http://www.funadvice.com/my/advice/aarthur001 en-us There have been several investigations regarding the miracles at Lourdes, France including a permanent bureau for medical investigation. It has confirmed 67 miracles in connection with the water from the sping there. The details can be found on the official website for Lourdes. http://www.lourdes-france.org/index.php?goto_centre=ru&contexte=en&id=491&id_rubrique=491 http://www.lourdes-france.org/upload/pdf/gb_guerisons.pdf Also, there have been Eucharistic miracles, the most famous and most notable is located in Lanciano, Italy. The host miraclulously turned into a bloody piece of cardiac tissue while the priest was saying mass. This happened in the 9th century, but the host is still in Lanciano, and there have been several scientific studies done on it to confirm its substance. There have been other Eucharistic miracles, but these are the most famous. In addition to these, there have been multiple saints (or pieces of saints) who are incorrupt. The most notable are St. Bernadette of Lourdes, St. Sylvan (who died in the 4th or 5th century), and St. Anthony of Padua's tongue (St. Anthony died in 1231). As far as I know, all of these bodies are still on display. St. Bernadette died in the 19th century, but her skin is still supple, and you can see your reflection in her eyes which are still wet with tears. aarthur001 Sun, 28 Sep 2008 08:55:18 -0700 http://www.funadvice.com/q/italy_s_favourite_saint 554113 This particular testimony does not necessarily convince me that Padre Pio inflicted his own wounds. The acid could have other legitmate uses such as the ones listed. As far as I am aware, his stigmata was not one of the miracles that led to his canonization, so I would be more concerned about finding the source of those. It has been casually stated above that there are no such things as miracles. I must respectfully disagree. At the same time, I must encourage anyone who sees this post to investigate for himself/herself the miracles that have been attributed to Padre Pio throughout his life and after his death. Weigh the evidence for yourselves, and see if you think that there is sufficient evidence to convince you that miracles do, in fact, exist. (By the by, if a person is convinced of the possibility that miracles do exist, then I think that they owe it to themselves to consider (at least consider) the possibility that the Gospels actually be what they say they are.) aarthur001 Mon, 22 Sep 2008 12:27:41 -0700 http://www.funadvice.com/q/italy_s_favourite_saint 545589 There are very few people who do not eat at least once a day. Most people try to eat more than once a day, but I think that it is safe to say that all people try to eat at least once a day. Don't you think that your soul deserves at least one good meal a week? The poster of this question says that religion should be spontaneous. I respectfully disagree. I think that the ideal religion is perpetual. The Holy Spirit should be the very air that we breathe. Our entire life should be a prayer. I suspect that that is the only way that we can fulfill Christ's command to "Be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matthew 5:48). Unfortunately, most of us aren't there yet, myself included. For those of us who are working towards Christian perfection, the Lord gave us commandments to be our guide. Christ himself said, "If you keep[ my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept the Father's commandments and abide in his love" (John 15:10; This consept of "abiding in Christ is imporatnt: more on this shortly). The Lord has commanded us to keep the sabbath rest. Thus he commanded the Israelites at Mount Sinai and beyond the Jordan (Ex. 20:8-11; Dt 5:12-15). At the bare minimum we owe God at least one day a week, out of respect for him and the things that he has done for us. He doesn't need us to set a day aside for him (we add nothing to his glory), we need to do it for our own sake. Furthermore, Christ gave us another commandment (and this is the one that makes Sunday Mass absolutely critical). St. John testifies: "[Jesus said] 'I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.' THe Jews then disputed among themselves saying, 'How can this man give us his flesh to eat?' So Jesus said to them, "Truly, Truly, I say to you, UNLESS YOU EAT OF THE FLESH OF THE SON OF MAN AND DRINK OF HIS BLOOD, YOU HAVE NO LIFE IN YOU; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. FOR MY FLESH IS FOOD INDEED and MY BLOOD IS DRINK INDEED. he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood ABIDES in me and I in him. As the living Father has sent me, and I have life because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me" (RSVCE John 6:51-57 emphasis added). At the Mass, we are so blessed to have Jesus truly present in the Eucharist, body, blood, soul and divinity. We NEED to go to Mass on Sundays. I would love to write more, but I have to leave for Mass now. aarthur001 Fri, 02 May 2008 13:22:08 -0700 http://www.funadvice.com/q/religion_should_be_spontaneous 333351 Orion, we really don't want to get into this discussion on this thread too, do we? aarthur001 Fri, 02 May 2008 08:43:22 -0700 http://www.funadvice.com/q/catholic_church 333108 I am a believer. I don't think that I would categorize agnosticism as the lazy person's religion. It seems that the logic of agnosticism is flawed (as classically defined: one who believes that the truths of God are unknowable). While I agree that they may not be directly tested by the scientific method (ie the controled experiment) there are elements of truth and knowledge that can be gained using means other than that particular method. I submit that such things can in fact be known. I think that people should reserve in their minds the possibility that and intelligent and omnipotent God (as the Christian God is purported to be) could reveal himself to individuals directly, and make it possible that he be known. If by agnostic, however, you mean a person who is not sure, I don't think that it necessarily means that that person is lazy; I think it means that person honest. If a person has not encountered sufficient reasons to believe in the existence of God, then it should not be a surprise that an honest person would not believe. Having said that, there could be a certain level of laziness involved. I don't think that it's a crime to be ignorant, but I think that it may be a crime to stay ignorant. I think that all people have a responsibility to seek the truth, and when they recognize a truth, they have a responsibility to act on it. All people have a responsibility to be honest with themselves. If a person isn't sure of God's existence because they have honestly been looking for evidence, and haven't found any that can reasonably convict them, then that is one thing. If, on the other hand, a person isn't sure because of their own indifference or