I’m not trying to sound facetious, but if there is a God, do you honestly think he/she doesn’t have better things to be doing than listening to your “perfect book” prayer? Also, assuming you’re a Catholic, isn’t The Bible the perfect book?

Rational, you seem to have a very wrong idea of who God is. He is not a distant god who has “better things to be doing”, He is personal and loves us and is with each and every one of us, no matter how unimportant you think our prayers might be. And it is unlikely the Bible will get an Atheist very far without having an understanding of it first.

Chris, I assure you that most atheists “understand” the bible just as christians do. You do not have to agree with something in order to understand it.

The problem with converting Atheists back to Christianity is not likely to be resolved with a book.  Most Atheists in America were once Christians who found no evidence supporting the existence of a god, so they stopped believing.  In order to convert an Atheist to Christianity you not only have to prove the existence of a god, but also prove that your god is the correct one without resorting to passages in the bible, which is a task that no Christian has been able to do so far.

Chris

I’ve read the Bible (most of it anyway, the Psalms get tedious) and can honestly say that there is little to understand. Fear drives people to strange places, religion is one of those places.

@RationalLibertarian
If you are going to claim to be “rational” in your very moniker, try not to commit logical fallacies in your comments. It just makes you look silly. Whether people are driven to religion by fear has no affect on the truth value of religion, that is whether God exists.  Likewise, stating that atheists are driven to their disbelief by a desire to be fashionable and appear more intelligent than they are in comboxes, has no affect on the truth or falsity of atheism.

“Whether people are driven to religion by fear has no affect on the truth value of religion, that is whether God exists.”

I agree 100%, and never indicated otherwise.

Thanks for the post!  I’ve also heard that many atheists have some sort of moral or personal stumbling block that is keeping them from becoming a believer.  I doubt this would be found out easily by talking about their spiritual journey, but maybe it would help you make an educated guess?  Also, I find it surprising that many atheists refuse to believe unless God can be proven or thoroughly explained.  Yet, they are willing to take leaps of faith in science to attempt to prove hypotheses.  Why not take a leap of faith in God?  Perhaps, God in His graciousness will allow them to experience Him in a powerful and undeniable way.

Interesting. I should think you’d have to be very careful about which books to recommend. I was a committed Christian until reading the bible. It was the combination of contradiction and objectionable morality which first made me question my faith and once that had begun I read as many recommended books as I could to get my faith back but they all drove it further away with more unsubstantiated beliefs and justifying of horrible things like eternal torture for people with different beliefs.

I am now working towards becoming a Christian historian (by which I mean a historian interested in the history of Christianity. I am an atheist) and would be very interested in any books anyone could recommend. I have google alerts for ‘evidence of God’ and ‘Proof of God’ and I get lots of hits every day but none ever have any evidence. With Catholicism it is the beliefs in transubstantiation and the assumption of Mary for which there is not even any biblical basis so if anyone knows any good books which cover these I would be most appreciative.

“I find it surprising that many atheists refuse to believe unless God can be proven or thoroughly explained.  Yet, they are willing to take leaps of faith in science to attempt to prove hypotheses.  Why not take a leap of faith in God? “

It is not a leap of faith to beleive in science.  Science provides evidence, proof, reproducable results, hard data, and facts.  It is not a leap of faith to beleive that water boils at 212 degrees F, because I can go to my kitchen, put a pot of water on the stove with a thermometer in it and watch it happen for myself. 

It does however take a leap of faith to beleive that talking some invisible person will make my grandmother walk again.  There is no proof, there is no reproducible results, nothing.  With the exception of a few people saying, “Hey I prayed and my grandmother got better”.  What about the Millions of people who prayed for thier grandmother and she died???  Hmmmm…. seems like your “faith” is flawed. 

Atheist, it takes an enormous leap.  My husband is a few months shy of getting his doctorate in organic chemistry.  He dares the impossible and tries to prove it through experiments in lab.  You go part of the way and God will meet you where you need Him to meet you.  Also, God won’t great something contrary to His will.  So, your logic is lacking.  Like a scientist you need to ask why?  Do not draw your own conclusions based on nothing or scant evidence.  Dare to prove the impossible.  It is an exciting journey.

Helen, The Histoy of Christendom books by Warren Carrol are amazing.  The first one is difficult to get through, but worth it.  The current volumes in print go to history through Napoleon.  The last volume is being published sometime this summer I think.  Mary’s assumption into Heaven is not that far fetched if you consider that Elijah was assumed into Heaven.  Elijah is not greater than the mother of God.  So, why not?  Also…paraphrasing St. Ambrose….God brought the world into existence through words.  He created something out of nothing with a word.  Why not believe that He can change the substance of something that already exists through the words of the priest?

Lisa,  you, like almost all thiests, say things which are very vague and wishy-washy and just do not make a heck of a lot of sense in the real world.

“You go part of the way and God will meet you where you need Him to meet you”.  What does that mean?  Where will he meet me?  What the heck will he do for me?  When will you know that he has met you?  Do you even know what this means or is it one of those generic things that you guys are told to say to answer tough questions?  And please don’t use the line, “you will just feel it”.  That’s a cop out, really it is.  I can say “you will just know when Big Foot has walked through your backyard”.  That DOES NOT mean that Big Foot exists!

“Do not draw your own conclusions based on nothing or scant evidence.  Dare to prove the impossible”.  Hmmmm….. sounds like you should take your own advice.  YOU are drawing conclusions about your god based on NOTHING and scant evidence.  There is NO EVIDENCE that god exists, or ever did exist, yet you cling to those beleifs and REFUSE to listen to TRUE evidence and real facts. 

If your husband told his boss that a microbe that he discovered could make someone lose 50 pounds instantly, would they just beleive him and start to manufactor pills based on this “discovery” or would they want him to prove it first and send it through many, many trials and experiments???? 

Why then, can you just beleive something that your parents told you when you were growing up without having a shred of CONCRETE verifiable proof to back it up??

Atheist since 1970 on Monday, Jun 11, 2012 9:58 AM (EST): “...seems like your “faith” is flawed.”
Why is it flawed? Because you don’t believe in it…?

Atheist, Catholic theology is a lot like Quantum Physics, a branch of science in which many things can NOT be “proved” by reproducible results.  Instead it is based on known truths being stacked upon each other. 
*
Furthermore, even within hard science there are theories that are commonly accepted as fact only to be disproved later.  For instance, I understand that some of Newton’s commonly accepted work was found to be incorrect by Einstein.  Scientists believed for a long time that dinosaurs were just “big lizards”, but now they theorize that dinosaurs were more like birds.  Science is subject to much trial and error over time.
*
This doesn’t mean that that we can’t accept a lot of scientific knowledge as true, but at the same time, we need to understand that we are putting a certain amount of blind trust into the scientific community to tell us correctly.  I mean how many of us are really carrying out our own experiments to verify every scientific “fact” that we are told.
*
Not to mention that many scientific “facts” are way more complex than they are commonly presented.  For instance, the internal body temperature of a human is not 98.6.  That is an average than can be variable within two to three degrees from human to human and depending on what time of day it is. 
*
As for the person who thinks that their grandmother got well just because they prayed, well, that’s a nice thought, but the error may not be with “faith” but one’s understanding of faith and prayer.  The Church certainly wouldn’t automatically recognize the grandmother’s recovery as a miracle due to prayer.  The Church would only accept that faith and prayer healed the grandmother if there were no scientific explanation that could explain it first. 
*
Prayer can be powerful and efficacious if one has the humility to accept that what God thinks is best in the situation and what “I” want to happen may be two different things.

Lisa, thank you. Will have a look at that. Of course, I do not believe that God brought the world into existence by words - the evidence points to a natural occurance and the bible mistakenly has light existing 3 days before the sun and the moon producing light which of course it does not.

Atheist is quite right that science requires no faith. If a scientist tried to say ‘OK, I can’t prove this but just take my word for it’ his or her work would never see the light of day. All evidence has to be presented and is immediately leapt upon by other scientists wanting to disprove it, apply it differently, expand upon it etc.

There is also the issue that there have been 30,000 gods claimed to exist so taking a leap of faith to believe in one of them is more complicated that Christian god or atheism. I suspect you disbelieve in nearly as many gods as I do and would not consider taking a leap of faith to believe in any of the ones you do not currently believe in.

There may be some atheists who would be influenced by a book that gave them a new perspective—perhaps an autobiography including a re-conversion by a person who thought like them, or whom they admired. For me, like Helen Pluckrose, it was reading that led me to becoming an atheist. When I became aware that there were religions other than Catholicism, I started reading about them, and realized how differently the Bible could be interpreted. Catholics are supposed to believe that God guarantees the pope’s interpretation is true, but who is the spokesman for this guarantee? The pope!

I read about religions that had nothing to do with the Bible, and some of them were even older than Christianity. And of course there were all the ancient, discarded religions. But there was never any plausible evidence for the truth of any of them. I thought I could probably get along in a Unitarian/Universalist congregation, where actual belief in God seems to be a sort of “don’t ask, don’t tell” proposition. However I didn’t feel the need to join with others in such a community group. The funny thing is that my sister didn’t worry about all this exploration of beliefs. She just decided it was all nonsense based on her feelings about it, and is also an atheist.

Ms. Fulwiler is right that it would be critical to listen to an atheist’s journey to his or her atheism before attempting to recommend a book, or other information source. We’re all as different as Christians are.

“Which books should I buy to give to my atheist loved-one?”

I’d suggest skip the book & buy the “Catholicism” DVD series by Fr. Barron.Even if they do not receive the gift of Faith, at least they will receive a deeper understanding of Church teaching, which judging from most atheist comments, is much needed.(Goodness knows many of us Catholics would benefit,too.)

I was an extremely devout Roman Catholic for 16 years before I eventually deconverted and came out as an atheist. It was a struggle that took YEARS of study, prayer, and reflection, and I strongly resent believers attempting to trivialize that just because they cannot stand the fact that I no longer believe as they do.

My still devout family has given or recommended dozens of books to me, all of which I have read with an open mind. It’s disturbing how many Christians seem to conflate “having an open mind” with uncritical acceptance of whatever claims they’re making. Just because I have an open mind doesn’t mean I’m not going to reject things that are demonstrably untrue, even if I really would prefer they were true.

My conclusion?

If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent deity that wants a personal relationship with me, then it knows *EXACTLY* what it would take to restore my faith. It knows, and knew aeons before I or life, the universe, and everything even existed.

All God has to do is show up in the real world and actually talk to me.

It does not need a ‘still small voice’ or an old book of fables or reams of convoluted apologetic or to act vicariously through others—all these are post hoc rationalizations used to justify why God or any other supposed deity consistently FAILS to show up in the real world.

If the Christian God wants to have a personal relationship with me, it knows where to find me and how to communicate with me in a manner tat’s actually convincing.

Anything else is just excuse-making.

I’d start with “A Short History of the World” by John M. Roberts and work up to something more advanced like “The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark” by Carl Sagan.

Or we could go the other route “Brainwashing: The Science of Thought Control” by Kathleen Taylor.

Rational Libertarian and Brad, the problem with your theory is that all Christians do not understand the Bible exactly the same way.  I find that most atheists are very Protestant in their understanding of the Bible, meaning that they believe in “sola scriptura”.  Therefore, “if the Bible doesn’t explicitly say it than it must not be true”, and “if the Bible does explicitly say it than the text must be taken extremely literally”.
*
The Bible is not really one book, but a library of multiple books that each have different points to make about aspects of God.  Some are meant to be more “historical”.  Others are meant to be more legalist, liturgical, metaphorical, poetical, or applicable to specific situations in daily life.  Therefore, while they are all “true” they may not all be “factual”.
*
This “sola scriptura” approach of many Protestants and atheists does not leave room for context within a bigger picture.  Judaism always had an “oral Torah” in addition to the written Torah.  This oral Torah provided a lens for greater understanding of the written words.  In the same way, the Catholic Church has Sacred Tradition handed down from the Apostles but not always written down in the New Testament that offer more context for the written word, but never contradicts the written word.  There is also a logical development of doctrine within the Catholic Church (development does not mean “invention” but rather an “expanded understanding”).
*
I also find that many people with this approach also can not really distinguish how the Old Testament and the New Testament relate to each other.  They want to act that if every commandment in both are not held up in the most literal way than no commandment in either one should be upheld (accept for interestingly the “social justice” ones).  They don’t understand that the Old Testament foreshadows the New Testament,and that the New Covenant of Christ negated or augmented the dietary, liturgical, and purification rituals/commandments of the Old Covenant but NOT the moral proscriptions.
*
For instance, Christians do not ritually sacrifice animals.  Unlike Jews this is not just because of the destruction of the Temple makes it unable to be done under Jewish law, but because Jesus became both the priest and the sacrificial lamb.  This “new sacrifice” is not dependent on a specific location, hence its catholicity.  But things like stealing, lying, murder, fornication, and adultery are still forbidden.

Hi Jennifer,
How about “Foxes book of Martyrs”? It’s in public domain, reflected in the words of the founding fathers(US), and arguably the benchmark of Christian history. If nothing else, it highlights the animosity of the world against the Bible, and how well it’s leader can twist the Bible to be worldly, and to divide us all concerning God.
Wouldn’t a book documenting the burning of Bibles, and their believers at the stake, by the Church, make interesting reading for Atheists?

