The Catholic Church hasn't been backward in coming forward with new saints to inspire the congregations. They seem to roll one out whenever things get a bit slack down in the trenches and, going by past choices they're not very picky.
Old Pope Frank just announced 10 new saints but, to be fair to him most of these, at last, seem to be deserving of some accolades (although I don't believe in the idea of sainthood).
Some of Frank's earlier canonisations have been a bit suspect though like for a couple of previous popes John 23rd and John-Paul 2nd who supposedly produced miracles (that no-one's ever seen).
Earlier popes were worse having given sainthood to assorted mystics, histrionics and nutters like: Saints Francisco and Jacinta Marto from Fatima; Saint Adjutor; Saint Bernadino of Siena; Saint Drogo; Saint Catherine of Siena; Saint Padre Pio; Saint Theresa of Avila; Saint Margaret Mary; Saint Rose of Lima; Saint Lutgardis of Aywières and, Robert's current favourite Saint Faustina. It's worth looking some of these up on Google. They are true nutters and time-wasters but somehow have managed to convince some old guys in dresses that they are worthy of being elevated to sainthood. Old Drogo's story is a doozy and hold onto your hat when you read about Saint Lutgardis of Aywières.
 |
| Calm down Lutgardis, you'll only further encourage Robert |
So where does Robert come into this you might ask.
You'd know the answer to that if you read his posts like wot he writes on his blog ...... his blog named ..... Oh, yeah I see......
Robert writes (tosses a few lines amid cut and pasted quotes, pictures and links to podcasts and videos) on a blog currently titled Robert the sanctimonious apathetic sinner and toilet cleaner (don't ask). The posts are usually about violin playing, Paganini, Catholic Apologists, the Pope, Mass, Catholic Sacraments, abortion, homosexuality, his pets, his family, his dinner, how our government manages to be simultaneously fascist and communist and some other things. Often all of these themes are contained in the one post which is quite a feat when he only uses about fifty words.
In one of his most recent posts he had this to say:
He seems to be moving into the mystic (no, not this: INTO THE MYSTIC which is one of Van's greatest songs) and is looking for a 'Faustina-type' revelation.
Looking at the monstrance* held by the priest he seems to be desperately trying to see Jesus and almost convinces himself that he's done it. Almost. A little bit more fasting and some stimulating drugs might help in the future.
.jpeg)
With practice and dedication, along with a bit of natural glutamate enhanced by a psychedelic he might achieve his ambition. The next step will be to get noticed by the church and its hierarchy. This is where hysteria, fainting, talking in tongues, stigmata, religious ecstasy (not one of the little helpers ingested earlier), visions, fantasies and even death come in. Beer will help.
* Short for monstrous nonsense.
.jpeg)
In the end Atheists have only one argument that is worthy of consideration. That is the argument based around evil and why would God permit it.
ReplyDeleteChristians have multiple proofs of the existence of God.
"Christians have multiple proofs of the existence of God"
ReplyDeleteThat's good to hear. Give us a few examples then.
I'm listening too.
ReplyDeleteHere is an argument called the Cosmological argument for god written by Beaumont at Catholic Answers:
ReplyDelete"
Cosmological arguments proceed from the existence of the cosmos to its creator. The basic idea is that all effects require a cause, and a key ingredient in many such arguments is that an “infinite regress” (an actual infinite quantity) cannot be used to multiply causes and avoid an ultimate cause (a creator). Although two of the most popular forms of the argument (horizontal and vertical) agree that an infinite regress can’t get around a first cause, or creator, they have different reasons for saying so.