hardness of heart, then that is another matter. It seems to me that categorizing agnosticism as "the lazy person's religion" does a disservice to those people who are honestly looking for answers to the burning questions that they have and, through no fault of their own, haven't found the answers yet. aarthur001 Fri, 02 May 2008 08:40:46 -0700 http://www.funadvice.com/q/agnostic_anyone 333106 I am a Catholic, so I will try to tell you what the Catholic Church believes instead of what non-Catholics think the Church believes. (And I'm not sure what all this Teresa business is...) First of all, we do not worship Mary. All official Church documents that deal with the Blessed Virgin are explicit in that regard. We do, pray they Hail Mary, but that is not worship. I will explain that shortly. We believe that the Virgin Mary was the Mother of Jesus of Nazareth, God incarnate. Because she was Jesus' mother, he honored her according to the commandment "Honor thy Father and thy mother." As Christ's mother, she had "pull" with Jesus. One notable example is the Wedding feast at Cana. Jesus and Mary are at a wedding; the wine runs out; Mary tells Jesus that the wine ran out. Jesus responds, "Woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come" (John 2:4; some people think that Jesus was rebuking her, but watch what happens next.) Mary turns to the servants and says, "Do whatever he tells you" (John 2:5). When the servants do what Jesus tells them, he miraculously turns the water into wine, even though his time had not come. That is the type of "pull" that Mary had with Jesus. Furhtermore, when Jesus was dying, he spoke to Mary and the Apostle John at the foot of the cross. He said to her "Woman, behold your son!" (John 19:26). And he said to John "behold your mother" (John 19:27). The Church believes and professes, that Christ gave his mother Mary to be the Mother of the entire Church universal. For those who think that this is a bit of a stretch, allow me to explain differently. Mary is the Mother of the Lord, Jesus Christ (see Lk. 1:43; Gal 4:4). The Universal Church is the bride of Christ (Eph 5:25-32). Because the Church is his bride, we are also his body (see Col 1:24; Rom 7:2-4). If then we are one with Christ through marriage, then we are one flesh indeed (see Gen 2:24; Mt. 19:5-6). It follows then, then Mary, as Christ Jesus' Mother will also be our mother because of the marriage of the lamb with his bride (Rev. 21:9). The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) professes: "Jesus is Mary's only Son, but her spiritual motherhood extends to all men whom indeed he came to save: 'The Son whom she brought forth is he whom God placed as the first born among many bretheren, that is, the faithful in whose generation and formulation she cooperates with a mother's love'" (CCC 501; internal quote from Lumen Gentium 63; see also Rom 8:29; Rev. 12:17). We do not woship Mary because Mary is not God; she is a creature. (we believe that she is the most perfect creature that God ever created, and is only second to God himself (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) in the heirarchy of beings, but she is a creature none-the-less.) We honor her as Christ's mother, because Christ honored her as his own mother. As the Body of Christ, we honor our Mother in Christ. Some people say that by honoring Mary, we take away the glory and honor that we should give to God alone. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The only reason that she is what she is is because of God. She did not deserve anything that God gave her. She is God's masterpiece. When we honor and appreciate the masterpiece, that only gives greater honor to the artist that fashioned her. The Hail Mary, and why we pray to Mary: When we pray to Mary, we are actually asking her for her prayers. We ask her because we believe that she is alive in Christ, like the rest of the Saints in heaven. ("[God said], "I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." He is not God of the Dead but of the living" (Mt. 22:32).) "The prayer of the righteous man has power in its effects" (James 5:16, and remember Mary has pull with Jesus). So Why the Hail Mary? The words of the Hail Mary are taken almost entirely from Scripture: "Hail [Mary] full of grace, the Lord is with you!" (Lk. 1:28) "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb [Jesus]!" (Lk. 1:42) Holy Mary, (Lk. 1:48 "henceforth all generations will call me blessed"). Mother of God (Lk. 1:43 "why is it granted that the mother or my Lord should come to me?"; see also Gal. 4:4-5 "God sent forth his Son born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law"). Pray for us sinners (James 5:16 "The prayer of the righteous man has power in its effects") Now and at the hour of our death. Amen. (Alright, this part is not scriptural. However, if you're going to ask someone to pray for you, "now and at the hour of death" would be good times for them to do it.) aarthur001 Thu, 01 May 2008 15:29:05 -0700 http://www.funadvice.com/q/catholic_church 332397 Orion, I would be fine with moving this discussion to funmail, (although I will be leaving for the summer shortly). There are just a few things that I think need to be clarified before we do so. I apologize for not including the citation for the quotation, "we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses." It is Hebrews 12:1 (That's why I said, "St. Paul") You confused me in your last post with all the "you said...I said." When you said "I said," it seemed like you were trying to refer to things that you had already previously posted, but I couldn't find them in your original posts. Did you mean to say "I say"? Also, in at least one of those "I said" sections, you quoted things that I had said, as if they were exactly what you had said. (my point is this: the use of the terms "you said... I said, we extermely confusing.) Also I wish to clarify my point at the end about the fall and the redemption: Satan's temptation to man was to "eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil." The Church has always understood that to mean that the Original Sin was a decision on the part of our first parents to decide for themselves, subjectively and arbitrarily, what is good and what is evil without reference to the instuctions of God their Father and creator. In making this decision, mankind usurped the role of God in deciding good from evil and visa versa, in an attempt to become "like gods" be disobeying God. The result of this original sin is "to die by death." Mankind suffered both physical and spiritual death. By the grace of God, we have the opportunity to be brought into new life by the power of Christ's sacrifice on the cross. He is the conqueror of both the physical and the spritual death. Through Christ, we have the opportunity to become "sons of God," "coheirs with Christ," and Partakers of the divine nature (2 Pet 