“...seems like your “faith” is flawed.”
Why is it flawed? Because you don’t believe in it…?
.
No, in that particular case, I was saying that millions and millions of people pray every day for thier loved ones to get better.  Yet every year 56 million people die.  What’s going on here?  Obviously praying DOES NOT work.  It has NO EFFECT on the outcome of anything.  So why put your faith in something that does not work?

Andy Anderson:
*
“If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent deity that wants a personal relationship with me, then it knows *EXACTLY* what it would take to restore my faith. It knows, and knew aeons before I or life, the universe, and everything even existed.

All God has to do is show up in the real world and actually talk to me.”
*
But even then would you REALLY believe?  Or would you think that the “person” before you claiming to be God was a whacko or con artist and that all of His powers were just sleights of hands and illusions?  Human beings have an amazing power for rationalizing away things that they do not WANT to believe.
*
God didn’t design you to just be an obedient robot.  He created you with free will and a brain.  God could FORCE you to believe in him, but love and understanding that are forced onto others are not really either love or understanding.  “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.”

Atheist,
It seems vague, because for everyone it is different.  I know God exists, because He has shown Himself to me in personal ways.  I have even heard Him.  Why not ask Him to show Himself to you?  That is what I mean by Him meeting you part of the way.  At some point we all need reassurance.  Trust me, God won’t leave you hanging.  I’ve never heard Bigfoot.  Pretty sure bigfoot isn’t out there.  :-)
Also, why is ‘feeling a cop out’?  If your eyes are closed and someone punches you in the face.  Does that mean it didn’t happen?  If you are outside in freezing weather and you are cold, is it not real?  If I pray and I feel my heart on fire (not heartburn, but a pleasant and vibrant burning) does that mean it didn’t happen?  Just because you have yet to experience something does not mean others haven’t experienced God in concrete ways.  It is like child who has been told about people falling in love.  The child hasn’t experienced it, but he doesn’t doubt those who are in love. 
Why do scientists look for cures to diseases? How do they know they can all be cured?  Is it not a leap of faith to try to find a cure to cancer or AIDS?  Would you say to them, ‘there is no evidence that there is a cure for AIDS, why bother looking?’. In fact, many search there entire lives for cures to diseases without any evidence that the cure is attainable.  Does that make them stupid?  If a person searches for God it is act a bravery.  Mocking one who searches for God is like mocking one who searches for a cure to cancer.  Neither search is invalid.

Barbara C. , I admit that there are some parts of science which are still fluxuating.  But that is the beauty of science.  We look at things and say ... hmmm, perhaps that isn’t right ... and then .... wait for it .. we change our minds!!! 
.
When was the last time a theist said, “you know what ... maybe Noah couldn’t have possibly gathered 2 of every animal in existence and then built an arc big enough to hold all those animals and then spend 40 days and nights feeding them, caring for them and disposing of all thier waste”.  So ya know what ... let’s take that chapter OUT OF THE BIBLE or REWRITE IT because it really doesn’t make sense??  NEVER…. religion WILL NEVER change even if faced with millions of pieces of evidence which contradict every aspect of religion ... you people just will not accept that even one word of your precious bible could be wrong!!!! 
.
THAT is what makes science great, because scientists ARE willing to adjust thier theories to take into account newly found evidence!!!!! 
.
Religion refuses to do that .... the earth is only 6,000 years old…. come on!!!

“It has NO EFFECT on the outcome of anything.  So why put your faith in something that does not work?”  That’s a pretty broad generalization isn’t it. Prayer doesn’t have any effect on anything.  And being an atheist - can you prove it?
The fact is that a theist discussing religion with an atheist is, generally speaking, an exercise in futility for both the atheist and the theist. Neither will likely find a middle ground on which they can rest their opinions and thoughts.
As a person of faith, I can only say that you are of course free to believe what you want, as am I.  I would never force my beliefs on someone who clearly wasn’t interested and who would rather say that my faith is flawed because I believe in the power of prayer (among many things).
Some atheists say that Christians should prove the existence of God. That has always puzzled me since it is the atheist challenging the beliefs of someone else.  Shouldn’t it be the atheist proving that God does not exist?

Lisa, The Most TRUE Godess has shown me in a personal way that She and Her Daughter are the One TRUEST God.  You need only look for Her and She will meet you half way.  If you try and meet her half way and nothing happens its because you didn’t REALLY look for Her and you’ll need to try again.
.
On the other hand vaccines work whether you believe in them or not.  Given enough knowledge of biology you can even understand why.

Kris,  I am not telling you to beleive or not.  I am just stating why I do not beleive.  If you want to know if prayers ever work .. well look at this quote from Barbara C.  above ...  “The Church would only accept that faith and prayer healed the grandmother if there were no scientific explanation that could explain it first.”  So it looks like even your own church refuses to beleive that prayer works!!! 
.
As for your being puzzled about proving if god exists or not, the burden of proof lies with you to prove that he exists.  If someone stole your wallet and Joe was the only other person in the room, Joe might say “I didn’t steal it, the invisible green monkey did.”  At this point I’m sure that you and the police would want proof that there was an invisble green monkey in the room.  If Joe can not prove it, then he will certainly go to jail ... he can’t just say “Prove that there WASN’T an invisible green monkey in the room” and get away with the crime.  If that worked, this monkey would be blamed for alot of crimes ;) 
.
In other words it is up to the person claiming that something exists to prove that it does exist.

“As for your being puzzled about proving if god exists or not, the burden of proof lies with you to prove that he exists.”

God’s existence has been proven, many times over, using arguments drawn from reason and logic:

Rational Faith: Proof of the Existence of God, the Falsity of Atheism of Catholicism, and the Truth of Catholicism (Kindle book)

It always amuses me that Jen writes for a Catholic audience, and all the athiests come out trying to convince us that she’s wrong, as if she’s REALLY talking to them.  I also don’t get the point of all this atheist evangelization.  Are they afraid for the fate of the poor Christian souls?

I do wonder why atheists are so interested in this Catholic website? I know it’s the Internet and it’s public and all that and people are certainly free to express themselves however…why bother with us? You don’t believe what we do, many of the atheists that I have seen on this site (and others) think we are rather stupid for believing in the “invisibly sky daddy” and many more clearly believe they are intellectually superior.  Why, then, bother with us poor, humble theists?
Really, I’d like to know. Because you aren’t going to turn us from our own faith and, speaking for myself, I have no wish to turn you from whatever it is you believe or don’t believe in.

One of the more interesting things about Christian blogs in general and Catholic blogs in particular is that they attract non-believers. Some are trolls, some are simply yapping at what they cannot attain. Then there are those who may be engaged in meaningful discourse.

Perhaps there is an opportunity to suggest to these few that the better way to engage us (to convince us of their argument) might be to understand our world view. Perhaps even from the point of view of a former atheist ... say, C.S. Lewis ... ‘Mere Christianity’

I use Google News, which pulls articles from many different sources.  One of my custom search topics is “Atheism”.  This news article was listed under that topic.

I don’t mind when an atheist reads this; but when he or she resolves to what often becomes haughty and arrogant personal attacks of something I hold dear, it gets stupid, and I question what the motivation is.

I presume that the author of this rather presumptuous piece would be happy to receive in return THE GOD DELUSION (Hitchens),THE MAGIC OF REALITY (DAWKINS),WHY I AM AN ATHEIST(LOFTUS), JESUS INTERRUPTED, FORGED (both of these by Bart Ehrman), or THE SECRET ORIGINS OF THE BIBLE (Callahan).  Or any one among numerous books by atheists about atheism.  The problem, of course, is that I HAVE read many of the theistic and/or Catholic books, am quite familiar with Catholic theology as well as both mainstream Protestantism and Fundamentalism, and as a result, am an atheist!  Essentially, all of those stories and theologies sure look like they were made up, invented by pre-science people who had a multitude of agendas and world-views.  Your own works have served to “convert” me to atheism!  Tribal propaganda, an evil monstrous god with an unlikely “son”, and contradictory impossible stories—not very good arguments for theism or Christianity.

“...Tribal propaganda, an evil monstrous god with an unlikely “son”, and contradictory impossible stories…”
And there it is.  Why is it that atheists come on to this Catholic blog - to have some good old-fashioned atheist fun and smear/insult poor ole silly theists and our beliefs?
Speaking for myself, I would take the recommendation of atheist-related reading material if it was suggested in a tone that wasn’t condescending or that didn’t include insults along with it.  The fact is I have neither the time nor the inclination because - and I know this will be shocking - I believe what I believe because I choose to. Just like atheists choose to believe what they do or don’t.  Because we can all make our own choices and neither needs the other to lecture, point fingers, laugh or otherwise be - rude.
Which, if you really read what Jennifer had to say - neither does she.  She suggests reading material either for the atheist who has expressed an interest or for people with loved ones who are atheist and have expressed an interest.
Jennifer isn’t going about suggesting that theists push their books onto atheists. Hardly.

Kris writes “I have no wish to turn you from whatever it is you believe or don’t believe in.”
.
So you don’t approve of this blog post on how to convert atheists?

Funny I don’t read it as how to convert atheists.  Based on one sentence:

“However, it’s critical to remember that a book cannot do anything unless a person is open to hearing what it has to say.”

Open to hearing…means interested. Jennifer is clearly cautioning people not to force their beliefs on to someone else.

Which, some atheists could take a cue from.

Kris,  your post was very well put.  However, there are two reasons why I tend to post on religious articles.
.
1) They almost always tend to portray atheists as sub-human, arrogant, untrustworthy savages.  The whole point of the original article is basically saying, “Oh crap, my daughter/friend/co-worker is an atheist ... rather than simply accepting this fact what books can I shove down her throat to force her to ‘see the light’ and become a ‘real person’ again?”  I want all people to be treated equally regardless of religious beleifs.  There is no need to send a book to an atheist.  Do you send books on how awesome the Yankees are to those poor Red Sox fans out there, hoping to convert them to the one true baseball team?  Of course not.  Just let them root for whichever team they want.
.
2) Religion can be harmful!  I don’t like talking about this, but a close friend of mine was brought up in a Christian house and was always taught that god will help you with any problems, and god will protect you, etc. etc.  Well ... this person was sexually assaulted by her father every day from age 6 to age 11!!  She “prayed” every single day to make it stop because that’s what she was taught to do.  she “asked god” to make him stop ... she honestly beleived that this would help ... well ... needless to say, it never did.  She finally stopped beleiving in him and took matters into her own hands…. only then did the abuse stop.  How can ANYONE who beleives in god look at a story like this or the millions of similar stories and still beleive that there is a god out there who is kind and just and fair????????

“Atheist, Catholic theology is a lot like Quantum Physics, a branch of science in which many things can NOT be “proved” by reproducible results.”

Barbara, I don’t know what you are talking about. Quantum mechanics is probably the most successful quantitative theory in mankind’s history.

Atheist,
*
First of all the Church does not teach that the earth is only 6,000 years old.  You are think of Protestant creationism.  The Church fully allows for the possibility of evolution.
*
Secondly, as I said, the Church may take things as TRUE but not necessarily FACTUAL, especially in the Old Testament.  For instance, the commonality of flood stories in multiple Mesopotamian cultures of the time period suggests that there may have been some sort of flooding event.  Therefore,there may have been a man named Noah who did some sort of feat with animals and a boat during that time.  Was it probably every animal in existence?  No.  And in fact the Bible has two different accounts of how many animals Noah took with him.  Even if the FACTS aren’t completely accurate, the story reflects certain TRUTH about obedience and faith in the face of contempt as well as God’s covenant with His people.
*
Third, the Church does not claim that the Bible is a science or a history textbook.  It is the story of man’s relationship with God through history that is useful for “teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness”.  So, please stop lumping all Christians in together under one interpretive umbrella.
*
Fourth, I never said that the Church itself denies the power of prayer.  However, it denies that God is a magical genie who answers our every request.  Sometimes God allows the natural consequences to occur in order for a greater good to come of it later.  Sometimes He intercedes if He knows that will help the greater good.  (The greater good means leading more people to know, love, and serve Him.)
*
Fifth, the Church teaches that scientific knowledge reflects the truth of God (even if how people choose to use that scientific knowledge does not).  The Church even has its own top-notch astronomy observatory.  To a Catholic, science/reason and faith should work together, not in opposition to each other.  I understand that this might seem completely impossible to you, but for most of the scientists in recorded history it was not.
*
If you don’t want to believe in God, that’s your problem.  But all of your criticisms here have been based on faulty underlying assumptions about how the Catholic Church sees the Bible and science, among many other things.

Kris, I agree with you on the interpretation of that one sentence. I’ll have to disagree with you about the purpose of this blog post as a whole.  Its right there in first sentence “This is a great line of thinking, since education often plays a key role in conversions, especially conversions from atheism.”
.
Given Christians are generally Evangelical, disapproving of pushy atheists is quite ironic.

