The Church seems to be the only organization committed to "Nature and Nature's God" which gives it life and synchrony with the universe, so much so, that it is the only group which professes linkage with the pre-BigBang Eternity of a Loving Transcendent God waiting for our return enabled by Jesus if freely followed by each of us. The Church has not lasted over two millennia because it has done all the bad which the anti-s accuse. Even though criticisms are usually uncharitable and magnified, the Church rebutts all criticisms, but the complainers have proven so deaf that the Church rarely bothers with the same old stale attacks any more. (Bearing False Witness: Debunking Centuries of Anti-Catholic History by Rodney Stark, is an excellent recommendation for those who perpetrate hate speech and crimes against the Church. Because of this book, United Nations condemnation and legal action should be undertaken against all anti-Catholic hate speech.) And sometimes, the rebuttals fall flat, because the leaders are human and imperfect. And those who criticize have closed minds and do not want the truth. In general, those who bad-mouth the Church are self-inflated wanna-be pseudo leaders jealous of the real Church which they must try to degrade so they can "lead" you their way. Regardless, the Church somehow stays afloat with a big rudder and bumbling crew. As my father would always say, “The Church must be divine to survive even 50 years with the leadership it always has.” It does not help being filled with sinners trying to be healed by mercy and forgiveness. Maybe it has to do with Jesus creating it: Mathew 16:18 properly translated from Aramaic (to Simon Peter, "You are Kephas, and on the kephas I will build my church.") or from Greek, "You are Petros (male word needed for Peter), and on this petras ("rock" is grammatically feminine in Greek), I will build my church." There is no reasonable questioning the creation of the Church by Jesus, nor its identification with the Body of Christ from about 22 other verses. Anyway, Peter was kind of a wimpy jerk at times even as "leader".
A major characteristic of the Church is that it is the oldest organization routinely antagonizing all because it says there are “sins”, which means that one must assume responsibility for wrongdoing (which is always against "being"). It will speak up; it must speak up; it should speak up. It does so by a discrete clarity and gets condemned for both, i.e., trying to being too discrete and being too clear, depending on who is hearing—the Church is always “not enough” or “too much”. No one wants to hear such, so, not surprisingly, they attack the Church any way possible—it is sort of a “how dare you tell me I am wrong or right” kind of automatic reaction. Also, it is the oldest group doing this by synchrony with the environment, the animal kingdom, the earth, and the universe by commitments to Nature and Natural Law morality—and, again, people have an almost automatic tendency to pollute physically and behaviorally (original sin again), so they do not like to be told they are out of synchrony with the planet either (original sin as usual) especially by legitimate authority trying to overcome original sin. Also, the Church is the oldest organization promoting Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness, metaphorically at least as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It is the oldest Transcendental organization ever which promotes its trivium of Being, Matter, Identity, and its quadrivium of Truth, Oneness, Good and Beauty. It is the oldest organization promoting Liberty and Love for all. It is the oldest democracy in the world electing its leader. It brings a touch of "another World" (all personalized Transcendence outside of space/time) which is why it is sometimes difficult to understand, embrace and actively participate in--One can "feel" it at times at Mass and other spiritual events--likely, most common without realizing it, in the elation of Sport--the univium of the Church, and ancient Greece if you think about it).
From contemporary science which it created, the Church is committed to the physics of the Big Bang and to the pre- and post- Big Bang called “the Statimuum” (or traditionally the “Beautific Vision” which is all Transcendence outside of space/time). It believes in the "Big Bust-up" of Adam and Eve’s freedom to choose against biology and biochemistry, and thereby began the potential to sin in every human. The Church originated from and is committed to the "Big Bailout" of Jesus as Incarnation, at the Last Supper, on the Cross, and Resurrection. By the Sacraments, it brings a touch of the Pre-Big Bang (the Statimuum, in physics) into the world and avers that the miracles are examples of the Statimuum also. The Church tries to be transcendentally identical to Jesus as the Body of Christ by Grace and by the Seven Sacraments as “2 X 4s up side the head” trying to wake everyone up (and no one likes that either) in a peaceful and merciful way. The Church incorporates elementary physics giving metaphors to understand basic physics: spectrum--Reconciliation-unity; dimension--Holy Orders-life; event--Baptism-dignity; field--Holy Communion-integrity; uncertainty--Matrimony-liberty; singularity--Extreme Unction-spirituality; quantum--Confirmation-identity; force--Grace-transcendental pursuit. The job is impossible given original sin, but it is the only organization so committed. The Church is a LOVEOLUTION...unique, ancient, mysterious--that there is more. The Church is an ongoing "touch" of the pre-Universe by divinely given metaphors about "why you are you" and your "ultimate human purpose."
Also beyond brief salutary exclamations are the other Church activities, all in communion with Holy Eucharist and Grace, all of which can likewise be experienced as Truth, Oneness, Good and Beauty with the Trinity, all of which are the Image and Likeness of God. Again, to live and participate in the depth of the Sacraments is to almost levitate in Transcendence. The Mass, and the Church, is to be in the Eternity--brief moments of Transcendent Solidarity in the Statimuum--the immediacy of all Transcendence of the universe ("You are there!")--that BEING is more than life, that life is more than bewildering physics, that being is more than bewildering metaphysics, that the Church is to be there--Unrestricted Infinite Being--"UIB" in Eternity-like Tranquility.