1:4; Gal 4:4-7). When the devil tempted our parents, he said that we would "be like gods" by disobeying God. By contrast, God gives us the opportunity to be the perfect reflection of Christ (God incarnate) by joining ourselves to Christ, and "his body, which is the Church" (see Eph. chapters 4-5; also Col 1:24). There is a distinction to be made between the souls of those who have died in Christ (those who have "fallen asleep") and those who have died without repentence (the "damned"). All humanity is subject to the physical death (except those that live until the last judgement). As such, all who have died the physical death (including Moses) can be (and have been) refered to as "the dead." However, there are those who have fallen asleep in Christ fall into a different category. Moses is one of these (who was conversing with Christ at the transfiguration before the dead came "out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the Holy City and appeared to many' (Mt. 27:52-53). I submit that there are two categories of "dead": everyone who has suffered the physical death, and those who are damned. There is a reason why I make this distinction. The Old Testament law clearly forbids communication with the dead. It also clearly depicts the death of Moses. Therefore, if this distinction did not exist, then Christ Jesus would have been guilty of violating the Old Testament law by communicating with Moses at the Transfiguration. I do not think that Christ violated the law in this case, because Moses was not one of the damned. His spiritual state was such that he would rise from the dead at the resurrection. Thus, Jesus could speak with him without violating the Law. He was dead insofar as he had suffered the physical death. However, he was the sort of person Christ was talking about when he told the Saducees that God said, "I Am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, he is not God of the dead, but of the living" (Mt. 22:32). In answer to the question asked: "If you say the dead are already in heaven then how can you also think they'll be raised from the grave at Jesus' coming? Does God shoot them back down into their graves and raise them at His coming?" I profess, along with the Church, that the souls (the soul = the intellect + the will) of those who have died are united to God, in the Holy Spirit, through His Son Christ Jesus. As such, they have the ability to converse with God (in other words, they can pray for us just like people on earth pray for us). At the same time, I profess that their bodies are dead. They are buried in the ground, and they will rise on the last day. This is a very metaphysically loaded topic. For further reading, I suggest the first part of the "Summa Theologicae" by St. Thomas Aquinas. He wrote extensively about the nature of mankind. Some of the major points relevant to this discussion are: the soul is distinct from the body; the intellect is something that is part of the soul rather than part of the body; man is a body/soul composite rather than a "ghost in a machine"; etc.. The book of Eccelsiastes: This particular Old Testament book asserts many things. Among them is: "I have seen everything that is done under the sun; and behold, all is vanity and a striving after wind" (Ecc 1:14). The author repeats this phrase about seven billion times in that book. The book's basic point is that all of life is meaningless. However, I think that this book needs to be seen differently in the light of the revelation of God through Christ. Many of the claims that Qoheleth makes could even be read, "this is how it would be if there was no such person as Christ Jesus." Spritualism: Ther are several definitios of the term "Spiritualism". One of them is the attempted control or reliance on the Spirits of the dead, which was described above. Another is the belief the Physical world is evil, and only the spiritual world is good (This is also called "manecheanism" and the Church condemned it as a heresy in the middle ages.) Originally, I had though that the poster was refering to this form of spiritualism. It appears that I was mistaken. I agree that the phenomenon described above could be considered spiritualism, and it is most certaintly illict. (As a matter of fact, the Church offically condemns the practice of communicating with the dead as described above. See "The Catechism of the Catholic Church" (CCC) paragraphs 2115-2117). That said, the Church's belief in the communion of saints is not the same as spiritualism described above. The communion of saints consists of those souls who have died (physically) in Christ, and are alive to God (see Mt. 22:32; Heb. 12:1). They have the ability to pray to God, and God listens to their prayers because they are righteous, and "the prayer of the righteous man has power in its effects (James 5:16). All their prayers are directed towards Christ Jesus, because they are members of the Church, which is his body, and he is their head. It is possible that the dead may appear to people, as they did after the resurrection (as described in Matthew 27:52-53). However, we must discern such experiences prayerfully. It is entirely possible that these may be deceptions of the devil (as noted above). The Church's official position on these occurances is that they may occur, but they are not binding (meaning we don't have to accept them) except for the people to whom they occur. Other people may believe in them, but they are not required to do so. They fall under the category of "private revelation." All "public revelation" ended with the death of John the Evangelist, and "no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ" ("Dei Verbum" 4; CCC 66). I would be glad to move future discussions to funmail, but I will continue to respond to postings of this thread if they arise. aarthur001 Thu, 01 May 2008 14:20:31 -0700 http://www.funadvice.com/q/catholicism_christianity 332333 Toadaly had asked if I could provied verification for the claims that were made at Lourdes, because he could not find anything about them. This is the link for the official website of Lourdes. The list of miracles is under the heading of "cures and miracles" and the link for the list is called "the cures of Lourdes." http://www.lourdes-france.org/index.php?goto_centre=ru&contexte=en&id=491&id_rubrique=488 In response to nlocnil: You asked if it was possible if the saints were intentionally preserved, because this phenomenon is "common" among saints. I say no for 4 reasons. First, not all of the saints were known to be saints at the time of their respective deaths, so it is not plausible to suppose that they have been intentionally preserved. 2nd: For some of these saints, incorruptibility was one of the two mirales used for their canonization. That means, by definition, that the verified miracle must not be explanable by scientific means. 