Atheist:  I dislike generalizations however I will say that if atheists don’t want to be portrayed as “...sub-human, arrogant, untrustworthy savages…” then perhaps some of your brethren might want to reconsider how they speak to and interact with theist, particularly Catholic ones. Always challenging, constantly belittling and all because we choose to believe what we do just as an atheist chooses what they believe in. Like I said before, atheists and theists should keep their conversations to the weather.
Religion harms - yes, sadly it does. And I would submit that in your particular story the abuser was not a religious person but rather hid behind God as a way to act out his inner demons on an innocent, impressionable child. In cases such as what you relate - horrific as it is - at the heart of it is a person who will find a way to be that monster; just because he used God doesn’t make religion bad. It made the abuser bad.  The girl believed it because what else was she supposed to do? Children believe whatever their parents (or elders) tell them to; until they reach the point where they can question those beliefs.
Abusers like the (presumably) parent of your friend are monsters - and they can be atheists, Christians, Muslims, Agnostics, etc…
Evil doesn’t restrict itself to Christianity.

I think you will often find that the people who are most motivated to respond to blogs are those who disagree with it. I am an atheist and find more Christians reply to my blogs than atheists and that makes sense cos frequently I have expressed their view as well as my own. Quite often when an atheist does not respond to my blogs it is because they disagree with something or want to add to something I have said.

Atheists who get very involved in criticising and challenging religion will usually do so because they feel it is causes problems for their society. This is why you will most frequently find people targeting Christianity in the west. Few atheists here are concerned about Judaism or Hunduism as these do not find their way into law and education and cultural expectations in the same way.

“Sometimes God allows the natural consequences to occur in order for a greater good to come of it later.  Sometimes He intercedes if He knows that will help the greater good.”
Isn’t this just a clever way of saying, when things don’t go the way you want them to then we’ll just call that “god allowing the natural consequences to occur” .... and when things do go the way you want them to ... well then it’s a miracle and god answered your prayers ... yay!
.
Suppose I throw two quarters down a “wishing well” and wished for my brother to overcome his addictions and for my mom to recover from her illness.  Well my brother didn’t change and my mom DID get better… A-Ha, the magic wishing well works! ... or ... perhaps you would call this a coincidence????  Are you thinking that maybe my mom would have gotten better regardless of how much money I threw down this well?  Well ... now you see how atheists view prayer!

“This is a great line of thinking, since education often plays a key role in conversions, especially conversions from atheism.”
I still don’t see where that talks about pushing conversion onto an atheist.  It’s a factual statement - conversions from anything to anything usually requires some education to assist in the decision-making.
Again, I dislike generalizations; Christian aren’t “generally” evangelical. Some are, just as some atheists are arrogant and egotistical about what they believe.  Doesn’t mean all atheists are that way, or that you could say they are ... generally.
It is easy to cherry-pick sentences out of entire articles and say they mean just one thing.  Take anything out of context and you can spin it however you like.

Of course, its not “pushing”.  It’s “tips” on “...the proper role of books in evangelization…nonbelieving loved ones, and when to recommend them.”
.
No doubt the author of the blog post and contributor to “Atheist to Catholic: 11 Stories of Conversion” who has “found [herself] in evangelization situations”.  Is not interested in converting atheists nor evangelizing.

Brad,

I assure you that most Atheists have no understanding of the Bible.

Since you made only an assertion, then my reply is also only an assertion.

The unfixable flaw in Atheism:  Wrong tools, wrong premises, wrong arguments.

I, too, spent many years in my spiritual journey, and time after time atheism failed the test of reason.  To choose Catholicism was, in the end, the only rational choice I could make, because I had falsified every other belief system.

Atheists may resent the way Christians view them, but trust me, we Christians resent the usurpation of the words “rational” and “reasoned” by Atheists whose belief system is just another kind of blind dogmatism.

Here’s a hint: What you Atheists call “Science” is a closed sub-set, a finite and exclusive philosophy (whose proper name is “Natural Philosophy”).  To attempt to argue for or against the existence of God using a tool that isn’t competent (by design!) to even discuss morality, the supernatural, the existence of God, the soul, or any non-natural aspect of reality is so incredibly blind that it makes your average cradle Catholic look enlightened in contrast.

Atheism is an extreme demonstration of the old adage: “For he who has only a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.”

“How can ANYONE who beleives in god look at a story like this or the millions of similar stories and still beleive that there is a god out there who is kind and just and fair???????”

Quite easily.  In fact, it is trivially easy to do so.  One need simply understand what Christianity is, instead of trying to make it into what one wishes it to be.

This is where reasoned argument comes in to play: to understand your faith and to assist you in understanding how the different parts of it work when taken as a whole.  Hint: If your argument were valid, then what would be the unavoidable consequence?

HI, BARBARA….

DO YOU real scriptures in THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGES—THAT IS, HEBREW AND/OR ARAMAIC?
ARE YOU TRAINED AS A RABBI…...........
Your comments SUGGEST that you neither read/nor speak Hebrew, and/or are totally ILLITERATE concerning Judaism and/or the Jewish Bible…..

Thank you. Your article was concise and easy to read… yet still having your personal touch, some self-abasing humor, to emphasize your point.  I am eager to share my beliefs with family and friends, most of whom know nothing about the Catholic Faith, while remaining stubbornly opposed to it.  Your suggestions are well taken… especially the priority of prayer.

Atheists indulge in the worst kind of “magical thinking” of all.  “I’m here, the trees are lovely, I have oxygen in my lungs, which helps my heart pump and my brain work, I live on this gorgeous planet, but damn it!  It’s not good enough. Suffering is WRONG. Death is an affront. Shame on you God, YOU MUST NOT EXIST! (Foot stamping) *This all came from nothing, because everyone knows that you can get something from NOTHING*.”—Dear me, what an amazing SOMETHING from NOTHING! Unfathomable cosmos from NOTHING…What does a truly scientific mind have to say about THAT magic trick?

Go ahead, tell everyone that God must suck because you prayed and prayed and He just couldn’t get your order right.  Even the Westin does a better job.

The book I would recommend to atheists to effect their conversion to theism is “The God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins.  Here is an author who cannot distinguish among the meanings of probability: (1) as the certitude of personal opinion, (2) mathematical probability as the fractional concentration of an element in a logical set and (3) statistical probability, which refers to an algorithmic convention for assessing the certitude of the average of measurements (p 113).  He thinks that the opposite of +1 is 0 and not -1 (p 50-51).  He thinks that the difference between a single cycle of random mutation and natural selection and its sub-cycles is the presence of natural selection in the sub-cycles in contrast to the overall single cycle (p 121).  He thinks that an analogy of addition illustrates multiplication (p 121, Climbing Mount Improbable).  He thinks his metaphor of a multiple dial lock illustrates a change in the mathematical probability of natural selection, when it illustrates a change in the efficiency of random mutation (p 122).  He mistakes material density for mathematical probability (p 137-138).  On page 145, Dawkins recognizes that mathematical probability increases with multiple random selections.  Nevertheless, he is completely oblivious to this with respect to determining the probability of natural selection.  Dawkins proposes that the probability of natural selection is determined by the mathematically incoherent break up of improbability into smaller pieces of improbability (p 121).  Who is Dawkins?  A prominent Darwinian evolutionary biologist and amateur philosopher, who, apparently, never took a course in mathematics.

This discussion has gotten a little wild, but just in case somebody is looking for an actual book to consider, I recommend Guy Consolmagno’s “God’s Mechanics: How Scientists and Engineers Make Sense of Religion.” It’s not pushy, and the author (a highly respected astronomer and a Jesuit brother) has a great sense of humor

Any antheist is going to reject a Christian book the same way you reject atheist books. You both start with an unshakable attitude and resist other points of view. Christians can’t stand blasphemy and atheists have no imagination. Stop wasting your time.

Kathleen - thanks for the recommendation. I just ordered it for my Kindle. While an atheist, I try to read all sorts of religious/philosophical books.

For anybody looking at atheist arguments against theism (whether they are atheist or not), I would recommend “Why I became an atheist” by John Loftus.  He actually studied under William Lane Craig, and Craig refuses to debate him. Yes, I read Craig too. I still need to read “The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (Blackwell Companions to Philosophy)” edited by Craig.

Barbara C:

Thank you for demonstrating my point for me. All you are doing here is attempting to shift blame for God’s consistent failure to show up in the real world. You’re making excuses, and while I’m sure you feel like a good faithful ‘defender of the faith’ you’re actually doing a very poor job of being convincing.

“But even then would you REALLY believe?  Or would you think that the “person” before you claiming to be God was a whacko or con artist and that all of His powers were just sleights of hands and illusions?  Human beings have an amazing power for rationalizing away things that they do not WANT to believe.”

—Like I said, an omnipotent, omniscient being knows EXACTLY what it would take to convince me, and knew it aeons before it even created life, the universe, and EVERYTHING. Please stop making excuses for its consistent failure to do so.

“God didn’t design you to just be an obedient robot.  He created you with free will and a brain.  God could FORCE you to believe in him, but love and understanding that are forced onto others are not really either love or understanding.”

—What, do you think I’ve never heard that lame argument before? Do you honestly think that’s convincing? Please stop trying to trivialize the years of struggle, thought, study, and prayer it took to shake off a lifetime’s worth of indoctrination.

If God showed up like I’d been asking him to do all these years, I would still be free to reject Him. It in no way negates my free will for God to show up in the real world consistent with what the Bible claims. Again, I am not trying to convince YOU of this. I don’t *care* what YOU think about the matter.

If the Christian deity exists and wants a personal relationship with me, it knows exactly what is necessary to attain this, and has known far before I or the universe ever existed. That it consistently fails to do what it has already known was necessary leads to the entirely reasonable conclusion that a deity as you and the Roman Catholic Church describe does not exist.

I’m not going to take your or anybody else’s word for it.

Please, do, DEFINE the word ATHEIST.

OBVIOUSLY,Catholics and/or Unitarian-Universalists(etc) are going to define the SAME word ‘DIFFERENTLY.’

WHO IS TO SAY THAT CATHOLICISM can DEFINE THE SAME ENGLISH-WORD BETTER THAN PEOPLE WHO HAVE chosen TO THINK FR THEMSELVES!

I’d suggest two books by Michael Coren, “Why Catholics are right” and “Heresy”. At least they demolish quite a few canards and red herrings about Catholicism. However, the self-proclaimed atheists are usually impervious to arguments because their shallow materialism and infatuation with scientism prevents them from using common sense.

Before I read this thread, I was discussing a blog post on suffering by “Bad Catholic” with my twenty-something sons.  We all stopped in the midst of the conversation to contemplate a God who “hides Himself” according to a world that demands full disclosure.  Hide?  Why hide?
The richest of Kings allows his humble subject not to be a slave.  What is a slave?  One who has no say.  One who is bound and led with mind blowing beauty.  How good He is to let us learn by Braille. My greatest gift to Him is my *free will*.  What *LOVE* and honor to give it to Him without demanding prepayment. What beauty to discern Him in the poetry of creation that He continues to Write in this unfolding story that defies the laws of entropy.  What passion even when night has fallen.

Reading several popularizations of Stephen Hawking’s work gives one some perspective on this.  Hawking is a child of determined atheist Marxists, who taught among other things that “the Catholic Church is always wrong in matters of science.” (e.g., condemning Galileo).
In the late 1970s, before becoming confined to a wheelchair, Hawking participated in a conference in Rome.  He was much disturbed to hear a cardinal state that the Church had no problem with nor objection to the Big Bang theory of the expanding universe.  Hawking’s immediate reaction was, “I must have done something wrong!”.
Hawking has spent much time and effort in the last several decades in trying to develop an alternate explanation of how all the mass and energy in the universe could, about 13 billion (+ or -) years ago have been concentrated in a single point. The Christian believer’s common explanation for this single-point concentration and the following explosion, from Gen. 1:3: “God said ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light.”
Do any of the atheists reading this blog have a more believable explanation for the Universe? Preferably one following Occam’s razor?
TeaPot562

So, if God can be proven, demonstrated, explained, understood, and described,ad infinitum,  then atheists would believe?  Who would want to be part of their “box.”  God is beyond the most brilliant human explanation, hence we have the experience of Faith (created as a Gift in the limited human mind and heart by our unlimited God).  Atheists, don’t miss the Gift.  Ask for it and it shall be given to you.  That is the meaning of Free Will that this Omnipotent God of ours has also provided.  And Jesus is the Word of God.  Our Holy Church has proclaimed this Good News since Jesus appointed His apostles.

Just a reflection: the main difference between the believers and the atheists lies in their attitude toward death. The atheist loses everything to gain nothing, the believer loses nothing to gain everything.

Thanks, Hieronymus, for a perfect response on this post.

This is an amazing conversation, and I happen to be reading a book that addresses all of it.  Logic.  Whether God exists or not.  If so, which version of God makes the most “sense”.  It’s really well-written and would be fascinating for atheists, agnostics, followers of Jesus, or anyone else.  It’s called “Reasons To Believe” and it’s by a guy named Scott Hahn.  Incredible book.

One more thing.  One of the points in the book, “Reasons To Believe”, is that being an atheist requires as much “faith” as being a follower of Christ.  Really recommend to all.

Helen Pluckrose, this is merely an observation - and I do not ask for your explanation - but in this day and age with the Holy Bible so readily available, I do not see how one can be a “committed Christian” without having read the Scriptures.  :-)

On another note, I think the website and writings of John Salza would be of interest to you:

www.scripturecatholic.com

I’d also recommend www.StayCatholic.com - the Essays section has information on both the Eucharist and the Assumption.