To reject ancient messages of ancient languages in ancient words (not contemporary science) is incredibly unfair, ignorant and arrogant. What do atheists want from God (an UnRestricted Act of Thinking--"UR-AT" [by Fr. Robert Spitzer]) -sounded as "you are at". I like an UnRestricted Act of Being --"UR-AB"--sounded "you are a being"). Better yet, God is an Infinite Act of Being (the Father); God is an Infinite Act of Transcendence (the Son--Jesus the Christ); and God is an Infinite Act of Love (the Holy Spirit)--as one: "IABTL"--Infinite Act of Being Transcendence Love. What do atheists want: No creation? A Big Bang with a beginning point of space/time continuum containing 18 billion years of our universe? Wave/particle attraction/interaction as the material universe based mathematics/physics/chemistry of "Love" yet to be personalized? Scientists are studying "love" (particle attraction from gravity to strings/circles) without realizing it? Scientific probabilities? Goedel's Theorems? Entropy without Synthesis? A planet with all the 118 elements of the periodic table instead of one or two elements as on other astral bodies? A planet with water and elements warmed nicely for eons between freezing and boiling protected from all anti-life bombardments? A planet with a molten core creating a geomagnetic field protecting all life from lethal rays of the universe? A planet with toxic elements secluded so life can be? The ideas of Being, Transcendence and Love? The Catholic Mass Mantra of ultimate human purpose: LifeSacrificeVirtueLoveHumanityPeaceFreedomDeathwithoutFear? A Statimuum--what used to be called Eternity--all of all immediately--I AM WHO AM--an UnRestricted Act of Being, Transcendence, Love (UR-A-BTL for all)? More to life than physics? More to BEING than life? Need someone more startling than a man rising from the dead preaching "love"?
In summary, the Church is an always sinking barque ponderously floating to a pre-Big Bang world advertised as “There is unbelievably more than this craziness in which we are living.” One-third of the Church crew is always in blundering mutiny (one in 12 is a traitor); one-third confused; and one-third paddling (with 8 oars—Baptism, Penance, Holy Communion, Confirmation, Extreme Unction, Holy Orders, Matrimony, and Grace) like their lives depend on it, because it does for all including millions of passengers, of whom one-third are unwittingly or arrogantly poking holes in the hull; one-third are plugging holes; and one-third are savoring the ride by reliving the Last Supper, by Sacramental living, and by living the Last Words of Christ. In a way, the leaders of the Church do not really count and certainly celebrities are almost irrelevant no matter who they are—especially if they are non-believing teachers of “there is nothing but biology, biochemistry, and matter” (but they contradict themselves whenever they celebrate birthdays among other events beyond the capacity of subhuman matter-confined non-spiritual animals). Basically, the Spiritual messages are what count, especially the Mass Mantra participated in by actively phrasing 2000 year old WORDS of ancient secrets, which somehow seem suppressed by the contemporary electronic-celluloid-ink culture of celebrity, violence, unNaturalness, disgust and selfish arrogance. For the Church, words are angels--matter/form compounds which should, properly used, spiritualize the world enabling return to the pre-BigBang Eternity with an unimaginable Statimuum (a word meaning "Catholic" in transcendental understanding) with God (The best imagery for Statimuum is one's "life flashing before you" people have reported, only it will be even moreso). And the Church has believed in and promoted for millenia the "multiverses" recently popular with some scientists--the universe of space/time in which we live; the universe of Heaven in which we will eternally experience the Statimuum of all the love we have experienced and lived; the universe of hell in which we will eternally experience, justice served, all the mortal evil we have done; and the universe of Purgatory in which we will find reconciliation for all the venial evil we have done.
Its most effective message is the Mass Mantra of: “Break the bread and bless the wine and join Jesus and all others so sanctified in a Statimuum of all with all and for all, Incarnated by Life, Sacrifice, Virtue, Love, Humanity, Peace, Freedom, and Death without Fear, in the universe received and receiving one time for all time praising God in unlimited Spirituality of Consubstantiation Transubstantiation. Amen.” Just listen and understand the words of the songs of the Church. Provided are "reality metaphors enabling the good life by knowing who you are and why" better than those from any other person or group. Without Christian virtues, overt or covert, as part of any culture, nothing will work because too many people will be no good and there will be insufficient traditional "family" love for civilized and pro-social living. "Laws" will be needed instead.
Thus, somehow, criticisms of the Church fall flat over time, because the criticisms are from those who do not want to understand or have other agenda, usually fiendishly selfish and self-righteously denying of wrongdoing, while they encourage others to commit acts of varying degrees of evil (understood in physics as willful entropy). Usually attacking the Church is to distract from evil seductively promoted by the person attacking the Church--What lies have you heard about the Church? Was not the anti-Catholic bigotry learned from someone who wants to control you--by self-promoting rationalizing and deliberately dishonest bravado turning you into a robot-like mindless lie-driven promoter of entropy if not hate, and hardened your heart against the good and holy ancient secrets of good humanity at the same time?