3rd, there is no known method of preservation that could preserve bodies for the length of time that the incorruptibles have been preserved for. There are some bodies that are preserved from early in the first millenium, (over 1500 years ago.) They include, St. Agnes, St. Agatha, and St. Sylvan (and St. Anthony of Padua's tongue!... just his tongue for some reason). 4th: The bodies have been preserved better than any method that is scientifically plausible. Several of my friends went to Navarre, France to see St. Bernadette's body (the same Bernadette of the visions at Lourdes). They said that she looks like she's about to wake up any minute. Her skin is still supple; her cheeks are still rosy; one on theme said that he held up his hand in front of her face and he could see its reflection from the tears that are still on her eyeball. She died over 100 years ago. There's no way that that should be scientifically possible, and yet it happens. While we are on the subject of Lourdes, yes I do know what Lourdes was about. In 1858, a girl, Bernadette Soubirous, claimed to see a Lady in the Grotto there. Unlike the claim that has been made, no one believed that it was the Blessed Virgin (not even St. Bernadette.) It was only after the investigation of the healing of the Spring that the Church confirmed the visions. Only then did the Lady reveal who she was, but she didn't say her name. She said, "I am the Immaculate Conception." Bernadette repeated those words to herself over and over again as she traveled to see the Chruch authorities. She repeated the words to them and they understood what that meant. Bernadette herself did not know what the term "Immaculate Conception" meant. The Church had officially confirmed the dogma of the Immaculate Conception earlier that year (the doctrine that Mary was concieved Immaculatley within her mother's womb; ie she was conceived without "original sin"). Bernadette was ignorant of the recent declaration (she was also notoriously "stupid"). As far as the claim that Lourdes is a business: it does not cost anything to get to the shrine at Lourdes. I have several friends who just got back who were actually volunteers to help people at the spring. It has been said that anything could be claimed to be "linked to Lourdes." While it is true that anything could be claimed, the only ones that are "verified" are the ones who have had physical contact with the water from the spring. It has also been said: "There are thousands of people who claim God healed them. Why would God only pick people subject to spontaneous remission, or misdiagnosis or in other words, conditions that would have healed on their own? And why aren't amputees ever healed?" The answer: God didn't only pick people who have conditions that are likely to be healed on their own. I agree that spontaneous remission does occur, but there are more miracles than just spontaneous remission. The first miracle on the list has to do with the cure of a deformity. And I know of at least one miracle for an amputee (You'll find it in Luke 22:50-51). aarthur001 Thu, 01 May 2008 12:31:59 -0700 http://www.funadvice.com/q/god_74781 332185 This is a follow up to the post I had before. As Catholics, we do believe that homosexual acts are sinful. We do not need to know the source of the inclination towards homosexual behavior in order to determine that the act is a sinful (along the same lines and for the same reasons that we believe that hetero-sexual acts using contraceptives are sinful). Because the acts are sinful, we can say that the inclination towards the action is "objectively disordered." The reason that we make that statement is because the inclination, if followed, would lead to the commission of sinful acts. Again, we do not need to know the source of the inclination in order to say that it is "objectively disordered." Furthermore, this is not the same thing as saying that the inclination is "morally disordered." Because the inclination is not something that is "chosen," there is no basis for calling it "morally" anything (good, evil or neutral). The inclination does not have a moral standing. However, we do say that it is "objectively disordered" because the actions that it would lead to, if it were followed, would be sinful actions. All this is asserted without reference to or regard for the origin of the inclination. However, that question of the source of the inclination is an interesting one, and may have certain implications. If the inclination is something that is not chosen (ex. if it's genetic) then are only limited things that can be done to help the people who have this inclination. We can (and we must) love them with the love of Christ, and help them to try to live chaste lives, just like we try to help all Christians live chaste lives. (Remember the word "chaste" means living out the call for your sexuality; married couples are chaste when they have sex, but everyone else is called to abstain.) However, if the behavior is something that has an element of "being chosen," then it may be possible to help people work through their difficulties, and possibly even help them have romantic relationships with the opposite sex. I do not know the source of the inclination. I think that further research is required on the subject. I have seen studies that suggest that there may be a genetic component, I have seen others that suggest that the inclination is routed in childhood experiences. I don't pretend to know which is right or wrong. However, I do know what the Church teaches, and I believe in the teaching authority of the "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church." aarthur001 Thu, 01 May 2008 11:24:18 -0700 http://www.funadvice.com/q/homosexuality_a_sin 332109 I suggest looking into the reports on the miracles at Lourdes before making the claim that they can be explained by psychology. It is immpossible for Psychology to allow a person with severe damage to the cornea to see with 20/20 vision. It is also immpossible to spontaneously regrow internal organs as far as I know. My understanding is that the miracles required for declaring sainthood must have had multiple opinions before the miracle healings, and that the evidence required for an unexplainable healing must be incontrovertable. I suggest looking into the official process for the canonization, as well as the miracles that have been validated in the actual canonization of the saints. As far as the sign of Jonah is concerned, it was a statment about the Pharisees refusal to believe what they had already seen. Christ had already performed signs and miracles in the synagogues in the presence of those who denounced him (see Matthew chapters 8-11). Later on, after they had seen the miracles, they called him evil, and they demanded a sign, which Jesus said would come with the Ressurection (Matthew 12:22-42). From that point on, he teaches only in parables. aarthur001 Sat, 26 Apr 2008 09:10:49 -0700 http://www.funadvice.com/q/god_74781 