Since you said you did a lot of reading in an attempt to bolster your faith, I imagine that you’ve come across titles by Scott Hahn.  If not, I highly recommend his writings.

Finally, if you haven’t taken a look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church, please do so.  It is available online and indexed for easy reading at the website of the Vatican.

God bless you.

Helen wrote: “Of course, I do not believe that God brought the world into existence by words - the evidence points to a natural occurance and the bible mistakenly has light existing 3 days before the sun and the moon producing light which of course it does not.”

You certainly can’t think that our sun is the only source of light? The Big Bang would have produced an immense amount of energy and light long before our own sun was formed. Genesis says that God said, “Let there be light”. To me that sure sounds like at that point, the Big Bang could have occurred which then began the entire process of the universe expanding, creating, evolving, and so on.
On a final note, we know that the “light of the moon” is really the reflection of the sun. Yet, we still hear and use the term “moonlight”. So the Bible is not necessarily claiming the moon gives off light of it’s own- it is not really an error to speak of the moon and its light. It is a figure of speech.

@Helen,
Read about the photons.

I’ve been returning to the Church for the past 5 years, after suffering a two-decade bout of atheism and Buddhism. I’ve uttered many of the objections cited in previous comments and read the books of the “four horseman”, Harris being one of my favorites—still is. I also remember complaining to my priest that it’s when I read the bible and apologetics works that I lose my faith!

My conclusions after being a seeker for 20 years and reading dozens of works on biblical studies, history, etc. is that we will believe what we want to believe. This is as true of atheists as Christians as Muslims. There are plenty of reasons for landing on either side of this issue.

Our minds can only focus on a limited amount of info at a time, bracketing out everything else. Thus, the Christian thinks not of the problem of evil or the unsavory parts in the OT. Likewise, the atheist forgets that the most beautiful souls to have ever graced this planet have been forged in the Church and that Jesus Christ remains the most enigmatic, powerful, and lovely human being ever recorded. To be sure, it’s not an issue of “forgetting” but an issue of focus. What you focus on is what you will “see.”

Also, atheists live in their heads, in their intellects. When we speak of the heart and stirrings of the soul, they scoff. I did the same.

I came to belief via the heart, by reading about Mother Theresa and other devotional materials. There are also intellectual reasons too—but these can land us in either camp. I just finished “Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist”—an amazing book.

This is important: Oftentimes engaging people on the intellectual level is a big mistake. There are always intellectual objections to everything. However, in matters of the heart, there are no objections—only love, beauty, and hope.

Posted by Theophile on Monday, Jun 11, 2012 11:18 AM (EST):Hi Jennifer,
How about “Foxes book of Martyrs”? It’s in public domain, reflected in the words of the founding fathers(US), and arguably the benchmark of Christian history. If nothing else, it highlights the animosity of the world against the Bible, and how well it’s leader can twist the Bible to be worldly, and to divide us all concerning God.
Wouldn’t a book documenting the burning of Bibles, and their believers at the stake, by the Church, make interesting reading for Atheists?”
*************
Not really.I think it historically has been useful propaganda against the Church, but those who are serious secularists think the Bible, Protestants, Catholics, Jews, etc are all coming from the same fiction anyway.

Re:Joseph on Tuesday, Jun 12, 2012 8:23 AM
***********************

Dear Joseph,
You make some good points.
Great theologians can demonstrate truths through intellect & reasoning, but for many of us, I think, God speaks to us/moves us directly through our hearts.
We experience things in a natural way through our senses & intellect but God isn’t bound by that.Only believing in a material universe is limiting the infinite to the size of our finite understanding.

When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

Mark, lets see, I don’t reject Judaism because Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism, so until the Messiah, Jesus Christ, came and fulfilled the Old Covenant and made the New Covenant with Jews and Gentiles alike, I would have considered Judaism to be the One, True, Faith. I reject Islam because while it claims to believe in the God of Abraham, it rejects and distorts so much of Judaism and Christianity. Whereas Christianity does not claim that the Jewish beliefs were in error, Islam claims that the Jews and Christians got it wrong. Mohammed claimed that the Angel Gabriel gave him the Qur’an, the same Angel Gabriel who came to Mary to ask her to be the mother of Jesus. Both religions cannot be right, and since Islam claims that God does not have to be reasonable, and is not portrayed as a loving, merciful God, I would have to say that with regard to Islam, I am an atheist. I want no part of this “God of Islam”.
With regard to other religions, many of them very, very ancient and pagan, I believe that ancient humans came up with these belief systems because they knew in their hearts that there had to be some Supreme Being, greater than themselves, but that their understanding was limited. The fact that there are some similarities in pagan religions to Judeo/Christianity tells me that they were beginning to have some understanding of God. I choose to believe that God, our Creator, chose to reveal himself to a man named Abram, made a covenant with him and then eventually with the people of Israel and then finally all humankind. It just makes the most reasonable sense to me compared with what I have read/seen of other pagan religions like Hinduism, Buddhism, pantheism, etc.
Anyway Mark, to the extent that your understanding of the God I believe in is limited, immature, and overly simplistic, I can understand your dismissal of Him. I also dismiss the God that Atheists claim to dismiss as well. So far, I have yet to come across an atheist who has a mature, adult and humble understanding of the Christian God. That is not entirely their fault, since many Christians, especially fundamentalists, depiction of God is also very immature and simplistic.

Ironically, atheists insist that they, in general, have a better understanding of the Bible than do Christians, & here on this forum, the Christians are insisting that atheists have immature, unfounded, & illogical views of the Bible.

IOW, both sides are saying, “If you don’t agree with me on the Bible, that’s evidence that you’re an ignorant, spoiled little prat.”

This is why I detest arguments about religion: they’re pointless nonsense spewed by people who enjoy spewing about their own subjective opinions, & acting as if subjective opinion equals objective truth. A pox on both your houses.

@ Helen…I would highly recommend a book titled THEOLOGY AND SANITY for
you to read at this point on your faith journey. The author, Frank Sheed, is called the Prophet of Hyde Park after his more than 50 years of
street corner evangelizing the doubters and hecklers of London. He was
perhaps one of the greatest apologists of the 20th century along with his British wife, Maise Ward. In this book he shows the practical aspects of
theology in the life of a Christian believer with clarity, wit and simplicity. An eminently readable book. You seem to be sincere in your
search for the reality of truth but casting about in the darkness of confusion. Perhaps this book would give you a more solid foundation on
which to launch your search. There are rational answers given here to
the basics which you seem to be lacking or perhaps just confused. If you
reread your comments here, in the order sent, this comes through loud and clear. For example, you claim to have read and studied the Bible. Did you do that on your own…or were you part of a study group? You seem to be
your own interpreter of all…kind of like trying to do an appendectomy
on yourself.

@Bruce Norbeck,
Catholics have both Sacred Tradition & the Bible.I don’t think you’d find us basing teachings on scripture alone.

This is a very interesting conversation.  I fall into the camp of “All IN” (to use the phrase of betting everything one has in poker’s Texas Hold’em).  I do so, because I have come to realize that my protastant background was at best “theological schizophrenia”, or chosing to belive in some of the bible, while disregarding or refusing to look at other parts as being untrue or not important.  This is the problem with all who are in some sort of “protest” with mother (universal) church.  This clearly includes agnostics and athiests alike.  We tend to try to be our own “pope” and refuse to believe that there is a more intelligent interpreter than “oneself”.  That’s tanamount to believing that I have the “right” to interpret the U.S. Constitution for myself and there is no other authority over me to hold me accountable for my personal opinion on interpretation. 

When it was revealed to me that 2nd Timothy 3:15 does not give each and every one of us that authority of interpretation, but merely that scripture is good for education, reproof, and such, not to mention that Paul was speaking to Timothy specifically about the Old Testament only (because the New Testament had not been compiled yet), I had to do a complete re-think.  Then I discovered 1st. Timothy 3:15 which claims that the “Church” is the pillar and foundation of the faith (not scripture).  Much in the way that the U.S. constitution states that the Supreme Court is the interpreter of its own document. 

I then asked the question, Who is the leader of the church?, as it is logical that every organization must have a leader in order to exist.  Was it my pastor, some other of the over 35,000 protastant pastors in America alone, or could it possibly be the Papacy?  The answer to that question came to me from scripture (again that I and most in “protest” choose to ignore), Mathew 16:19 where Jesus gave Peter the “keys to the kingdom”, in essence, telling him that whatever he decisions he chooses to make with the kingdom (earth), he [Jesus, God] will abide by.  Jesus did not need to tell Peter that the Holy Spirit would guide him in the decisions that he had to make, as it was unimportant at that time.  Therefore, by Peter electing a new apostle, and subsequently appointing a new leader upon Peter’s death, bound God to that order also.  Though in reality, due to the Holy Spirit, God really made the decisions that Peter made anyway.

I then discovered that there was only one “church” prior to the early 1500’s AD (No protastant believer wants to admit to that, again theological schizophrenia), and that the one true church is the only one started by God [Jesus].  And that that church was the compiler of scripture, and a gift to the world, given by the “Church”, leader of the church [Pope], which is ultimately guided by the Holy Spirit anyway.

I then began to question whether or not the entire premis of the existance of God was plausable (because I had reasoned that partial belief was now out of the question for me), so I investigated the origin and evolution of the bible and the truth of that bible.  Because I surmised that either Jesus was 100% truth or he was a masterful liar, and if he was a liar, NONE of his teachings should be believed as TRUTH. 

In my further investigations, I discovered (through independant sources, other than scripture) that Jesus was a man, was crucified and died, and was seen by over 500 witnesses as being alive for a time period after his death.  Further evidence of this truth lies in the nature of the Apostle’s that lived with Jesus.  If Jesus was a fake, it seems logical to me that none of the Apostles would have suffered a Martyr’s death by continuing to profess his divinity, when faced with the same fate as Jesus.  Especially since those same Apostles fled in fear of their own lives the day that Jesus was crucified.  What could the Apostles have to gain by continuing to profess the truth, except that they then knew that there is eternal life after death.

There it is, enough evidence for me to take the “Leap of Faith” required for God to “Catch me”, and bring me “the rest of the way”.

theplummer:
“I then discovered that there was only one “church” prior to the early 1500’s AD”
*************
I’m a Catholic & I hear what you’re trying to say, but I think the Orthodox churches might take exception to your comment.

Posted by Kathleen on Tuesday, Jun 12, 2012 11:32 AM (EST):theplummer:
“I then discovered that there was only one “church” prior to the early 1500’s AD”
*************
I’m a Catholic & I hear what you’re trying to say, but I think the Orthodox churches might take exception to your comment.

Agreed, but my assertion still stands, as the Orthodox church’s are still in at the very least, following apostolic succession, unlike ALL protastant religions.  They only differ as their recognition of the papacy, and Rome acknowledges their apastolic succession, and pray’s for their re-unification, as it also prays for all other protastant’s re-unification, as all believers are “the church”.  The only difference is, to what level of fullness does one allow ones own obediance to give oneself over to (submission to one’s own sin of pride).

Bruce, when I say that an atheists’ or some Christians’ view of God is immature and simplistic, I mean just that: Their VIEW is immature and simplistic, I am not, nor have I called anyone themselves as immature, childish or simplistic. I am just stating what I have observed from various atheists, be they on this forum, or Christopher Hitchens, et al.

Lucy, I was 9 before I read the bible rather than a children’s illustrated version and then I read parts advised for me by adults. It was when I became particularly devout at 11 that I began reading from Genesis and when I became so disillusioned. I continued trying to bolster my faith until I was 18.

TeaPot562- “Do any of the atheists reading this blog have a more believable explanation for the Universe? Preferably one following Occam’s razor?”

Possibly, I’ve been in contact with a Christian Mathematics Professor for several years checking my calculation, also a former head radio technician for Voyager II and devout Mormon until he passed away a few yeas ago. In August I am suppose to meet up again with a Physicist know for his work in quantum theory and some award for his work on the Casimir effect. I have my doubts but my mathematician friend is very supportive.
Anyway its contingent on whether or not we have found the “un-caused cause” which I can argue for or against and we need some clarification on a few issues.

Shamrock - I was born to atheist parents, was taught about Christianity at school (in the UK)and began attending Sunday School at 7 and bible classes with the Church of England. I was baptised at 11 and confirmed at 13, converted to Catholicism at 14 and had ongoing bible study groups for all three. Yes, interpretation by others is very much a Catholic thing whilst interpreting for yourself very much a protestant thing. However, none of those groups were able to give me any reassurance about why God is logically impossible being both omniscient and being surprised by Satan’s defection and Adam and Eve’s sin and not knowing he would have to flood the whole and then sacifice himself to himself in the form of his son to appease himself at a later date. That is the main thing I would really appreciate an explanation of - people just got cross when I asked most respectfully from a position of wanting to keep my faith. Also the stuff about God and Jesus advocating slavery and the killing of people of a different faith and God telling Moses to kill all the men, women and children except for the virgin girls who they were to take to rape and raping any women being OK as long as the man paid the woman’s father and married her and guidelines for selling your daughter as a sex slave. People just told me to focus on the new covenant in the new testament as part of Jesus’s sacrifice to us but surely the God of the old testament is the same as the God of the new testament and perfect? Was he wrong before or was it OK to do those sort of things before but it isn’t now. I feel very strongly that it must always have been wrong . I will read the book you recomend with interest.