The popular atheist Richard Dawkins, a scientist who has been taken to task even by some fellow atheists for his often-unsatisfying philosophical reasoning, made this mistake when he (unwisely) took on Thomas Aquinas. Commenting upon several arguments from Aquinas’s “Five Ways,” Dawkins concluded that, “These arguments rely upon the idea of a[n infinite] regress and invoke God to terminate it. They make the entirely unwarranted assumption that God himself is immune to the regress” (The God Delusion, p. 101). One of the problems with Dawkins’ case here is that he presents Aquinas’s “vertical” cosmological argument forms as if they were of the “horizontal” type. Aquinas, in fact, had no problem with the idea of an infinite series of independent causes – he only objected to there being an infinite causal chain with no efficient (first) cause (see Summa Theologiæ I. Q.46, A.2).
The most popular cosmological argument today is the “horizontal” or Kalam cosmological argument. It argues that the existence of the universe is an effect, whose cause is God, the creator:
Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
The universe began to exist.
There cannot be an infinite number of causes.
Therefore, the universe has a first cause of its existence (God).
The heart of this argument lies in the impossibility (premise 1) of an infinite regression of causes or events. An actual infinite number of things cannot exist because an “infinite number” is a contradiction, nowhere observed in nature. If the universe had no beginning, then the number of causes or moments before today would be an infinite amount of moments – but there cannot be an actually infinite amount of moments, so the universe must have begun and was therefore caused to begin by something uncaused (and outside the universe). This cause is God.
The above problem of an infinite regress has sometimes been incorrectly applied to other cosmological arguments like the contingency (“vertical”) argument based on the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas, however, actually denied the validity of arguing for the beginning of the universe based on an infinite regress! His “vertical” cosmological argument is actually making a completely different claim than the “horizontal” version:
At least one contingent being (i.e., an existing being whose existence is not necessary, or who could possibly not exist) exists.
Contingent beings must have an external cause of their existence.
An infinite number of contingent beings cannot account for the existence of all contingent beings.
Since you are both highly educated gentlemen I look forward to an intelligent discussion about the Cosmological argument.
DeleteWell that was a lot of words for saying that something triggered the creation of the universe so that something must be god.
DeleteSorry, I don't get the conclusion. That something might just as easily been a speck of dust that mutated.
Try again Sparky.
Anonymous above was me. Sorry but the 'Sparky' might have given that away anyway.
DeleteOK Robert, what else have you got?
DeleteYou know, given your bold statement that Christians have multiple proofs of the existence of god, I thought you might easily pull a couple out ( a rude expression comes to mind) and show us - in you own terms seeing that you are the one who believes it.
I just thought Richard ,my older and wiser, brother is going to try to trip me up at the start by saying that the Cosmological and other arguments are not proofs!
ReplyDeleteSo what is a proof?
"Informally, a proof is a way of convincing you that the conclusion follows from the premises, or that the conclusion must be true if the premises are. Formally, a proof is a list of statements, usually beginning with the premises, in which each statement that is not a premise must be true if the statements preceding it are true."
From this I conclude that an argument (or statement) or series of them can be used as proof if they are logically true!
Another is the fine tuning argument. Which I think means that the universe is too complex to have been the result of chance and needed intelligent design.
ReplyDelete"That something might just as easily been a speck of dust that mutated."
ReplyDeleteWould not the speck of dust need DNA to mutate? So you are proposing a logical impossibility! You need to up your game.
Sure I could cut and paste a lot of arguments and ,even possibly proofs , but I want see if the opposition will respond with respect and prudence first.
ReplyDeleteNo. no-one is asking you to cut and paste anything.
DeleteAll I'm asking you to do, from your heart, is to explain, in your own terms, what proof you have for the existence of your god - or any god for that matter.
Let's face it, you made the statement "Christians have multiple proofs of the existence of God"
I don't know what you mean by "I want see if the opposition will respond with respect and prudence first".
You put up son - some sort of serious, reasonable, simple and believable 'proof' and I will respond to it, hopefully not imprudently.
There is also the Teleological argument, Scripture, the Moral argument, private revelation as in Saints, eye witness accounts of Jesus the second person of the trinity.
ReplyDeleteSo? Give me one sensible reason, of your own and not some gobble de goop you download, why you believe in god. In your own words now please otherwise you're just wasting my time.