325626 I am familiar with the bible refering to the dead as "those who have fallen asleep," but I have not seen those portions saying that the dead "know nothing." In any case, we still hold that those who have fallen asleep in Christ are not truly dead, but are alive in Christ. Jesus refers to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as "living, because all live to him" (Lk. 20:38). When Christ died on the cross, "the tombs also were opened, and... saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the Holy City and appeared to many" (Mt. 27:52-53 note the use of the past tense). When St. Paul described the Old Testament saints, he said: "Since we are surrounded by a such a great cloud of witnesses..." (12:1). The only reason that the saints can be said to be living is because of the power of Christ's sacrifice on the cross. It has been said that only those saints who are mentioned in the Bible are in heaven and no more. I have to ask: Where in the Bible does it say that only those saints who are mentioned in the Bible are in heaven? In the Old Testament, Elijah is portrayed as being taken up in chariots of fire, but Moses dies. However, at the transfiguration, Jesus converses with both Moses and Elijah. When Jesus tells the story about the rich man and Lazarus, he depicts Abraham as being in heaven (in fact, the Jews have referred to heaven as "the bosom of Abraham"). Abraman converses with the rich man about the possible conversion of his friends and relatives on earth Lk. 16:22-31). The Catholic Church does teach that the souls of the dead are in heaven, but it is not spiritualism in the strictest sense of the word. The Church also strongly affirms the belief in the resurrection of the dead. (Every Sunday at Mass, every memeber of the faithful professes the words "We look for the resurrection of the dead" in the creed.") We don't believe that the body is bad. On the contrary, we believe that the body and the soul will be raised on the last day. Moving on... The quote from the Book of Genesis is usually rendered in english bibles as "In the day that you eat of it [the fruit of the tree] you shall die" (Gen 2:17). However when the verse is rendered in Hebrew, it actually contains a double "death"; it could either be understood "by death you shall die" or "you shall die the death" (see "A Father Who Keeps His Promises" by Scott Hahn). The death that mankind endures because of the sin of Adam is a physical and a spiritual death, but in Christ, we have the ability to conquer both the physical and the spiritual. Since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead; just as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. And with our faith (belief and faithfulness) in Christ, we become "sons of God," "co-heirs with Christ," and "partakers of the divine nature" (see Gal 4:4-7; 2 Pet. 3-4). aarthur001 Sat, 26 Apr 2008 08:49:38 -0700 http://www.funadvice.com/q/catholicism_christianity 325606 In response to paradise: There are several scriptural scholars who disagree with your analysis that Jesus claimed to be God. To see what I mean, I recommend the book "Between Heaven and Hell" by Peter Kreeft. Also, while the evidence that Christ claimed to be God is less explicit than many people would like, it does say else where in the Bible that Jesus was God. John Chapter 1 comes to mind. Also St. Paul talks about Jesus' preeminent equality with God in Phillipians chapter 2. St. Peter speaks of the possibility that we can become "partakers of the divine nature" with Christ. Additionally, the extra-biblical accounts such as the didache, the letter of St. Ignatious of Antioch and the letter of Pleny all point to the belief of the ancient Christians that Jesus of Nazareth was in fact God incarnate. As far as the proof that these are reliable resouces: that is the stumbling block for most atheists. I am not in a position to judge the state of anyone's soul (in fact I have been ordered not to do so) but I can say that if an "atheist" becomes convinced that the Scriptures and Traditions of the Church are accurate, then he owes it to himself to be honest with himself, and takes steps to join the Church that he truly believes is right. aarthur001 Fri, 25 Apr 2008 09:26:32 -0700 http://www.funadvice.com/q/why_dont_you_believe 324494 As regards the miracles at Lords and other places: The Church's requirement for a miracle is that it MUST be unexplainable by scientific means. The miracles verified at Lourdes that the Church recognizes are the sort where people are literally missing internal organs and they miraculously grow back after washing in water from the spring (or drinking it). There are over 50 verified miracles from the spring at Lourdes since 1858. Whether or not this number is in keeping with the rate of "spontaneous healings" I cannot say. But I do know that these are not explainable using the natural sciences. In my opinion, the more immpressive miracles are the Eucharistic miracles, like the one at Lanciano, Italy. It occured in the 9th century AD. For those of you not familiar with it, I will briefly recap. A priest was having doubts about the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. (As Catholics, we believe that the bread and wine are "Changed in substance" at the mass, and they become the "Body, blood, soul, and Divinity, of Jesus Christ.") When this priest said the words of consecration, the host began to bleed, the the bread that was in his hands turned into bloody vlesh. That host and the bloody altar cloth have been preserved, and are currently at the Shrine in Lanciano, Italy. In the 1970s, scientists were permitted to examine the host, and do tests on it. They found that it is, in fact, human cardiac (heart) tissue. This is one of the many Eucharistic miracles that have occured over the course of the centuries. nlocnil: you have said that miracles do not prove the existence of God. I submit to you that they are the criteria that Christ himself told us to judge by. )"The works that I do bear witness to me" (John 10:25).) I think that anything that can produce a verified miracle is worth a second look. As far as the incorruptibles (preserved saints) are concerned: they did not preserve themselves, so it is not a "selfish miracle." All of the power that the saints have comes from God, and we confess that their preservation is an act of the Holy Spirit, that he performed in order to bear witness to God's existence, and the fact that the words and deeds that those saints did, they did not do on their own, but rather, they were submitting themselves to the divine will and doing the works that God instructed them to do, and they did by their great faith (both belief and "faithfulness) to him and in him. aarthur001 Fri, 25 Apr 2008 09:09:32 -0700 http://www.funadvice.com/q/god_74781 324476 In response to the quote from Karl Marx: "religion is the opium of the masses" In