Helen, I have a question for you. Where did you get the information that God was “surprised by Satan’s defection, Adam and Eve’s sin, and that he did NOT know He would send a flood?  Just wondering. Because that is not what Catholics believe.

Joanp62, a Morman could/would claim the exact same thing as you. Christans were getting close to the True God then Joseph Smith..Angel…golden tablets…yada yada…therefore they have the true religion.
.
Of course Jews claim Jesus isn’t the messiah, can’t both be right, etc. etc.
.
Muslims can claim the same about Christian’s and back it up with violent Bible quotes and real history.  (I’m not saying Muslims are pure as driven snow.  I just don’t see a large difference in violence or teachings, both have their radicals).
.
“your understanding of the God I believe in is limited, immature, and overly simplistic”,  I don’t know why you think that unless you think YOUR dismissal of all other gods is limited, immature, and overly simplistic. 

Joan - Do you not? The bible says that Satan was God’s most trusted angel and beloved by him. It also says that God could not find Adam and called to him and when he saw he was wearing a leaf he became very angry on realising this meant he had eaten from the tree of knowledge. The flood was said to have occurred because God regretted having made man now he’d seen how wicked they were. That’s Genesis 6:7 I think.

I often find that people who have not read the bible are much more able to keep their faith than those who have. The Catholic church does not discourage people from reading the bible and insist you rely on priests to interpret and present it any more, does it? Was it a priest who said that God always knew Satan would betray him and Adam and Eve eat the fruit and that he would have to flood the world? I wonder where that came from? Its not biblical. Do other Catholics agree that Catholic doctrine says God knew he would have to punish his creations by banishing them from Eden and then later drown nearly all of them even before he made them? Is there any explanation of this?

I expect the Bible god is not omniscient since there are Bible quotes of him not knowing things and free will and omniscience are mutually exclusive.  OTHO I expect people will claim He can know the future when he wants to so you can have the best of both world.

Helen,
Where did you get these ideas about Catholic teaching? Hard to imagine it was in the Anglican Church.
I attended Anglican Sunday school too, but Baptism preceded Confirmation.

I haven’t read all the posts but I must express my appreciation for posts by Barbara C, Lisa, Anna Lisa, John, and theplummer. Magnificent in many ways. I doubt any atheists are persuaded by anything written but those presented by believers are a lovely gift to fellow believers. Many thanks! “How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of those who bring good news, who publish peace…”  May the gift of faith descend on all.

Helen, You are insulting to assume I have not read the bible. I have read it for many years and have studied it for 8 years or more. If YOU read the bible you would know that it was God who made the clothes for Adam and Eve, they were merely hiding from God because they now realized they were naked. Reread Genesis please. I do not know where you received your Catholic education, but Catholicism does teach that God is All-knowing, that He is outside of space and time since He is the Creator of All things. Therefore, He would know beforehand what we will do, what will happen and will not. You are misreading and misunderstanding the Bible-maybe taking it way too literally-do you take everything that you read so literally, or do you know when you need to read between the lines, or that something is written in a poetic sense or when a figure of speech is used?

Hi Kathleen - yes, baptised at 11 and confirmed at 13, I said. My comment on catholic teaching is in response to Joan’s comment. She was questioning my assertion that an omniscient god is illogical given the biblical accounts of his lack of knowledge of Satan turning aqainst him, Adam and Eve eating the fruit, humanity becoming evil and needing to be drowned etc. Joan said that Catholics believe God knew all this would come to pass and as this is not biblical I wonder where it comes from and wanted to know if other catholics agree. (Bible says Satan most trusted and beloved angel, God could not find Adam and knew he’s eaten the fruit due to his covering his nakedness and that he regretted creating man when they became so wicked in Noah’s time)
My comment about the Catholic church forbidding reading the bible in English in the past comes from my studies. I am working my way to being an early modern Christian historian.  It was, of course, a crime punishable by death in my country (England) for most of the medieval period and the main bone of contention among protestants. We still find that catholics tend to accept doctrine which is not biblical - transubstantiation, the assumption of Mary, purgatory etc and have greater emphasis on the teachings of the church whilst protestants have greater emphasis on personal interpretation of the bible. I am quite sure that catholics are not forbidden to read the bible now but was surprised Joan did not know the biblical account and someone else advised me not to try interpreting the bible myself so wonder if many Catholics still rely on the teaching of the clergy more than the bible now?

Mark, I was answering your question that you posed to no one in particular. My answer however, cannot be right or wrong, as I was giving you MY reasons for why I dismiss other gods. That they do not go along with your reasons are irrelevant. You asked a question and I gave my answer, sorry if it wasn’t worded in accordance with your world-view.

I beg your pardon Joan but you did ask me where I got my information from and it is all there in Genesis. I know that Christianity teaches that god is omniscient but it also teaches that Satan was his most trusted and beloved angel and that he became angry with humanity and regretted making them. Do you remember my point was that these two things cannot both be true?
We get into murky waters when we talk about taking the bible ‘too literally’ because who can decide which bits are literal? I know Catholics no longer accept creationism and that is deemed metaphorical (or the pope says so anyway) but then this gives us a problem with original sin which is still very much a part of Catholic teaching but does rather depend on Adam and Eve being the first humans. This was why Christ had to die for our sins. However, if Catholicism now accepts evolution, Adam and Eve never existed which means that original sin never existed which means that christ was sacrificed for…..what exactly?
I certainly admit to being very confused by all this but it is not a confusion which anyone has ever been able to address. I have studied Christianity as a Christian for 11 years, as an agnostic for 15 more and then as a student of medieval and early modern Christian history for 5 years. This still makes no sense. Usually Christians end up telling me that we are not meant to understand everything and that God works in mysterious ways and I will understand at last if I put my faith in Christ. Its how to actually have faith in something which makes no logical sense in the first place which is the flaw in that advice.

RE: atheists knowing the bible better than Christians…
I used that one myself, having obtained a undergrad in religion with an emphasis on biblical studies. My prof taught us the critical readings of the Bible. I wasn’t a Xian at the time so it didn’t bother me but a lot of Xians had trouble. That class confirmed my atheism.

All these years I thought I knew the Bible, but of course, as in all things with life, when someone says they know, you can almost be sure they don’t know. I do know the bible a little better now that I’ve read more Catholic readings of it, b/c Catholics approach the bible as one grand story, with types and foreshadowing and symbolism… the way I’d describe it is the bible becomes 3-D… it springs to life. I think very few people really know the Bible well.

Good biblical scholars—Richard Bauckham and Larry Hurtado, not Catholic but have done some convincing research, AFAIC. I was a big Ehrman fan before but the former two scholars cited are doing more current and interesting research.

Helen, if you reread Genesis it does not say that Adam made his own “fig leaf”- it says that God made clothing for them. If you are wrong about that you can be wrong about other things. Please site where in Genesis or anywhere in the Bible it says what you claim it says about Satan and God.
Science itself says that we can all trace our ancestry to 2 people. Whether they were called Adam and Eve, and whether the universe is 15 billion years old does not cause a conflict with the concept of Original Sin. The point is that our early ancestors disobeyed God at some point, hence Original Sin. Regarding Evolution, no one accepted it until it was posited by Darwin less than 200 years ago. The Church has never had a problem with science, as long as the scientist stay out of theology. With Darwinian evolution, the problem was in the claim that evolution therefore proved that God need not exist, and it does no such thing. The Catholic Church’s “acceptance” of evolution only confirms again that the Church believes science and faith are reconcilable. I mean, if God is real and the creator of all things, then He is the creator of the science as well. To many, science is a means to understand the workings of God a bit better, and to marvel at His creation.

Joseph, I agree with what you said about the Catholic view of the Bible. It really does bring it to life.

Helen, all it takes is just a little humility and maybe some patience. I view the Bible and The Catholic Church in a completely different way than you do. To me, it makes the most logical sense, compared to atheism or any other religions. For what it’s worth, I’ve been a studying and active Catholic for over 40 years now.

Joan, Adam was hiding because he realised he was naked and this is when God knew he’d eaten the fruit. Who made the fig leaf is not relevant to god’s needing to see Adam’s shame before he knew he’d eaten the fruit. I am quite sure I could be wrong about many things. This is why I have so many questions. Most of the stuff about Satan and God’s placing him in the position of highest trust is in Ezekiel 28:12-18. This is where it says that God created him perfect and loved him and placed him in the highest position. There is some more in revelation. The church has never had a problem with science? Tell that to Galileo.

Joan I think I am being very patient and have asked many times if you would share the benefit of this studying with me. I have now asked on another site too. Is there any book which covers the whole concept of the purpose of the crucifixion, the original sin, how omniscience and free will can co-exist at all? Why did Jesus have to die? God made the sacrifice of his son to himself, did he not? How does that work? God reauired a blood sacrifice? Why? OK he did so he sacrificed his own son? To himself? Why did having his son killed make him feel more positive about humanity? Was humanity even involved in this if it was God coming down in the form of his son to sacrifice himself to himself in order to appease himself? I am sorry if this seems mocking but I simply do not understand how that works? If you do please share or direct me to a book. You say it makes logical sense to you, can you explain?

Helen, as I said, the Church has not had a problem with science, many scientists at the time of Galileo were Catholic priests. The problem arises when a scientist steps into theological territory, where he does not belong. And contrary to popular belief, that is exactly what happened to Galileo. In Galileo’s day, most scientists believed the sun revolved around the earth, so the Church was thinking along the lines of the going belief of the time. What Galileo proposed was not the problem with the Church, it was when he then tried to claim that if the Bible was wrong about the earth revolving around the sun, then it must be in error about many things. But the bible never says that the earth is the center of the universe or the solar system, just speaks of the rising and setting of the sun, a phrase we still use to this day.
Ezekiel 28: 12-18 is not clear. It may be speaking of the serpent in the garden of Eden, but it does not specifically speak of Satan, the Angel of Light,Lucifer. Just because we or the angels sin against God, it does not take anything away from His Omnipotence. Frankly, I don’t see how you are making the connection.
You ask a lot of questions, which cannot be answered succinctly in a combox. Some of the answers can go pretty deep and are best explained by someone with greater theological background. Some of your questions are based on false assumptions as well. You assume that sacrificing His son made God ‘feel better’ about humanity and then ask why? But God did not sacrifice his son to feel better about us in the first place.
Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. GK Chesterton, Peter Kreeft. Look up Ignatius Press, they publish some very good Catholic works. There is no ONE book that I know of that answers all your questions, the Bible, but that needs to be interpreted correctly, which is why we have the Catholic Church.

Lastly, yes, the faith does seem most logical to me. I can’t give you black and white answers because it is a matter of the heart and not just of the intellect. I have given some explanations in other forums, maybe I can look for them and copy and paste here.

@Joanp61

“The problem arises when a scientist steps into theological territory, where he does not belong. And contrary to popular belief, that is exactly what happened to Galileo. In Galileo’s day, most scientists believed the sun revolved around the earth, so the Church was thinking along the lines of the going belief of the time. What Galileo proposed was not the problem with the Church, it was when he then tried to claim that if the Bible was wrong about the earth revolving around the sun, then it must be in error about many things. But the bible never says that the earth is the center of the universe or the solar system, just speaks of the rising and setting of the sun, a phrase we still use to this day.”
.
Do you really know what you are saying? Galileo “stepped into theological territory?” He just confirmed that the earth revolved around the sun—the physical truth for which there is ample evidence in his time. How is that treading in theological thought? The fact directly implied that the Bible was not inerrant, and the Church had a problem with that. Do you think the Bible is perfect? Would you ban science and biology from Catholic schools?
.
An yet, I bet you have no problem with the Church imposing its doctrine in government and secular society. Obviously you gave your free will to the Church because it is obvious you are only interesting in covering up for it.

@Lisa:
“Dare to prove the impossible.”
When you do, let us know.

@Helen Pluckrose
I warn you not to get involved in an argument over the Bible. These people have a way of justifying their faith that will make your head spin.
Like in the Bible, you can spend your time finding their contradictions, but it is a waste of time.

You should re-title this “How to attempt to shove our cult literature down the throats of people who’re unlucky enough to know us”. 

Why don’t you just leave them alone?

Christine. That ‘Galileo shouldn’t have stepped into theological territory’ bit gave me the creeps too. Justifying torture even now and when so many Catholics say its not reasonable to bring up the Inquisition in criticism of Catholicism. Deeply disturbing.

I’ve already had the ‘you take the bible too literally’ thing. Of course. Adam and Eve were metaphorical whilst the resurrection of Christ is literal. There is no way to argue with someone who insists on cherry picking the bible to this extent. Puts me in mind of that excellent analogy.
‘Arguing with a Christian is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good I am at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board, and strut around like it is victorious.’
I am giving up on any hopes of intelligent debate or intellectual honesty now. I should know better. 

