Dear Christians: why doesn't god DO something? - Page 9

andyfox · #81 10-23-2005, 03:46 AM

On St. Catherine Laboure:

The Miraculous Medal visionary, St Catherine Laboure, has been considered to be among the incorruptibles and her body is still on display today. Some Catholic sources say that St Catherine Laboure was embalmed. Embalming could have been done and forgotten about. In Catherine’s case, the hands completely rotted away and had to be replaced by wax hands indicating that her preservation is no miracle and she probably was embalmed. If you look at the photos which have not been retouched of the corpse of Catherine Laboure in the book, St Catherine Laboure and the Miraculous Medal you will see she had a shrunken face and was very old looking. Yet the picture of her corpse has fresh full features with eyes open and excellent skin and she looks like a woman of 35. Either the body is a wax figure or her body has disintegrated a bit and has had to be repaired with wax.

On St. Bernadette, an autopsy has never been performed to determine if the body was enbalmed.

On the so-called incorrupt bodies in general, many of the bodies get black and hard and some parts of them rot. The alleged miracle of incorruptibility seem thus an affront to God for it attributes half-miracles to him.

NotReady · #82 10-23-2005, 08:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Man thought up the idea of God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kinda reminds me of the fairy tale of evolution by chance. Very convenient that it happens to be impossible to prove.

Man hated the truth that God exists and that man will never be God. So he invented the idea of something accidentally popping up out of nothing for no reason, knowing he would never have to show how it's possible.

Very convenient.

DougShrapnel · #83 10-23-2005, 09:41 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Man thought up the idea of God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kinda reminds me of the fairy tale of evolution by chance. Very convenient that it happens to be impossible to prove.

Man hated the truth that God exists and that man will never be God. So he invented the idea of something accidentally popping up out of nothing for no reason, knowing he would never have to show how it's possible.

Very convenient.

[/ QUOTE ]Your refusual to understand evolution and your desire that people take your thoughts seriously is beyond me.

evolution by chance = accidentally popping up out of nothing for no reason

The origins of life is not convered in evolution, and much less the origins of universes. You make a good point if evolution tackled these things. But it doesn't, regardless of what you think evolution is.

But that aside I'm willing to ask about the rest of your cosmological arguement for the existance of God.

For the sake of discussion, the existance of the universe proves the existance of God. Fine, I don't buy it, but my level of skeptisicm is greater than your is. Know from that huge premise that I'm granting you, reason that God is Good, reason that your own version of xtianity is correct, and reason that you have the ability to be able to determine correctness in regards to God. I can only hope you don't take the convenient response of because the bible says so.

NotReady · #84 10-23-2005, 10:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]

The origins of life is not convered in evolution

[/ QUOTE ]

The word evolution is often used to explain the origin of life. But even if it's limited to speciation, the idea of chance is almost always attached. Just a few minutes ago I was watching the CBS Sunday Morning show which had a spot on ID, and presented the alternative as evolution by random mutation. We were confidently reassured that ID is religion but this kind of evolution is settled science. So settle for me that chance is ultimate.

[ QUOTE ]

I can only hope you don't take the convenient response of because the bible says so.

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, deny your most basic presuppositon, prove everything you believe which is based on that presupposition, and by the way, while you're doing the impossible, prove your presupposition as well. I will do that when you prove your most basic presuppositions, that God doesn't exist and that chance is ultimate.

DougShrapnel · #85 10-23-2005, 10:20 AM

[ QUOTE ]
that God doesn't exist and that chance is ultimate.

[/ QUOTE ] I don't suppose these to be true. Some do, some suppose the opposite.

[ QUOTE ]
The word evolution is often used to explain the origin of life

[/ QUOTE ] This is incorrect usage and you do have a bone to pick with that.

[ QUOTE ]
But even if it's limited to speciation, the idea of chance is almost always attached.

[/ QUOTE ] Right, but someone better than I can explain to you how order arises out of chance based systems, if you wish to listen.

[ QUOTE ]
Just a few minutes ago I was watching the CBS Sunday Morning show which had a spot on ID, and presented the alternative as evolution by random mutation. We were confidently reassured that ID is religion but this kind of evolution is settled science.

[/ QUOTE ] True and True I think.

[ QUOTE ]
So settle for me that chance is ultimate.

[/ QUOTE ] What does ultimate mean again? Chance is not the only thing that exists. If you take evolution by chance to mean that only chance exists in the universe and no order exists than I think you some illconceived notions.

[ QUOTE ]
In other words, deny your most basic presuppositon, prove everything you believe which is based on that presupposition, and by the way, while you're doing the impossible, prove your presupposition as well. I will do that when you prove your most basic presuppositions, that God doesn't exist and that chance is ultimate.

[/ QUOTE ] Like I said I don't have those presuppositions. Just becuase I don't have the presupposition that God exists, doesn't mean that I have the presupposition of the opposite. Allthought either god exists or he doesn't exists. Doesn't mean that I have to presuppose one or the other. So again even if you assume God exists, how are the questions I asked answered?

NotReady · #86 10-23-2005, 10:58 AM

[ QUOTE ]

I don't suppose these to be true. Some do, some suppose the opposite.

[/ QUOTE ]

By presupposition I mean your most basic assumption. Everyone makes presuppostions. If you don't presuppose God you presuppose His non-existence. By that I mean you base your epistemology on man's autonomous reason and the ultimacy of chance.

[ QUOTE ]

Right, but someone better than I can explain to you how order arises out of chance based systems, if you wish to listen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine, let him explain away. I contend you make a self-contradictory assertion though when you refer to a chance based system since chance is the opposite of system. But since according to your first statement you don't believe chance is ultimate why would you want to prove it is?