the past, I have had the experience of working at a convenience store for minimun wage. While there, I discovered the antithesis of Marx's view: Without God, opium becomes the religion of the masses. aarthur001 Wed, 23 Apr 2008 13:22:19 -0700 http://www.funadvice.com/q/why_dont_you_believe 322197 We are not God. We are seperate from God. However, the scriptures do have an interesting take on this idea of "becoming God." Unfortunately, you can't do it by studying something. "His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, that through these you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion, and become partakers of the divine nature" (2 Pet. 1:3-4). God became a son of man, so that we might become sons of God. "When the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts crying "Abba! Father!" So through God you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son then an heir" (Galations 4:4-7) Unfortunately, we cannot become sons of God or joint heirs with Christ, nor become "patakers of the divine nature" by studying. We have to become imitators of Christ. We need to keep his commandments, so as to abide in his love. We become like God by acting like God. What he did (give himself over to death, even deaht on a cross) we must also do (see John 13:4-35; 15:5-17; Mat. 16:24-25; Phillipians 2:3-18). Divine adoption is not something that we can earn; it is a gift. You can't get it by learning. You have to discern the will of God, and do it no matter what. You have to be an imitator of Christ. aarthur001 Wed, 23 Apr 2008 10:22:42 -0700 http://www.funadvice.com/q/bout_scientists 321987 He was very charismatic and very intelligent. Unfortunately, he believed his own press clippings. I think that he is an extreme example of what can happen when people try to decide subjectively and arbitrarily what is right and wrong. (in his case, he murdered nearly 10 million people) aarthur001 Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:58:05 -0700 http://www.funadvice.com/q/hitler_43174 321970 I do believe in God. One of the major reasons that I believe is because of Scientifically verified miracles, such as the healing power of the Spring in Lourdes France, the miracles involved in the canonization of Padre Pio, the Eucharistic miracles such as the one at Lanciano, Italy, and the incorruptibles such as St. Bernadette (These were saints that have been dead for centuries, but their bodies have never decomposed). The miracle aren't the only reason, but they are a major one. I also recognize the logic of the Gospel message and the profound teachings of the Church throughout the centuries. It all makes too much sense. The most important reason is because the Holy Spirit has worked in my life to put me in a posititon where I can believe. Faith is a gift. Please pray for me. I will be praying for all of you. aarthur001 Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:53:32 -0700 http://www.funadvice.com/q/god_74781 321966 This will be a rather long post, so I apologize in advance. Samurai, You have said that you are a faithful Catholic. I think that it would be good to look at the Church's official teaching on homosexuality. The "Catechism of the Catholic Church" says the following: “…Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of great depravity, tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’ They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine and affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved “The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination… constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter in their condition. “Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and the sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection” (“Catechism of the Catholic Church” paragraphs 2357-2359). Furthermore, in order to understand why homosexuality is a sin, we must examine the Church's over-arching teaching on sex and sexual morality. She teaches that sex in a GOOD THING, created by God. It is also the outward visible sign of the Sacrament of Marriage. In that Sacrament, the couple is suppose to give themsleves to each other in total self-sacrificing love. ("Husbands love your wives even as Christ loved his Church and gave himself up for her" (Ephesians 5:25).) The Sacrament of Marriage (and especially the sexual part) is supposed to be a participation in the inner life of God. He is a Trinity: three divine persons in one divine being. Just like the Trinity is one God, the two are supposed to "become one flesh" (Gen 1:27; Matthew 19:5-6). The Father pours out everything that is in himself (pure self-sacrificing love) to the Son; the Son pours out that love back to the Father. That love that the Father and the Son pour out to each other is so complete and so real, that it is a distinct person: "The Holy Spirit... who proceeds from the the Father and the Son." The love between a man and a woman in the Sacrament of Matrimony is supposed to be like that live-giving love of the Trinity. Just like the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, children come from the love of man and woman within the Sacrament. This is why the Church teaches that homosexuality is disordered. She also teaches that masturbation, contraception and invitro-vertilization are intrinsically disordered. As Pope Paul VI wrote in the Encyclical "Humanae Vitatae": Anything that seperates the unitive [sexual] act from the procreative act is disordered. The Church has always taught that the place for sex is in marriage, and the purpose of sex is to share in the inner life of the Trinity. In order to share in the Trinitarian life, the sexual act has to be "open to the transmission of life." Just one more thing samurai, I noticed that you said that the Bible was written by men rather than by God. You have also said that you are a faithful Catholic. You may want to read the Catholic Church's believes about the Bible and its origins. In the mean time, I will try to summarize it for you: The Bible has 2 authors. Every part had a human author. And all the books with all their parts were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit ("He has spoken through the prophets"). God himself did not hold the pen, but he did inspire the ancient authors to write everything word that is in the Bible. That said, not everything is necessarily supposed to be taken literally. The Sciptures have several "senses," (ex. the literal sense, the allegorical sense, etc.). The different books have to be read differently. History has to be read differently than poetry, which has to be read different that prophecy etc. The Faithful interpretor of the meaning of Sacred Scipture is the Church's Magesterium. For further reading, I suggest the Second Vatican Council Document "Dei Verbum: the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation" http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html