Christine, do you read the posts you are quoting? Contrary to what some historical sources say, there was more to the Galileo incident than him stating the fact that the earth orbited the sun. What some history books fail to mention is that Galileo went one step further and tried to tell the Church that this meant the Bible was in error. I stated that in my post already. Where on earth do you get from my comments that I would ban science and biology(thought that was science too) from schools?? You pick and choose bits of my comments and jump all over them, without obviously reading the entire post.
With regard to your last 2 sentences- making assumptions and jumping to conclusions-can you read minds? And if you are implying the HHS Mandate debacle, it was the secular government imposing its doctrine on institutions of faith.

Helen you are the pot calling the kettle black. I have tried patiently to have a reasonable discussion with you and to answer some of your questions. You are pre-conditioned to see and believe what you want to. You only hear what you want to and then make incorrect assumptions about the rest. It is you who have not been intellectually honest.

Joan , you are justifying the torture of a scientist because he said that the bible was wrong and you think that makes it OK. I think the bible is wrong when it says the moon produces light? Should I be tortured now? I usually say that Christians do not get their morality from the bible because they don’t believe in slavery and child rape and stoning people of different faiths etc even tho God advocates it but sometimes someone says something like you just have and I realise that some people still do. Think about what you have said. Your belief in the bible means you think other scriptures are wrong and that I am wrong? I accept that you have the right to think that. Would you think me reasonable to say ‘When you go stepping into the realm of atheism you have to expect to be tortured.’ Its not just that you have a belief but you have said that your way makes logical sense in comparison to atheism and therefore I have the right to torture you? If this does not seem right why does it seem right that Galileo should be held responsible for his own racking because he challenged the bible?

@Helen,

Galileo was never tortured, please educate yourself instead of uncritically repeating old lies…

Helen, Galileo was NOT tortured, he was placed under house arrest and was treated quite well. I already responded to your moon light question. So that means I think you should be tortured? You are starting to get hysterical and sound unreasonable. The bible did not advocate for child slavery. In the old testament, slavery among the pagan people was common, God gave specific laws about how to treat slaves, which was alot better than many were being treated. Also, the slaves of that time were more like indentured servants, not slaves as we think of in American history. And again, since Galileo was not tortured, and I never said I or the bible advocated torture, where do you get off jumping to your hysterical and insulting conclusions??  Listen to yourself!!

Oh and Helen, stop getting your history from Anti-Catholic sources that have a bias against Catholicism. It’s embarrassing for you.

Interesting discussion. I would like to recommend to all, believers and non-believers, the books of G.K. Chesterton, specially “Orthodoxy” and “The Everlasting Man”. Whether you agree with his views or not, he will make you think.
Hieronymus and Joanp62 are right, Galileo was never tortured. His “punishment” consisted in recite some P-psalms, while living comfortably in a palace.

All I am seeing here is a whole bunch of humans expecting others skeptical of their faith-based beliefs to take them at their word, or to trust an old book of stories, or in an organization whose primary goal is to perpetuate itself and its power over other humans.

If the Christian deity really exists, is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent, and wants a personal relationship with each and every one of us so badly to literally DIE to remove barriers between us and Him…then why isn’t God showing up in the real world to inform us of this?

YHWH/Jesus/Holy Ghost supposedly knew well before the universe was ever created what each and every one of us would believe or disbelieve, and the consequences thereof. This means He supposedly also knows EXACTLY what it would take to convince each and every non-believer, including those who he caused to be born into non-Christian religions and thus into the ranks of the Hell-bound.

That’s not consistent with an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent deity that desires a personal relationship with every single human being, ever.

Not a single one of the arguments or books or apologia presented here matter. Not one. I’m not interested in what humans claim their preferred god says, I’m interested in what GOD says. And thus far there’s only been silence.

I dont believe in atheism . Because if an atheist believes they love their family they believe in God because God is Love everyone is Christian some just dont know it yet but they will find out one day LOL I love all of you especially the so called atheists !! everything is a miracle so why not want to believe why not want a never ending love and happiness why not want a family that lives for ever why not want to spend eternity with your loved ones praying for your other love ones who are still on earth . why not take a leap of faith how can it hurt what is the other option you die period. sound like a lot of fun LOL instead of being dissapointed when you get to heaven or purgatory and think back on all the wonderful aspects of our faith that ya missed out on get involved there are so many beautiful things one can do dont spend eternity wishing you could have done them like i said I love you all Peace this is coming from a once atheist i found it much more satisfying and it made more sense to look for reasons to believe in God not reasons not to it is common sense why look for the negative ? ya feel me

Most of the believers are the children of believers. Some by their experience, by reading and by some ways form their thoughts and conscience and may reach the feeling of God’s existence and later to religion.  God has breathed life to all and by that human has become an image of God. The man and woman are given the normal wisdom and if they use it they reach some point supported by conscience. They all automatically come to believe the natural laws for example do not hurt others or do not rob etc etc. If they search further they may reach a religion and ultimately even Christ.  What I want to say is that no one can convert another. Faith is a gift of God. The faith in the natural laws by atheist is God’s gift and he will be judged by that.

I told you they can come up with weird justifications for the Catholic cult. Galileo told the truth and agreed that the fact implied the Bible was not inerrant and the Church was wrong to support its contention that the sun still circled the earth. The Church did not take it as a reference to sunrise/sunset—the Church was denying a scientific fact. They have always opposed science and knowledge from the First Sin—curiosity.
.
They also feel duty-bound to lie for the Church and complain about facts that bother the clergy:
http://www.skepticmoney.com/do-your-own-miracle/
You are dealing with liars and can’t win an argument with logic. I repeat: They baffle with BS.

If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, he is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions.  1 Timothy 6:3-4
.
Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. (I Timothy 2:11-14)
.
ves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are HARSH.  1 Peter 2:18

Posted by CommonSense on Tuesday, Jun 12, 2012 5:33 PM (EST):“You should re-title this “How to attempt to shove our cult literature down the throats of people who’re unlucky enough to know us”. 

Why don’t you just leave them alone?”
*****************
Possibly for the same reason secularists google for articles like this one to post comments on.

Wow, Christine. You link to another angry, foul-mouthed atheist. The video about the quack guru adds more support to my dismissal of “eastern religions.” But this is a Catholic site, why show me something that dismisses magic tricks and phony gurus?

As I said in a previous post, in the day of Galileo, the general consensus among most scientist was that the sun orbited the earth. The Church was as it does today, simply accepting the scientific thought of the time. Galileo was more like a “renegade” scientist of the day. Also, the Catholic Church never claimed that the Bible gives us scientific information. It is only Atheists that claim that- a fallacy- in order to then ‘debunk’ it.
And stop with the ad-hominem attacks, don’t you know internet etiquette?

Exactly, Kathleen. Common’s comment makes no sense since this is a Catholic website and they are coming on here and making snide comments, ridiculing us, and in some cases asking valid questions which we attempt to answer. That is not shoving anything down anyone’s throats. But, hey, who cares about reality?

Rule one, this article. “When they say something you disagree with, instead of telling them why they’re wrong, ask them to tell you more about how they came to that conclusion.”

Okaaaay, here it starts again. You already have me pegged as an “angry, foul-mouthed atheist.” Your “justification” of the Church’s treatment of Galileo is really dense, and trying to explain the flaws in you argument is like talking to a brick wall.
..
The Church was not defending the “science” ofthe day. It was agressively supressing scientific discovery. If Galileo or any other scientist is wrong, they will be found out by the rest of the scientific community and the theory will be rejected. Science does not respond to “renegade” scientist by threatening them with torture unless they recant the conclusions of their research. You are also conveniently forgetting that even the Pope “apologized” for the Church’s treatment of Galileo—centuries after the fact.
.
I made an error on the link I wanted to post. Here is the correct one.
http://blog.newhumanist.org.uk/2012/04/leading-indian-rationalist-facing.html
Sorry for the confusion.
..
If you are offended by my language, how would you have me express my anger? Or is the mere fact that I am angry a problem for you?

Galileo’s bishop agreed with him but urged him to put his ideas forward as theory, not fact but this he did not do, being sure he was right. However, Galileo continued (under house arrest) as a devout Catholic and corresponded as such with his daughter, who was a nun.

Christine, I guess you were replying to me. Let’s see, I said that the website you linked was to another foul-mouthed, angry atheist. I said “another” because I have come across many. I can’t say you have used vulgar language in you comments, so I wouldn’t lump you in with “foul-mouthed.” Angry,so much that you can’t think straight to make coherent comments and belligerent, yes.

I do not forget that Pope JOhn Paul II apologized for some of these past events. He was doing it to be diplomatic and I remember him saying he did it in hopes that other faiths would take his example and do the same for the sinful actions of their past. He in no way was admitting to what you would like to think he was.

You are wrong about the Galileo incident.

With regard to the article you linked. I read that story some time ago. First, the Catholic Church referenced in the article is not the Vatican, but the Catholic Church in India. You need to realize that, while the teachings should be the same everywhere, the behaviors and actions of people will differ from culture to culture.

Let’s see, the website you linked to is a Humanist site, no bias there surely. The video is hard to watch, they switch from English to Hindi or whatever, and you can’t tell who is commenting. The article claimed that the bishop was there debating Edamuruku on TV, but I did not see a bishop there on the panel. The site did mention:

Edamuruku was also denounced by Msgr. Agnelo Gracias, the Auxiliary Bishop of Mumbai, who argued that the Catholic Church always tries to explain “miracles” scientifically:

  “The Church is always cautious in attributing supernatural causes to out of the ordinary phenomena. Whenever possible, it always tries to find ‘scientific’ explanations for similar events. It does not pay great attention to things like this, although it accepts the possibility that God can intervene in human life in ‘extraordinary’ ways: what we call ‘miracles’.” Wow, what’s wrong with that?? Doesn’t sound like he is denouncing this guy as the lead in claims.

MaggieMcC, Yes, that is correct, but considering that if he had openly opposed Catholicism and the Church he would probably be tortured and/or burned as an apostate or Heretic, it is questionable that he had a choice.
.
@Joanp62 and others: Would you prefer “fertilizer” or “manure?”

Christine, that’s it?

Helen,

“I’ve already had the ‘you take the bible too literally’ thing. Of course. Adam and Eve were metaphorical whilst the resurrection of Christ is literal. There is no way to argue with someone who insists on cherry picking the bible to this extent. Puts me in mind of that excellent analogy.”

It’s not a matter of “cherry picking,” it’s a matter of distinguishing one literary genre from another.

The historicity of Genesis has been pondered and debated since the early days of Christianity. Even those church fathers who read the text very literally had a considerably different understanding of what constitutes “the historical.”

What the Church has always affirmed is that the Old Testament is first and foremost about Jesus Christ. This means that typology is the dominant mode of orthodox interpretation, as is obvious from the New Testament writings themselves, which handle the Law, Psalms, and Prophets in ways that would make 21st-century biblical scholars blush.

The Church has also always affirmed that Christ is the image of the Father, and that He alone reveals the Deity. And we know that Christ was the Suffering Servant, meek and mild of heart, who emptied Himself to become a slave, even unto death on the cross. Therefore, the entire Old Testament must be read in light of the love, humility, and mercy exhibited by Jesus of Nazareth, the Word made flesh. The whole Scripture must be read in light of Calvary, where the Creator allowed Himself to be killed by His own creatures.

As Catholics, we understand that the Church “gave birth” to Scripture, not vice versa. The Church canonized texts not on the basis of their historical veracity or the intentions of their authors, but because they spoke of Christ.

Your grasp of Catholic teaching and Church history seems at best superficial. I suggest, if you wish to understand the faith, you start reading the fathers and doctors of the Church. Begin with Ignatius and Clement; plow through Irenaeus, Athanasius, Ephrem, Hilary, Augustine, Gregory of Nyssa, and Basil the Great; go on to Maximus the Confessor, Isaac of Nineveh, Duns Scotus and Thomas Aquinas; etc., etc., etc.

Of course, scholarly analysis is ultimately insufficient. The only way to encounter the Living God is to lead a life of constant prayer and humble service. To know God you must be like God, and “God is love”—utterly devoted to and concerned with the Other. He who does not strive to possess this divine benevolence cannot rightfully call himself a Christian.

The goal of Christian life is theosis—becoming as God. As Saint Peter tells us, we are called to be partakers of the Divine nature itself.  St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.” Athanasius wrote, “The Son of God became man so that we might become God.”

But we know this glory to come only through humility; resurrection only through crucifixion; life through death. “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.”

So crucify yourself. Think not yourself wise. For you are dust and ash, a creature possessed by base passions and beholden to a disordered mind. You are sustained only by the Existent One, in whom you live and move and have your being. Call upon the Divine Physician, who bears the medicine of immortality.

I dislike having to speak so bluntly, but you do not possess the wisdom to speak with insight on these matters. I do not mean to insult your intelligence or your goodwill, but you’ve gotten in over your head.

Was Galileo tortured? It seems extremely likely. The fact that the documents quoted in earlier history have disappeared is used by Catholics to suggest they never existed in the first place and by critics of Catholism to suggest they were made to disappear. The Catholic church has quite a history of covering up its unsavoury deeds. However, I will concede that we do not have conclusive evidence of Galileo being tortured but do have it for many others who dared to question the bible or Catholic doctrine. I find it very disturbing that Catholics today still think ‘Yes, but he said the bible was wrong’ in some way validates the oppression, persecution and brutality of the Catholic church. Bear in mind that Thomas More, personally responsible for the torture of many ‘heretics’ was made a saint only 80 years ago.