To get a better understanding of the scientific basis for all this may be found in my books, Everybody for Everybody and Soul of the Earth. The Theogeocalculus on the Web should help too. Checking out Matthew 26, 26-30; Mark 14, 22-25; Luke 22, 19-20; John 6, 41 -59; and 1 Corinthians 11, 23-26 will help. Also check PeaceMercy.com for semi-secular version. Joining the Church is like having your cataracts removed--all of a sudden you can see clearly and precisely like never before.

ADDENDUM: If you look for it, you will find "words are angels (or demons)" in many places, especially in the Bible. You will also find the Statimuum many places in which we are there in a timeless spaceless existence of IMMEDIACY of all Transcendence which we overlook. One of the best: "Death is nothing at all. It does not count. I have only slipped away into the next room. Nothing has happened. Everything remains exactly as it was. I am I, and you are you and the old life that we lived so fondly together is untouched, unchanged. Whatever we were to each other, that we are still. Call me by the old familiar name. Speak of me in the easy way which you always used. Put no difference into your tone. Wear no air of forced solemnity or sorrow. Laugh as we always laughed at the little jokes that we enjoyed together. Play, smile, think of me, pray for me. Let my name be every the household word that it always was. Let it be spoken without an effort, without the ghost of a shadow upon it. Life means all that it ever meant. It is the same as it ever was. There is absolute and unbroken continuity. What is this death but a negligible accident? Why should I be out of mind because I am out of sight. I am but waiting for you, for an interval, somewhere very near, just around the corner. All is well. All is well." --from the novel "September" by Rosamunde Pilcher

Quote: However, I don't see a lot of people explaining what they don't understand, so I will do so.

Thank you for this. Indeed, I have requested just what you are taking the time to do here, but you are the first person to respond to this request. So I thank you for being so generous with your time.

Quote: I just don't get how it's not a lie. If Anne Frank is in my house and I
tell the Nazis that she isn't (or that she's somewhere else), that's a
lie. How is legitimate deception not a lie? (or How is a lie, not a lie?)

In other words you are referring to the possibility that there is indeed a contradiction: which I acknowledged explicitly by the phrase: " You don't do something because lying is not lying" instead of saying "deception is not lying"..

Quote: "You" do you mean me specifically or just a general you" Answer: I believe the use of the term "me" is often referred to as the 'royal we", so yes, I'm using the term "You" within a universal context.