aarthur001 Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:44:47 -0700 http://www.funadvice.com/q/homosexuality_a_sin 321961 That is a loaded question. God is a Trinity, a family whose life is love (authentic love). He is completely tracsendent. He contains within his very being all truth (classically understood: existence/being/"that which is"), unity, goodness, and beauty. For further reading I suggest the "Summa Theologiea" by St. Thomas Aquinas and "The Trilogy" by Von Balthasaar. I figure the 2 of them should take you about 50 years to read. Hope to hear from you then. aarthur001 Wed, 23 Apr 2008 00:28:06 -0700 http://www.funadvice.com/q/what_is_god_42752 321567 I apologize for taking so long. I promised to answer the second question later, so here goes: The question of God's eternity brings up two foundational principles: the concept of the Holy Trinity and the concept of time as a "created reality" All explanations must begin and end with Trinity, so I will start there. God The Father contains everything that exists, and he is still "bigger" and "beyond" everything that exists. Everything that is part of the Truth (using the Thomistic or Aristotelian definintion: Truth is "that which is"/existence/being) is part of God. He knows, runs, and sustains the universe with more ease than I snap my finger. He contains all Truth, Goodness and Beauty within himself. Furthermore, God the Father, in his very nature, knows and loves himself. That knowledge and that love contains everything that God is, in his nature, and it is so full, and so real, and so complete that it is a seperate person: God the Son. There is nothing that was in the Father that is not in the Son, and there is nothing in the Son that did not come from the Father. Furthermore, the Son was not created. He was "begotten". He was "born of the Father before all ages." God the Father did not decided to create a Son, but rather he is "Father" because of his very nature. The Son receives everything that he has from the Father, and he infinitely knows it, and he infinitely loves it, in accordance with the "nature" that he received from the Father. Furthermore, he pours out that knowledge that that love that he is constantly receiving from the Father. And that knowledge and love that the Father pours out to the Son and the Son pours back to the Father is so perfect and so complete and so real, that it is a distinct person: God the Holy Spirit. Everything that the Father has, he gives to the Son. Everything that the Son receives, he gives back to the Father. Therefore, everything that any one of the persons of the Trinity have, the others have as well. Each one is fully God. They are all of the same divine "ousia" (substance or being or essence, which consists of the intellect (truth) and the will (love)). Each is fully God, and the Three are fully one God. At the same time, the three are truly distinct. The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, etc. Each maintains his own "hypostasis" (personhood). The Son is fully distinct from the Father, because he is the one who is "begotten" of the Father. Their distinction lies in their relationships to one another. The distinction is real, but their is no division. The three persons are fully united in intellect and will. This is called "the mystery of the hypostatic union." How does the concept of the Trinity relate to the concept of time? The question asked was: "Who was before God? I can't see how he just always exsisted. He had to come from somewhere. Which would mean there was people before him. So.. who was before him?" This question has a significan short-coming. It pre-supposes that time is eternal and God is with time. Based on the understanding of the Trinity (God contains everything that exists, including time, within himself), it should be clear the concept of linear time is something that falls within the definition of God. It is part of God. Time does not contain God, rather God contains time. He is the reason that time exists in the first place. In all fairness, this question was asked in relation to Jesus. "If Jesus was the Son of God, then who was before God?" This question bears further analysis, so I will address it shortly. First, I must address the Trinity's relationship to time. The Trinity lives in an eternal "now." He is always in eternity. CS Lewis has an excellent explanation of a possibility for God's relationship to time in the book "Mere Christianity." I will give a brief summary of his explanation. Suppose that time is like a string. Now suppose that eternity is like a ball (a really, really big super-sized ball). Now, the sting only touches the ball at one point. We call that point "the present." The ball can see the entire string, past present and future, but it only interacts with the string at the present moment. The present influences the past and the future, but that moment is the only point that touches eternity. God (from his position in eternity) can see the entire string (thus he knows the past present and future), but he only interacts with us in the present (thus we truly have free will). How does Jesus relate to all this? The Church has confessed throughout the centuries that Jesus is "fully God and fully man." He is not only the Son of God, but he was also God the Son. He was the one who was eternally begotten from the Father before time was created. This understanding is what prompted John the Evangelist to write: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God" (Jn 1:1). Through the mystery of the Incarnation, God the Son assumed a human nature, and entered time and space. "For us men and for our salvation, he came down from heaven." By the power of the love that the Father and the Son pour out to each other (the Holy Spirit), he was conceived in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary. He (who was fully God) humbled himself to become fully man. He was like us in all things but sin. He had a human body and a human soul. He was tempted, cried, suffered, and died. He was 100% bona fide human being. At the same time however, he was fully God. He had a divine intellect and a divine will (distinct from his human intellect and his human will). He was fully God. Everything that was in the Father was in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, which prompted him to say, "the Father and I are one," and "He who has seen me has seen the Father" (Jn. 10:30; Jn 14:8). He was fully God, and fully man, but he was also only one person. He only had one divine "hypostasis" (personhood). Strictly speaking, it is incorrect to say that he was a human person, because his personhood was derived from his divinity rather than his humanity. He was a divine person who assumed a human nature rather than a human person. His humanity and his divinity were perfectly united in his one hypostasis, so he was one person rather