Christine, it seems my feeling that justification of brutality and oppression is morally objectionable is an ‘hysterical’reaction. There is simply no way to discuss these aspects of religion with the religious. As a British woman my country has a long history of oppressing and exploiting other nations and I can admit this is correct and that I recognise that that was very wrong. People with religious faith cannot do this because it is seen as challenging God. Therefore we get people justifying the concept of Hell for those of a different faith and saying that slavery was not oppressive (even tho the bible clearly says its OK to beat a slave to death as long as he does not die immediately)and justifying actions of the Catholic church which they would utterly condemn in other situations. Think Hitler rounding up Jews, torturing and killing them? All catholics condemn him for that but perform contortions in logic to argue that God doing much the same not only to Jews but to Muslims, Hindus atheists etc and for all eternity, is somehow justifiable. You just can’t get a theist to look at their beliefs from an ethical standpoint at all and it is very frustrating.

Atheists get active because of things like this and we come to places like this because this is where we find other atheists and theists debating them.

As to the original prompt, I suggest not a book but a blog—“Glory to God for All Things,” an excellent and ongoing consideration of Christian spirituality from an Orthodox perspective.

http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/

Helen,
Catholics and all the Judeo-Christian religions have double standards. They’ll insist that all the atrocities throughout history were done by atheists for atheist purposes. They think all some one has to do is “give themselves” to faith (THEIR faith, not just any faith) and all human suffering and pain will be rewarded after you die. And if you don’t agree you will suffer forever because you will never know God/Christ/the Pope’s love and approval.
..
Expect to be called hysterical, angry, miserable, in pain, selfish, rude, a troll, and so on—especially when they don’t want to answer your point. They will “pray for you” to find Christ and come to the Church for salvation and peace of mind.
They humbly hold themselves as better than anyone else because they are “true” Catholics.

PJ, your post was well written and explained. God Bless you!

Helen,

The irony is that the Church was wary of Galileo not because he threatened the integrity of Scripture—the Church acknowledged that Scripture employs phenomenological language—but because he threatened the integrity of Aristotelian physics, and thus Thomistic philosophy.

Galileo was engaged, you see, in a protracted feud with Jesuit astronomers (who, by the way, had earlier harbored Johannes Kepler from angry Protestant fundamentalists). The Jesuits were staunchly Aristotelian in philosophy and physics, as were many (most?) academics.  Even Copernicus had refrained from loudly advocating the heliocentric model because he thought it would arouse the fury (and scorn) of the scientific community.

Christine,

“Helen, Catholics and all the Judeo-Christian religions have double standards. They’ll insist that all the atrocities throughout history were done by atheists for atheist purposes.”

That’s not true. I’ll readily admit that Catholics have done terrible things. But—and here’s the catch—they did those terrible things *against the teachings of Christ.* So it’s not a problem with “the system,” but with the individual—and Catholics are the first to admit that people are sinners! The Church is a hospital for sinners. We turn wicked beasts into godly saints.

“They think all some one has to do is “give themselves” to faith (THEIR faith, not just any faith) and all human suffering and pain will be rewarded after you die.”

Just as importantly, it will give meaning to all human suffering and pain before you die.

On the other hand, an atheist has no philosophical grounds for distinguishing an atrocity from a humanitarian effort. In the absence of transcendent, invariable, and universal truth, how is caring for a sick person any better than killing a sick person? It isn’t. Everything becomes a matter of caprice and whimsy. Everything is reduced to opinion and emotion. In the words of Solomon, “Vanity of vanity, all is vanity!”

So the Catholics who perpetuated atrocities were not “acting” like Catholics? Even while they prayed to Christ to help destroy their enemies? Don’t you look at the Bible, or do you just accept what the Pope/clergy tell you what it means?
.
When Catholics lie to protect pedophile priests, are they not “acting” against Christ? If not, are they “acting” for the Pope?
.
I don’t need philosophical grounds to distinguish an atrocity from a humanitarian effort. I know the differences instinctively. Can’t you tell the differences without an authority or doctrine? Do you have to pause a second or two before you decide if you will kill or help a sick person?
.
“Just as importantly, it will give meaning to all human suffering and pain before you die.”
I REALLY, REALLY hate that excuse religious people give for holding themselves above everybody else. What makes you think people who don’t buy in to your manure need “meaning for human suffering.” It’s the same damn excuse Mother Teresa used while she let people die in her Missions of Charity. Suffering is meaningless and does not make you a better person. If you really cared for humanity, you would not consider suffering a virtue.
.
You think your Catholicism is not Vanity? What a joke!

PJ:“On the other hand, an atheist has no philosophical grounds for distinguishing an atrocity from a humanitarian effort. In the absence of transcendent, invariable, and universal truth, how is caring for a sick person any better than killing a sick person? It isn’t. Everything becomes a matter of caprice and whimsy. Everything is reduced to opinion and emotion. In the words of Solomon, “Vanity of vanity, all is vanity!””
*****************************

Good point.

I think ultimately, without that truth, everything is reduced to biology & survival of the fittest.From a strictly biological/behavior view it makes perfect sense.I have never found a hardcore secularist who could explain why that would not be true or how virtues such as love,courage,loyalty etc can exist in a purely material world.
People have been debating the existance of God for ages.Outside of philosophy & reasoning, I’ve not been aware that anyone’s been able to “prove” God is real, much less snap their fingers & make God visible.Why have secularists taken up their cause again? Maybe it just speaks more of the times we live in.The 18th Century experienced a similar movement which ended badly for France, but faith prevailed.History tends to repeat itself.

PJ, that’s interesting re: Aristotelian physics! Hmm. Will have to look into that more. Cannot agree with this:
On the other hand, an atheist has no philosophical grounds for distinguishing an atrocity from a humanitarian effort. In the absence of transcendent, invariable, and universal truth, how is caring for a sick person any better than killing a sick person?
Atheists do have philosophical grounds by which to perceive right and wrong. They are just not connected to atheism which is simply the disbelief in gods. My disbelief in mermaids gives me no philosophical insights either. I am a secular Humanist and my sense of right and wrong is strongly influenced by human rights, liberalism and the responsibility of humanity, in the absence of gods, to care for each other.

The ideology known currently as ‘Humanism’ has of course been around for much longer than any religion which exists today and has its basis in our evolution. We are social mammals and have developed prefrontal cortexes which cause us to feel empathy and compassion for others. You will see this in other apes and also in many of the canids. Anthropologically, we have only empathised with small groups also for evolutionary reasons - our pack or tribe at first and then with our social class and then with our nation and then with Christendom but the groups with which we identify has become larger as the world gets smaller due to air travel and TV and increased international co-operation. It was Humanist ideals the Hindus related to when they built Ashrams to feed the poor and treat the sick and shelter them both at about the time God was flooding the world for its wickedness. They still do that. It is Jesus’ Humanist values we identify with today - the ‘treat others as you would wish to be treated’ and ‘love thy neighbour’ and ’ don’t judge others’ and this is how we know Christians do not get their morality from God. None of them think all that horrific old testament stuff is morally acceptable now. They speak much more of Christ’s teachings about kindness and love and caring for others and never mention the stuff he said about killing non-believers, killing the children of the ‘immoral’ female prophet and his advice to slaves to accept their lot. Current Christians are nearly as Humanist as secular Humanists - few of them go along with Paul’s awful teachings about women as the fact that this blog is written by a woman makes clear.

Joan - ‘I dislike having to speak so bluntly, but you do not possess the wisdom to speak with insight on these matters. I do not mean to insult your intelligence or your goodwill, but you’ve gotten in over your head.’
I disagree with you and this is why you consider me to lack wisdom. My perspective is secular, anthropological and sociological. You argue that scholarly analysis is insufficient whilst I feel that spiritual beliefs only subtract from clear understanding of any theism. I will not criticise your failure to see your doctrine in a larger sociological perspective because I realise you are seeking a form of wisdom which necessarily does include faith and spirituality. I seek a different form of understanding and there is no point in debating which of us seeks enlightenment the ‘right’ way. I concede to your superior understanding of Catholic theology but retain the right to consider my own perspective - scientific, psychological, anthropological and sociological - more useful for my purposes. I do not feel either of us has greater or lesser wisdom - just different angles.

Excuse me, Helen, but where does this come from? <<Joan - ‘I dislike having to speak so bluntly, but you do not possess the wisdom to speak with insight on these matters. I do not mean to insult your intelligence or your goodwill, but you’ve gotten in over your head.’

I did not write that. That was at the end of another posters response.

That being said, I believe PJ has done an excellent job gently and intelligently answering many of your questions.

Helen,
You didn’t ask me, so I’m butting in,please excuse, but empathy & compassion as you describe are neither good nor bad, or in any way virtuous, they’re simply survival techniques to further the species.I see how that works with biology but not morality.

My apologies Joan - was sure it said it was you. PJ - my last comments are aimed at you. However, if you agree with him, Joan, I am also addressing you.

Kathleen, you may be interested in The evolutionary origins of morality by Leonard Katz. Yes, the reasons those traits have survived are because we thrive on living in groups. However, we no longer only care about our own tribe. My sponsorship of a child in Zimbabwe, in no way helps me to pass on my genes but the empathy and compassion which evolution produced in me for purely practical reasons has the effect of making me empathise with anyone whose life is hard and want to help if I can. Theists, from my perspective, also have empathy and compassion for these reasons. If you saw a stranger crying on a bench somewhere - would you go and see if you could help? I would because my instinct makes me feel sad for the person who is feeling sad and guilty if I did not help and happy if I could help. You may feel that your motivation was because Jesus said to help others but I am sure that if you had never heard of Jesus, you would still feel the need to help others. The word ‘morality’ means ‘custom’ and morality in the bible would be considered immoral now because we have different customs. However, the instinct we have to empathise and feel compassion is older than any religion and will survive the ones which exist now.

Helen, that is how they think. You don’t agree with them, so you are wrong. Catholics in this site do not know the difference between science and “faith.” They see only what they want to see, hear only what they want to hear, and know only what they want to know. They think of themselves as sheep with Christ as their shepherd, totally ignorant that they will be slaughterd at the end of the day. You can tell them otherwise because you will frighten them, and they will hate you.
.
They will also deny that they hate you because that is against their religion, but that is another defensive mechanism so they won’t have to think bad of themselves.

Joanp62—What did the Pope apologize for if they were’t wrong about how they treated Galileo? What did I think he was admitting and what was he really admitting? I don’t understand your comment on this.
.
So a Catholic church/clergy is not connected to the Catholic Church in the Vatican? Why do they call themselves and their church Catholic? Are they lying about that too? Are they not “really” Catholics because of their culture?
.
Acknowledging the “possibility of a supernatural cause” is exactly the opposite of science and scientific method. Do you believe in astrology, palm reading, tea leaves, auras, mediums who talk to the dead? Why or why not? Religion is a fantasy that makes you feel good about yourself, but it is not necessary.
.
There is a growing population that are called “nones” because religious thought and/or practice has little or no influence on their lives. Can you understand that they feel good about themselves without thinking about the supernatural?
.
I didn’t see your reply when you asked me if that was all. Apparently we were typing at the same time.

Helen Pluckrose” You may feel that your motivation was because Jesus said to help others but I am sure that if you had never heard of Jesus, you would still feel the need to help others. “
****************
Dear Helen,
I agree with you because I believe we each have a God-given conscience.

Kathleen—you do know that you are using the word “God” in two different contextes and therefor the term has different meanings, right?

Helen: My apologies Joan - was sure it said it was you. PJ - my last comments are aimed at you. However, if you agree with him, Joan, I am also addressing you.

Please stop assigning motives or ideas to me that you have no way of possibly knowing. PJ’s comment was his and his alone.

“It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.”
Voltaire

Joan, Helen did qualify her statement to include you only if you agreed with pj. Lighten up!

Christine: Here is part of an article written by George Sim Johnson regarding the Pope’s apology and the Galileo affair:

“No episode in the history of the Catholic Church is so misunderstood as the condemnation of Galileo. It is, in Newman’s phrase, the one stock argument used to show that science and Catholic dogma are antagonistic. To the popular mind, the Galileo affair is prima facie evidence that the free pursuit of truth became possible only after science “liberated” itself from the theological shackles of the Middle Ages. The case makes for such a neat morality play of enlightened science versus dogmatic obscurantism that historians are seldom tempted to correct the anti-Catholic “spin” that is usually put on it. Even many intelligent Catholics would prefer that the whole sorry affair be swept under a rug.

John Paul II and Galileo

This is not, however, the attitude of Pope John Paul II. In 1979, he expressed the wish that the Pontifical Academy of Sciences conduct an in-depth study of the celebrated case. A commission of scholars was convened, and they presented their report to the Pope on October 31, 1992. Contrary to reports in The New York Times and other conduits of misinformation about the Church, the Holy See was not on this occasion finally throwing in the towel and admitting that the earth revolves around the sun. That particular debate, so far as the Church was concerned, had been closed since at least 1741 when Benedict XIV bid the Holy Office grant an imprimatur to the first edition of the Complete Works of Galileo.

