There is at Least One Problem with the Notion of a Catholic (Christian) God

(I will extend my argument into the comments section, though judging doesn't have to necessarily include that) (*9) http://newlife.id.au... I'm saying that your side can't get past the absurdity that death gives if there is no afterlife. Why would your side care about social order? The species will be dead anyway. Our ancestors survived because morality wasn't built off of absurdity, but a belief that it wouldn't be wasted by death. So, your whole argument on this is absurd and you won't admit it. That is a good question to ask. God is love and mercy, so He will take any chance you give Him. Nevertheless, one doesn't know how one will die and if they will have the opportunity to recant, or if they would say that they can't recant. Also, life's better to be moral than to be immoral, because of the consequences. Being immoral is a liability, because if other people notice that, they will be repulsed by that. Being moral is attractive. Also, it's a sin to presume that God will accept oneself. Lastly, it takes more effort to change than to do nothing, and recanting involves a change. Well, saying that "I didn't kill someone 6 out of 7 days," means that the person acted immorally. It doesn't matter if they didn't steal or commit adultery, but if they killed, then they acted immorally. The same can go with Christianity. Examples generally aren't definitive proofs (unless one says that there is no example which exists in this case). What I mean here is that you have to show that there couldn't be a reasonable alternative explanation, which is an explanation, which is more than just an example. I can look for those explanations, like the one I gave. When I mean assumptions about objections, you were saying that "I provided clear examples of how it is morally wrong." I do understand your claims, but they don't prove it is morally wrong if my objections work. I do want you to give examples from the Bible. You just sound like you jump to the conclusion that you've rightly interpreted it. There are rules, it is just that the Bible isn't the whole of Catholicism, but it just one of three sources for authority, Tradition and Magisterium being the other two. You are right in saying that it would be good to have rules as well. However, the reasoning is as important or is more important than the rules, else the meaning and purpose of the rules can become distorted. One example of rules is in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Now, there are probably a lot more rules than one or a few books can handle, as well as times change and new rules need to be made for newer situations like with technology, in addition to living in different types of societies, like a democracy or monarchy, with their own problems, so the rule book would have to deal with all those things, meaning that multiple documents or revisions would have to be made. That sounds reasonable that I need to prove it. Spirituality is important because materialism can despair with no-afterlife atheism because of death. Spirituality conquers the problem of death. Scientific knowledge can't get you past death, as far as I know. Since the Bible doesn't do a good job at being a rule-list for humanity, it therefore probably isn't meant to do such a thing (although parts of it are like mini-rule lists, like in Leviticus, and with the Beatitudes). On the other hand, maybe it doesn't need to be a rule-list, as if you have the spirit of it, then the rules will flow naturally from that. So, why write it on a list if it's in the heart? ""I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts" Jeremiah 31:33. That being said, it wouldn't hurt to write stuff down anyway, though it's more so meant to be followed and done than just read. What I meant by the message can be rejected more easily than a story is that people are more attracted to a story than a sentence-fact, and so it is one thing to deny a fact/moral, but it is much harder to deny that same moral in a web of different plausible facts woven by a story. Stories which invoke the senses can seem more personal than abstract, objective facts. Q3: I don't think God was interested in revealing scientific facts, and that there were more important things than scientific facts, hence a possibility for the inaccuracies because they didn't care about them primarily. Q4: If a passage of the Bible is still confusing after looking at other passages, then go outside of the Bible. The Bible needs interpretation, and it needs proper interpretation at that. The way you show that the Bible isn't from some man's mind is through the three points I said regarding God, as well as historical accuracy in critical points. A story isn't meant to be a proof of an idea, but as a way of better understanding an idea. Catholicism doesn't believe in "Bible alone," because one can interpret it wrongly. In fact, I don't know of anything that says essentially "Bible alone." And if it did, it would be a circular reference, so its verification would have to be in something like history or some other way. You are right on the translation part. Hence, another difficulty with "Sola Scriptura" that a Magisterium can resolve with the existence of a Magisterium. Doctrine is based on the Bible. Yeah, actually your initial point now makes sense to me. Now, just because the Bible is vague on certain points doesn't imply that it's okay to schism. The Bible doesn't cause the schism. People do. They just use the Bible as an excuse. The Bible is meant for people, not people for the Bible. That being said, there are different types of Bibles (meaning a few more or less books, not necessarily a totally different book). Also, not all of Catholic doctrine is necessarily defined clearly in the Bible, though there are probably hints of it, like the Trinity. Looking into the 11th (not 10th) century schism, it appeared to have been a bunch of things. I can't tell if it is exactly over the Bible or not, but it doesn't seem important for our purposes. I agree that the Bible has parts which need some explaining. Oh, I meant to say that the 3 things with the miracle worker would have to be re-done for Protestants because of the gap between the time of Christ and when Protestants came up, because they broke the continuity, while Catholicism claims the continuity, so it doesn't need for those 3 things to be done again. I was saying that this is what Protestants need to do to verify that their ideas come from God, and not just some person who used the Bible for their own ends. Where does it say in the Bible that God says that "I wanted to defeat those guys with iron chariots, but I can't beat them," rather than choose not to have them defeated in a supernatural way? This gets into the idea of whether "all-powerful" means God can do contradictions. Well, God can't. God also can't do evil, as that would be a contradiction. So, all-powerful is not a good name. I propose that God can do all things which aren't evil or contradictory. "I don't want to be with God," and "because I don't think He exists" make no sense when put together. Of courses you are attacking God, you are saying that He is bad, so avoid Him. You"re doing the opposite, helping God? Huh? Actually, you have shown that you are distancing yourself from Him. He's not stopping you from coming to Him. You ignored my part which says that it wouldn't be just for God to put people in Hell for no good reason. In terms of suffering and pain, you ignore the value of free will and the point about Heaven. In terms of evil, I already gave my points previously, and they stand against what you said this round. Satan rejected God for no good reason, though. God is testing people and their free will, hence the suffering and pain being allowed. It's not so much an IOU, as God isn't limited to do what He wants, but a reward.