my friends at a sports bar, etc. The more I invest of myself into hockey, the more I actually begin to enjoy hockey.

Pascal "wagers" that the one who begins to invest herself into the life of a believer will find that she IS a believer at some point. This is a two-step process:

Stage 1: The Practical Stage
The "kickstarter stage" is the stage of practical reason where considerations of self-interest predominate. Practical reason gets you started and self-interest moves you to "wager on God". This stage is reasonable in the practical sense; namely, that it is reasonable to do what is good for you!

Stage 2: The True Faith Stage
When you choose to believe (or at least take actions that have been known to lead to belief) then you will eventually find yourself actually believing that God exists. At this latter stage, considerations of self-interest no longer predominate, but can remain operative in cases of periodic doubt.

[Jenny A]

See below:

[Simon Moon]

Than when why suggest Pascal's Wager which is by definition to lie?

Oh.

I think you may have a misunderstanding of Pascal's Wager. The goal of that is to give the person who is wavering between belief and unbelief a reason to move forward with belief by acting in ways that a believer would act such as going to church, reading the bible, praying, and posting in a good Catholic forum instead of in an atheist forum. Pascal's reasoning is that by doing the things that believers do, we become stronger in that self-identification.

For example, if I am not a hockey fan, but I think that there are advantages to being a hockey fan, then I might begin to go to hockey games, watch hockey games with my friends at a sports bar, etc. The more I invest of myself into hockey, the more I actually begin to enjoy hockey.

Pascal "wagers" that the one who begins to invest herself into the life of a believer will find that she IS a believer at some point. This is a two-step process:

Stage 1: The Practical Stage
The "kickstarter stage" is the stage of practical reason where considerations of self-interest predominate. Practical reason gets you started and self-interest moves you to "wager on God". This stage is reasonable in the practical sense; namely, that it is reasonable to do what is good for you!

Stage 2: The True Faith Stage
When you choose to believe (or at least take actions that have been known to lead to belief) then you will eventually find yourself actually believing that God exists. At this latter stage, considerations of self-interest no longer predominate, but can remain operative in cases of periodic doubt.

That's great!

Since I believe there is an advantage to not being reincarnated as a rat, I am going to start behaving like a Jain

I'll read the Agamas, go to a Jain temple, posting on Jain Dharma forums, eat like Jains. Behave with all the best Jain practices.

I will take all the actions that will lead to Jain belief. Because, I really don't want to be reincarnated as a rat.

Sorry, but your further explanation of Pascal's Wager does not make it any less flawed.

[Jenny A]

Oh.

I think you may have a misunderstanding of Pascal's Wager. The goal of that is to give the person who is wavering between belief and unbelief a reason to move forward with belief by acting in ways that a believer would act such as going to church, reading the bible, praying, and posting in a good Catholic forum instead of in an atheist forum. Pascal's reasoning is that by doing the things that believers do, we become stronger in that self-identification.

That's not what Pascal said.  Pascal said the wager is not optional.  According to Pascal not believing is to place your bet against god.   Which is true in the sense that everyone either believes or does not.  Were the odds 50/50 or even 1 in 1000, I might consider it a rational choice to place my bet for god.



But he make a few errors in calculating the odds:

1. First he presumes that the probability is about equal equal for and against god;
2. Second is asserts that the choices are between the Christian god hypothesis and no god rather than considering all the other possibilities.
3. Third, he ignores the real cost of belief.

The funny part is that if you don't believe in god for rational reasons (like lack of evidence) then you know that chances of there being a god are remote, and wagering on a particular god, or any god at all, doesn't look like a very good bet.  Nor does non belief look like much of a risk.  

For example, if I am not a hockey fan, but I think that there are advantages to being a hockey fan, then I might begin to go to hockey games, watch hockey games with my friends at a sports bar, etc. The more I invest of myself into hockey, the more I actually begin to enjoy hockey.

I don't see any real advantages to becoming a god fan, unless god is real and I see little evidence he is real.

Pascal "wagers" that the one who begins to invest herself into the life of a believer will find that she IS a believer at some point.

Have you actual read Pascal?  He doesn't wager that one might make oneself a believer by behaving like a believer.  He suggests that having decided that to wager on a belief in god is the rational choice given the odds,  one can make oneself a believer in the following way:

Endeavor then to convince yourself, not by increase of proofs of God, but by the abatement of your passions. You would like to attain faith, and do not know the way; you would like to cure yourself of unbelief, and ask the remedy for it. Learn of those who have been bound like you, and who now stake all their possessions. These are people who know the way which you would follow, and who are cured of an ill of which you would be cured. Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed, taking the holy water, having masses said, etc. Even this will naturally make you believe, and deaden your acuteness.

But I don't want to believe in god unless there is a god. I wouldn't follow the advice of anyone who suggested I "deaden my acuteness" unless my acuteness was already on life support, nor would I blindly follow anyone who suggested I not ask for proofs.  Nor do I find attempting to believe the rational choice given the miniscule odds that there is a god of any description, let alone one who cares whether I believe or not.