DeleteAnd what the fuck is 'teleological'?
DeleteA new game show on TV?
The best proof is the working of god in the Psyche of anyone that reaches out to God. Through works and faith, God will lavishly bestow graces. One leaves behind selfishness, bitterness and pride and grows in the virtues.
ReplyDeleteNo, no, no. That's not proof. It's just more mumbo jumbo.
DeleteFace it, you've just proved that there's no proof of the existence of god, or none that you can come up with anyway. This makes me wonder why you cling to something that you yourself can't even rationalise. It's like an addiction I suppose.
Pressure is on now..."Why I believe in God" by Robert.
ReplyDeleteBelief in God , we must remember is the "default" setting. So it has always seemed natural and obvious that "God is". I have for time forgotten about God and become immersed in the material world. But I do not ever remembering doubting.I have also held mistaken beliefs about God and the spiritual nature of creation and my part in it through ignorance of scripture and of the teaching of the one and true Latin Catholic church.
All of the proofs I mention in previous comments have solidified this faith but more and more now I rely on prayer and weekly attendance at Mass to keep the belief alive , not to forget daily Catholic podcasts by apologists and priests which I listen to .
This comes from my heart and I hope it answers your question dear Peter.
Frankly it's a load of rubbish but, if that's your belief then I guess it explains your stance and actions. It doesn't prove anything of course because it's nonsense but it's your nonsense. You just shouldn't try to ram it down other people's throats and certainly shouldn't use it to denigrate what others think or to use it as some kind of foundation to support misogyny, anti LGBQT sentiment, anti-abortion and right wing politics.
Delete....... and, further - "Belief in God , we must remember is the "default" setting". That must be one of the stupidest things I've ever seen about catholicism, Christianity or any type of religion. That's worse than the claptrap I was force fed in the Catechism at primary school.
DeleteI can not see anything in that long paragraph you wrote Robert, that properly answers your opening question -"Why I believe in God".
Sorry, I don't men to be a nag but can you try again. Maybe follow Richard's line of questioning - "I guess I was expecting a simple statement , that anyone could understand, that proved beyond all doubt that your god was there. Eg. Him making a statement and demonstrating his power on TV or interfering in that Russian/Ukranian war."
Surely a god that exists still wouldn't be relying on some historical (2000 years plus) 'eye-witness' accounts by people who supposedly observed Jesus'? miracles.
There's ample opportunities nowadays (not just burning bushes, marks on tea towels, funny clouds, stains on walls and voices in the wind) for a god to communicate with humans. He/she/it could take out advertising on billboards and TV, write op-ed articles for major newspapers, appear before special committees of the UN and various government select committees, use Twitter, Facebook or other social media platforms or, as we do start up a blog. What's so hard about that?
Has Evil Doctor Richard helped you?
ReplyDeleteNay, but seriously folks...
I haven't been swayed. The first 'argument' just came across as lots of big words to me. The last statement was just that - a bit of your history and a statement of your beliefs. I guess I was expecting a simple statement , that anyone could understand, that proved beyond all doubt that your god was there. Eg. Him making a statement and demonstrating his power on TV or interfering in that Russian/Ukranian war.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThat deleted comment was a non comment. It's hard commenting on this phone.
ReplyDeleteYes, I know, I'm using the iPad and it's just as difficult. The bloody thing always wants to second guess what I'm typing and, even if you think you've corrected it, it slips back in a bit of nonsense belief in god is the default setting - there! See? I told you.
DeleteIt's like trying to talk to five year olds.
DeleteOkay, Mr. I Believe In The Easter Bunny, but can you just give us a plain, simple proof. You know, "I know that the Christian god exists because he stops babies in Africa dying of AIDS and leaves videos that show he is involved."
ReplyDelete1. Videos are easily faked.
ReplyDelete2. God as spirit is invisible.
Can you suggest another way a proving that God is and that would satisfy you?
Really! That's the best you can do? I've sort of answered this in my latest post just published.
Delete