[ QUOTE ]

What does ultimate mean again?

[/ QUOTE ]

The highest principle.

[ QUOTE ]

Just becuase I don't have the presupposition that God exists, doesn't mean that I have the presupposition of the opposite. Allthought either god exists or he doesn't exists. Doesn't mean that I have to presuppose one or the other.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're getting tangled up here. If He either exists or doesn't exist everything you say will be based on your belief of whether He exists or doesn't exist. If you believe He exists you can't rationally discuss the ultimacy of chance. If you don't believe He exists you can't rationally discuss anything else.

Peter666 · #87 10-23-2005, 11:16 AM

Meh, desperate attempts to explain the unexplainable. The blood of St. Janarius does not have documentation only going back to 14th century, but to the 5th century, so the article is wrong. And the blood clearly boils and increases in mass. It does not just go from solid to liquid like...mayonaise in a jar??

No, St. Catherine Laboure and St. Bernadette were not embalmed, and it does not explain the "odour of sanctity," a perfume like smell that was emitted from their bodies and still does at certain times. Of course, let us be skeptical and assume it is all a hoax perpetrated by the Catholic Church to deceive the masses. It does not alter the fact that there are much older incorruptibles.

These two saints only date back to the 19th century. You can go back 500 or 600 years as I said to find incorruptibles such as St. Francis Xavier and many medieval ones. Many of these bodies are pliable, not mummified or embalmed (no successful embalming techniques emerged until the 19th century).

DougShrapnel · #88 10-23-2005, 11:34 AM

[ QUOTE ]
If you don't presuppose God you presuppose His non-existence.

[/ QUOTE ] This is where you are wrong. I think this is some sort of falicy, perhaps the unbounded middle? I cannot stess enough of this point. It is the most important aspect of the "atheistic world view" that you befuddle. Besides I'm asking you about your beliefs. I even granted to you that god exists for the sake of arguement. Showing my beleifs lacking is an incorrect way to prove your beliefs correct.

[ QUOTE ]
Fine, let him explain away. I contend you make a self-contradictory assertion though when you refer to a chance based system since chance is the opposite of system. But since according to your first statement you don't believe chance is ultimate why would you want to prove it is?

[/ QUOTE ] I don't even know what you mean by chance is ultimate. Chance being ultimate has no meaning to me. I will let someone better explain chance to you. I don't have a problem with chance existing, you do. And i don't see that if chance exists that it is the only thing to exist or is ultimate. I have no idea why you jump so far in all of your conclusions. The universe exists thus God exists. Chance exists thus chance is ultimate. Random mutation in evolution exists, thus everything is meaningless. I have no idea what you mean when you say these things. Except that you assume God exists. Well good for you.

[ QUOTE ]
The highest principle.

[/ QUOTE ] Chance is the highest principle? Ok I'm still lost. What does this mean?

[ QUOTE ]
You're getting tangled up here. If He either exists or doesn't exist everything you say will be based on your belief of whether He exists or doesn't exist. If you believe He exists you can't rationally discuss the ultimacy of chance. If you don't believe He exists you can't rationally discuss anything else.

[/ QUOTE ] I'm not getting tangled up here. I'm tangled up because I'm trying to figure out what you are talking about. I'm tangled up here because you grasp that evolution doesn't include biogenesis, but you still wish to base your arguements on a false def of evolution. You are happy to have tought in schools both that life was created by chance and that life was created by god. Why would you want such a thing when both are lacking. You wish to continue to have taught in schools a false attribute of evolution provided they also teach the alternative that God created life. And I'm getting tangled up here.

I don't presuppose anything about the existance about god or the non existance of god.
Evolution doesn't include biogenesis.
I still don't understand the meaning of the expression "Chance is the highest principle"
Even if you prove my thoughts wrong our 2 views aren't mutually exculsive. My contradictions or flawed logic does nothing to help your case.

Given that universes existance proves Gods existstance.
Reason that God is Good
Reason that your God is the correct God
Reason that you are capable of understanding the nature of God and the legitmacy of your specific branch of xtianity.

If these are impossible fine, nothing more for us to discuss on this subject.

andyfox · #89 10-23-2005, 11:59 AM

Meh, a desperate attempt to continue to attribute supernatural causes to things that are explainable by other, scientific means. The "odour of sanctitiy" is easily explained as an embalming substance: "Many aromatic substances are reputed to resist putrefaction, and other recommendations down through the years include balsams, tartar, immersion in herbs, spirits of wine, waxed sheets, brine or alcohol, oils of lavender, camomile and turpentine."

www.adam.com.au/bstett/PaIncorruptibility.htm

Peter666 · #90 10-23-2005, 12:57 PM

But these people were not embalmed, and the odour is not something comparable to something on earth. Of course, what you are stating is that these things are just hoaxes being perpetrated by Catholics....for what motive? You think it's fun living a life of celibacy?

St. Francis Xavier was covered in lime for three days to expunge the flesh from his bones so his relics could be returned to Europe and eventually spread around Churches. Upon removing the lime, instead of having bones, they had St. Francis Xavier intact. His body is in India on constant display. How can embalming procedures be done to saints who are on constant display?

When your hero Lenin was embalmed, there were all sorts of complications, and he has to be pumped up with different liquids on a regular basis. This is from 1917 onwards with the full scientific capacity of the Soviet Union going to work. How could this possibly be done to bodies dating back centuries?

PS: I have to add that the article cited is full of errors and bigotry. Typical of dishonest inquirerers.