Quote: "that there was a hierarchy of preference with respect to rules and duties. eg. morality over legality.
Answer:As in believing that your personal values are more important to protect and fight for even in a case where they go against specific laws enforced by a government. Indeed, people have been hung or even burned at the stake because of such conflicts as 'fighting for the rights of free speech" in the first place.(!!)

Your quote: I don't see the direct connection to a hierarchy of preference to what I wrote. Maybe you could point it out to me? (That is true. There is not necessarily a 'direct connection to what was said. My comments are only an attempt to explain a philosophical method or criteria for making an assessment of different 'values')

I am not talking about facts but about theories.
For instance:

Quote: Edit: the l00 souls thing is not the same as a maxim which is a
principle. I think this would mean that one would have to present
another completely valid alternative or argument or reason, not merely a
counter to the original thesis within the original framework.Like l00
is preferable to l?

In considering the 'principles of morality', it could be considered that killing one person is just not essentially different than killing l00 persons. Both are necessarily classified as the deprivation of human life. Whether it is a case of abortion, or something that is a result of war however, would constitute a different criteria, but only within the context that l is not l00..

Similarly with respect to the conscious choice of what criteria would be best within a specific situation, in identifying the reasons for doing something.

Quote: "When confronted by a Nazi soldier asking where Anne Frank is, at the
time, my only real options would be to give her up, obfuscate poorly, or
lie (with a success rate at least higher than obfuscating)"

My quote: "I think this would mean that one would have to present another
completely valid alternative or argument or reason, not merely a counter
to the original thesis within the original framework."

The exact physical situation is not described here. My comments are not directed to what is actually said, whether it be a lie or obfuscating, but the 'philosophical' principles which it is assumed, would govern such a choice: specifically whether you would simply give her up, or make an attempt to save her, for instance.. I think therefore that you have reached the heart of the matter for instance, why no one within those philosophy classes was able to come up with an answer, and why the suggestion I told you about was actually dependent upon an independent context. (As perhaps within the abortion arguments. One of the reasons I constantly object to the importance given, (to what I often consider not very good in any case) arguments. Thus the philosophical principle, as taken out of the context, of an actual situation, could therefore be described as a metaphysical abstraction, rather than a scientific theory. Such theories are not always helpful, when it comes right down to 'push or shove', A maxim is considered to be a 'guiding principle'. Kant actually qualified same, with respect to the principles of universality and necessity, as being merely 'regulative'. Later, this was thought to place the individual within a position of 'solipsism' with respect to moral considerations, but instead of going back to a dependence on some interpretation of what constitutes an 'absolute authority' which I presume is the context to some degree within both church and state,whether a magisterium or a rule by precedent, the philosopher Jurgen Habermas placed an importance of developing understanding within the context of general dialogue between individuals. I believe this is not always accomplished by argument in which the purpose is in finding error, or otherwise confronting a thesis, rather than in developing mutual understanding. (For instance - there are obviously other reasons or factors to consider).

Consequently, I believe, the development of such principles as the ten commandments, natural law, and legal civil codes, still retain an important function within morality. But yes, in a direct confrontation with the Nazi's it would be hard to distinguish whether or not the 'lie is a lie', or merely an obfuscation.
There are (probably) at least some times when lying results in the most good. By when it comes to the fact that there are unacknowledged contradictions, within our considerations of right and wrong: is not the phrase: lying is not lying, just what is assumed whenever we do, actually lie?

"Forgive them father, they know not what they do"?????? Indeed I would suggest, that within the context of my study of philosophy of language, there is little 'real' communication. Rather than acknowledge any possible incoherence within our understanding, we would more often than not, assume that we have indeed understood what another is saying. There is possibly far less 'real' communication between individuals than is assumed. To what degree to each of us live within our specific personal understanding. And indeed, this is an unavoidable phenomena.)

Thus, either this helps, or not. In any case, I can assume that I will have to keep explaining and explaining. what 'I-we' mean', forever and forever. I find this amusing somewhat, for I wonder how many of those who write these comments have actually struggled with the original writing of such philosophers as Kant and Heidegger, or whether the comments, in many cases, are often simply adapted, or copied from what is on line. Would it not be very easy to operate under a Nietzschean mask or Freudian persona within such a 'virtual' reality as SN or EN.