than two people. Therefore, when we speak of Christ as the Son God, we mean that God himself is directly the source of everything that is in his body. God was his Father, and God was the source of his soul. Christ was fully God. Everything that is "God" was in him. By the mystery of the Incarnation, the eternal, uncreated God entered into time and space. If you have any questions about my explanaiton, feel free to funmail me. aarthur001 Tue, 22 Apr 2008 17:09:09 -0700 http://www.funadvice.com/q/a_few_religious_questions 321050 The other part of levzeroni's response dealt with Catholic's praying to saints. This issue was already addressed above, so I will not dwell on it long, but I will address it again briefly. The New testament asserts that those who have died are alive in Christ. Christ himself tells the Sadducees that God calls himself the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and that he is not the God of the dead, but of the living (see Mt. 22:32)). When we pray to saints, we are only asking for their prayers. James' letter points out that the prayers of the just people are worth much in the eyes of God. The saints pray for us because we ask them to. It's just like asing your mother, or your friend, or your pastor to pray for you. Furthermore, the saints in heaven are like the angels: they constantly behold the face of God. Unlike our earthly friends who might forget to pray for us, the saints don't forget, because they see how depsperate our situation really is. They ask God face-to-face what our earthly intercessors may forget to ask. aarthur001 Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:58:55 -0700 http://www.funadvice.com/q/catholicism_christianity 320971 I believe in one God the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth, of all things seen and unseen. I believe in one Lord: Jesus Chist, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father; God from God, light from light, true God from true God; begotten not made; one in being with the Father; through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation, he came down from heaven. By the power of the Holy Spirit, he was born of the Virgin Mary and became man. For our sake, he was crucified under Pontius Pilate. He suffered, died, and was buried. On the third day he rose again from the dead in fulfillment of the Scirptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken through the prophets. I believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins. I look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. This is my faith; it is the faith of our Church, and I will fight to defend it to the best of my ability. aarthur001 Tue, 15 Apr 2008 23:16:12 -0700 http://www.funadvice.com/q/what_do_u_believe 313873 If God loves everyone and forgives everyone, then why is there a hell? God does necessarily forgive everyone; he forgives those people who allow themselves to be forgiven. The name "Jesus" (Yeshua in Aramaic) means "God Saves." He wants to save us, but he asks us to "repent and believe in the Good News" (Mark 1:15). The central Gospel (good news) message is this: "God so loved the world that he sent his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world but that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him will not be condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name [God saves] of the only Son of God" (John 3:16-18) In order for anyone to believe in Christ Jesus, it absolutely requires an action of the Holy Spirit, as St. Paul observed. "No one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit" (1 Corinthians 12:4). The Second Vatican Council observed that every person on earth receives "grace sufficient" (from the Holy Spirit) to accept or reject the salvation that Christ offers. That is why Christ made the following statement: "Therefore, I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven...but blasphemy...against the Holy Sprit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come" (Mat. 12:31-32; see also Mark 3:28-30 and Luke 12:10). This leads us to your 3rd question about why God allows sin to exist. God does love us (no matter what other posters here may say). His love is not what we usually think about when we say the word "love." His love ("agape" in Greek; "caritas" in Latin) is defined as an all-encompassing, self-sacrificing, unconditional love. It's the sort of thing that St. Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 13. It is not an emotion or a feeling; it is an decision; it is an action. We, as men and women, are made in the image of God, which means that we are rational creatures with an intellect and a will. He gave us a free will, because he wants us to freely choose to be like him. He gives each person the grace sufficient to make that choice, but he will not force it on us. (He also gave us his Church, his body, to strengthen us. Jesus said to Peter, "Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers." -Luke 22:31-32) The bottom line is this: he must allow us the opportunity to say "no" to him, otherwise our "yes" would be meaningless. He wants us to love like he loves. Sin is what happens when we refuse to love as he loves. I will have to answer your 2nd question later (the one about God's eternity). aarthur001 Tue, 15 Apr 2008 23:02:48 -0700 http://www.funadvice.com/q/a_few_religious_questions 313864 In response to levzeroni: It is incorrect to say: "Christians know they sin and ask for forgiveness so that through faith and grace and good deeds ALONE they will recieve heaven. Catholics believe that through good deed alone they will get into heaven." The "Catechism of the Catholic Church" (CCC) cleary asserts the necessity of both faith (as in belief) and faith acting in love (what you call good works). Since you seem to dispute that Catholics belive in the necessit of faith, I will provide a reference. "Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation. 'Since without faith it is impossible to please (God)' and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attainted justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life 'but he who endures to the end'" (CCC 161; internal quotes from "Dei Filius" 3; cf Mt. 10:22; 24:13; Heb 11:16; Council of Trent DS 1532) aarthur001 Tue, 15 Apr 2008 21:32:29 -0700 http://www.funadvice.com/q/catholicism_christianity 313795 I believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. Christ himself is the head, and he said to St. Peter, "you are rock, and upon this rock I will buid my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it." He has only one Church, founded on his very own hand-picked Apostles. All who are baptized with the Trinitarian baptism and profess Christ Jesus as Lord are members of "his body, that is the Church" (Mat. 16:17-19; 28:19-20; Col. 1:24) aarthur001 Fri, 11 Apr 2008 18:44:17 -0700 http://www.funadvice.com/q/apostolic 308028