Galorgan: I understand you to be a most caring person. I do believe it is possible to discern the 'real' individual within all the possibles of the 'ideal'. Thank again for your concern. I truly hope that I have made some advance, at least, in my understanding of how my comments can be less than 'coherent' to others. Your comments have certainly helped in this quest, even though my response, might again be considered to be somewhat 'incoherent'. .Thank you so much for your personal concern. I sincerely hope that I have made my remarks somewhat 'clearer'. .

Hey Loreen, I thank you for your compliments. I know that you have had problems with people saying that you've been incomprehensible in the past, so I don't wish to pile on, but I am having trouble figuring out what you mean in the meat of your post (by which I mean the middle third). However, I don't see a lot of people explaining what they don't understand, so I will do so. Hopefully, this allows us both to communicate more effectively.

"that there was a hierarchy of preference with respect to rules and duties. eg. morality over legality. (even this is difficult- are human rights moral or legal principles?) You don't do something because lying is not lying, but because there is a more universal/necessary application possible in following another maxim. (used in the context of Kant's imperative)"

This is the part I have trouble understanding. I'll take it sentence by sentence to show you why (and maybe the fault is my own).

The first sentence "that there was...over legality." is in response to my post asking why the legitimate deception of the Anne Frank scenario isn't considered lying. I don't see the direct connection to a hierarchy of preference to what I wrote. Maybe you could point it out to me?

The first part of the second sentence seems like a contradiction, "You don't do something because lying is not lying," I just don't know what you mean by this at all. By "You" do you mean me specifically or just a general you. And what does "because lying is not lying" mean? I think by following the second part of the sentence, you might mean that I shouldn't lie because there may be a better way to get the outcome of Anne Frank not dying. If this is what you are saying, then I'd respond in kind:

1. I don't know that this is true, and in fact I disbelieve it at least some of the time. There are (probably) at least some times when lying results in the most good.

2. Even if it was true that there may be some alternative which is better, it doesn't mean I am capable of thinking of it on the fly under pressure. Just because a hypothetical alternative exists when we have the time and wherewithal to think of it, doesn't mean it's a viable option under pressure. When confronted by a Nazi soldier asking where Anne Frank is, at the time, my only real options would be to give her up, obfuscate poorly, or lie (with a success rate at least higher than obfuscating).

If you find the time to respond, I ask you to please do so with a small paragraph structure similar to my own in this post. I find this is the best way for me to understand the ideas that we are conversing about. Thanks again, Loreen.

I'm enjoying reading your comments. (I actually find some interesting possibilities with respect to Dennet's reductionism, for instance, which is what primarily the 'cause' of my current confusion/crises, with the various modes and explanations as to the meaning of the immateriality of the soul. I'm working on it.) But as per above, a good answer, (my opinion) was given to me years after no one offered an answer in Philosophy classes: that there was a hierarchy of preference with respect to rules and duties. eg. morality over legality. You don't do something because lying is not lying, but because there is a more universal/necessary application possible in following another maxim. (used in the context of Kant's imperative) Do you 'buy' this?

A well documented case such as that, yes. I'd be interested to see something like that from the past 10 or so years.
Why would God choose to work a miracle just because the baby came in contact with the water? Magic water definitely seems the domain of primitive thinking humans, not an omnipotent God. In general I do not believe in Christianity because I believe God is far greater than anything Christians ever imagined. From every angle, the Christian religion seems to be a purely human construct to me.
Science is a human construct too, but based upon God's work, reality. Christianity seems to be based on tradition, theocracy (Judaism was originally a form of government), wishful thinking, and a certain degree of altruism. I like the altruism part, but I'm not much impressed with the rest.

Question.... Would it affect the theory any if there were some miracle hearings on babies with the miracle water? I mean like a week old baby who is dying of heart issues and receives the water and gets better the next day?

Laughing them off and proposing laughable explanations are one and the same. If seismic causes are proposed, how is it possible that only the Virgin Mary appeared, occasionally together with doves. If seismic explanations were possible, moreover, such things would be all over LA and San Francisco, just to name two places. You are simply proving my statements.

how i wish mr murray have witnessed it.

anyway, miracles are to be subject to scrutiny, whether these events are from God or not!

In this case, we have to say that the skeptics propose laughable explanations.

Moving goalposts. What you said was

are simply ignored by the skeptics inthe sense that they just laugh them off

Are you admitting you were wrong ?