What John Paul II wanted was a better understanding of the whole affair by both scientists and theologians. It has been said that while politicians think in terms of weeks and statesmen in years, the Pope thinks in centuries. The Holy Father was trying to heal the tragic split between faith and science which occurred in the 17th century and from which Western culture has not recovered. Following the guidelines of the Second Vatican Council, he wished to make clear that science has a legitimate freedom in its own sphere and that this freedom was unduly violated by Church authorities in the case of Galileo.

But at the same time — and here the secular media tuned out — the Holy Father pointed out that “the Galileo case has been a sort of ‘myth,’ in which the image fabricated out of the events was quite far removed from the reality. In this perspective, the Galileo case was the symbol of the Church’s supposed rejection of scientific progress.” Galileo’s run-in with the Church, according to the Pope, involved a “tragic mutual incomprehension” in which both sides were at fault. It was a conflict that ought never to have occurred, because faith and science, properly understood, can never be at odds. “

Christine, below is a link that is a Google translation of Pope JP II address in which he spoke of the Galileo affair. It was in Italian- I’m not sure if this link will work. But, his speech does acknowledge many of what I have already said in my comments.

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=it&u=http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1992/october/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19921031_accademia-scienze_it.html&ei=LwfZT_T7LI6u8AS8-rTZAw&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CFoQ7gEwAA&prev;=/search?q=DISCORSO+DI+GIOVANNI+PAOLO+II+AI+PARTECIPANTI+ALLA+SESSIONE+PLENARIA+DELLA+PONTIFICIA+ACCADEMIA+DELLE+SCIENZE&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=8Nw&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=imvns

Christine, Helen just had to get that last dig in, instead of simply apologizing for mistakenly attributing something to me. Both of you need to re-read your posts and see if you don’t need to lighten up a bit yourselves. You are starting to get very personal and out of line in this discussion.

Christine: Re-read my comment of Wednesday, Jun 13, 2012 11:16 AM (EST.
As usual you are reading more into things than are there. There is a difference between what the Church teaches, and how people in the Church act. A person not acting in accordance with the teachings of the Church does not imply that the Church goes along with said behavior or whatever.

The Magesterium of the Church is in the Vatican in Rome. The Catholic Church throughout the world is the same, however, it is common knowledge that not all local dioceses and parishes are in line with the teachings of the Church. Also, due to cultural differences, persons within the Church may see things and act differently than other cultures. In Africa they love to dance and they dance at Masses. Here in the U.S. dancing at Mass is seen as inappropriate. The local Indian Catholics in the article you cited, while Catholic, seem to be a bit too quick to see something as a miracle. Because the local people were so quick to see a miracle, doesn’t mean that the Catholic Church feels the same way. My quote of the Bishop should also have answered your question.

I’m still waiting for you to answer my questions.

Joanp62:
So, tell me if I got this right:
The Indian Catholic response on being told by a rationalist that what they believed was a miracle was really the result of faulty plumbing was cultural. The rationalist did not “step into theological territory” and therefore the blasphemy charge is in error. They should be suing him for cultural defamation, not for interfering with their religious faith.
.
The current Pope would not agree with charging the rationalist with blasphemy because he could easily contend that God/Jesus directed the plumbing to break down and get people to believe in miracles. (Obviously the creation of an illusion is more important than actually performing one.)
.
The Magesterium of the Church never did and never would oppose science, but they will defend the current science of the day regardless of any scientific evidence that would disprove it. This is because science does not acknowledge a supernatural cause for physical, observable events, so it’s only important to have faith.
.
I’m sure you will be happy to tell my interpretation of your comments are wrong.
.
Also, I’m dizzy from trying to figure your logic. Can you repeat which questions you are expecting me to answer?

Joan, I apologise again for my mistake and for assuming your describing an answer as ‘excellent’ meant you may agree with it. My goodness! 

Kathleen, I wondered if you may say that. I agree with you that empathy and a wish to help others is innate but I attribute it to evolution whilst you attribute it to God. I am glad we both agree that it is common to humans and not just people of a certain faith even if we disagree on the source.

Christine, thanks for your support. I do seem to have offended with my difference of opinion and literal analysis of the bible. I think that maybe when you believe in a god and feel you have a relationship with him, you may feel particularly angry with people who don’t know your god but criticise him? I really believe the greatest harm done by religion is psychological. 

Christine, Helen just had to get that last dig in, instead of simply apologizing for mistakenly attributing something to me. Both of you need to re-read your posts and see if you don’t need to lighten up a bit yourselves. You are starting to get very personal and out of line in this discussion.
.
Really, Joan—I think you are getting hysterical over nothing. Helen only misdirected comments meant for pj. If you didn’t agree with pj, then the comments were not directed to you. If you do agree with pj, she has the right to stand up to both of you because you support pj’s views.
.
We tend to keep missing each other in the comments. Show some of your Catholic tolerance for computer glitches.

Christine, I really do think that you are pretending to be dense and you know exactly what myself and others are saying, you just choose to assign the most ridiculous meanings to anything we say, and twist it to confuse the issue more. My posts are clear enough and I am not going over it again with you. I think you know darn well what I mean. And it is becoming clear that you know absolutely nothing about the Catholic Church and will not listen to reasoned responses and ignore links to clear explanations. Your mind is made up, so I don’t know why you post here because you will not change my mind either.
And Helen, snotty sarcasm will get you nowhere.

Oh please, I agreed with PJ’s response to Helen and said so. Regarding his personal remark to her at the very end, no. Although I am beginning to change my mind about that.

Helen, don’t fall into the trap of taking the blame for offending them. They will offend you often enough on their part.

Well, I told you this would happen. Joan is refusing to discuss anything. She is being offended and angry and blaming it on me. If I don’t know anything about the Catholic Church, she knows nothing about the real world. It’s much easier to have a hissyfit so than to listen to other people’s ideas.
.
The only way we could get along with each other is for me to get a lobotomy.

:-0 Am completely at a loss to understand how my SECOND apology can be interpreted as offensive. Snotty sarcasm??? Was being conciliatory and thought that was quite clear.  Still, it does go to show that interpretation is everything and some people can interpret absolutely anything in opposition to the meaning to suit their own agenda. A skill learnt from having to apply great sophistry to the bible to make it morally acceptable or in any way, logical, I assume. (Joan, now I am being snotty because you have become extremely unreasonable)

Christine - “Helen, that is how they think. You don’t agree with them, so you are wrong. Catholics in this site do not know the difference between science and “faith.” They see only what they want to see, hear only what they want to hear, and know only what they want to know. They think of themselves as sheep with Christ as their shepherd, totally ignorant that they will be slaughterd at the end of the day. You can tell them otherwise because you will frighten them, and they will hate you.
.
They will also deny that they hate you because that is against their religion, but that is another defensive mechanism so they won’t have to think bad of themselves.”

So, you think Catholics hate you because they don’t agree with your ideas? That’s an absurd generalization. 
Also, the Cahtolic who doesn’t want to think bad of himself/herself is in deep trouble, since the first condition required to be a good Christian is to recognize that we are bad people, or as we call it, sinners. I don’t know how many Catholics have you met in real life, but most Catholics I know see themselves as sinners, not as perfect people.

Helen wrote “Still, it does go to show that interpretation is everything and some people can interpret absolutely anything in opposition to the meaning to suit their own agenda. “

Christine wrote “They see only what they want to see, hear only what they want to hear, and know only what they want to know.”

Victoria, that’s exactly what I’ve been saying they are doing. But they can’t see it. And they make sweeping generalizations and assumptions as to our “motives”, when stating: that is another defensive mechanism so they won’t have to think bad of themselves.”

But they are blinded to their own inconsistencies. It’s like talking to a rock.

Just returning to the subject of the article, C.S. Lewis said what opened his eyes to belief were the fantasy books by George MacDonald.
And I guess my recommended author would be C.S. Lewis himself.

Victoria and Joanp62:

See what I mean? You have done exactly what I wrote you would do, and you don’t even realize it.
.
Helen, they are choosing to be offended, and there is nothing you do to get them to “forgive” you.

Kathleen—you realize you just recommended to fantasy authors and their fictional books to justify your faith? I read them too, and they are pretty stories, but they are just stories.
.
I prefer to live in the real world. No fiction can be as awsomely beautiful as reality.

Joanp62
I wrote before that debating with Catholics was like talking to a wall, so you comment is only a variation on what I told you. You not only cherry pick and rewrite history to suit your faith, you also have selective memory.
.
Helen’s analogy of debating with Catholics is like debating with pigeons is much more appropriate.

It is impossible to have a mature, reasoned discussion with Christine and Helen. You need to belittle and insult others to feel better about yourselves. Christine is the worst offender in this regard. You are being childish and your knee-jerk reactions are making it difficult to continue and if you were being intellectually honest, you would go back and reread yours and my comments to see what I mean. Good luck!

If one reads through these comments you can see the topic successfully steered in a different direction from the original article.I’d rather not help facilitate that further.

I don’t blame you Kathleen, as you can see, even your post trying to steer it back to the article was met with ridicule.

You are SOOOO predictable!

I feel I must chime in here again, so forgive me if I’m out of line.

The real root problem here is personal pride.  The disconnect here is, that occaisionally the believer will occaisionally recognize it, accept it, learn from it, then move on, and the athiest will not, there’s where the illogic fallacy falls upon the non-believer.  I call that logical schizophrenia.  While the athiest chooses to use pride to make themselves their own god, the thiest chooses to use their pride to give obedience to another(God).

Please allow me to explain why the thiest is on the right track and the athiest is illogical.

The thiest, may believe for many reasons: God spoke through a small voice to them, they witnessed what they consider a miricle, they used reason to come to believe, they used physical, provable evidence, etc.  There are as many reasons to believe as their are human beings alive.  God does not care How one comes to believe, but rather that they do believe (as that is God’s ultimate reward, for one of his creatures to use his own free will to come to beleive in him, without him creating a robot believer (no satisfaction in that to him)). 

That’s what causes an someone who places themselves as god so much strife.  Again, the illogic in the athiest is, they are unwilling to accept that they can become internally obediant to a supreme authority, while they are willing to accept authority to other authorities (parents, laws, governments, moral relativism, etc.)  If you can give obediance to society in some ways, why can you not give yourself over to the fact that there is a supreme ruler of rulers?  Logically there must be.  Jesus made that claim.  He said that he was “king of kings”, “lord of lords”.  That’s the ULTIMATE statement ever stated.  So he is either completely right or he was a lunitic.  Other “men” have made that statement, but ultimately get proven wrong, thereby proving themselves a lunitic (David Koresh, and Jim Jones come to mind here, but there are many more throuout history).  Christ on the other hand, has never been proven wrong.  His teachings are always acceptable within our limited understanding of his nature.  Just look at the stories in the New Testament, when the Rabbi’s were trying to trap him in his answer about what people should do with taxes.  His perfect answer was “Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar’s.  There is no way that he could have come up with that answer “off the cuff”, again his words stand the test of time.  All of his words stand the test of time, it’s us that do not understand.  That’s ultimately frustrating for a athiest’s mind to grasp.

When we(mankind) think we have found something to prove Jesus wrong, we find that we were wrong in how we view what he said, and ultimately come to the realization that we were wrong, as Jesus is the ultimate “teacher”.  Once something is “revealed” to us as truth, believers simply accept it and move forward.  Just as scripture says to, now that doesn’t mean that we don’t hold onto trepadation to the acceptance of the revelation, again that’s our own personal pride being injected here, and it takes time for the Church to evaluate the claim as being correct, simply because it is the Church’s job to make ultimate confirmations of his divine revalation.

The Humanist views “science” as the ultimate interpreter of our existance.  The Christian uses science as a tool to explain his nature, and his desire to reveal himself to us.  I use the analogy to explain this to believers who do not understand the disconnect between science as well as the athiest.  I tell the uninformed to imagine the Superdome as all of what god is(in reality this is not logical, as god is infinate, but we live and reason in in finite ways, as we are finite, the Superdome has an ending point, God does not).  Science is merely a pin hole in the skin of the dome(of God) that we are able to peer into to see God’s nature, which is actually revealed to us through sacred tradition and scripture, we just don’t understand it yet, as he has not chosen to reveal it to us, YET.  God is slowly allowing that “pin hole” of understanding to expand, as he states that we are slowly becoming aware, as he says that will happen (again unrefutable by athiest, and ultimately frustrating for one who believes that they are their own god, because there is no arguement to a believer contrary to that fact).  That’s why one athiest claimed that talking to a believer is like talking to a rock.  Actually, the writer of those words is the “rock” of which she spoke of.

Pascal made the ultimate reasonable arguement for an athiest to believe in Christ, while still maintaining his personal pride.  He used reason and logic to surmise that it was best to believe because he looked at the possible downsides of both camps.  He said that if a believer dies and there is no god, nothing gainded by believing, nothing lost by believing, he’s just dead.  But if he, a non-beleiver is right, again nothing gained nothing lost, but what if he was wrong and God does exist.  His existance in glorious heaven is not a possibility, and he has Damned himself to eternal Hell(abscense of God).  This is an orthopractic method of becoming a believer.  Orthopractic behavior will ultimately result in Orthodoxic behavior (example: if one is fat and wants to become thin, one may not believe that the behaviors of a thin person will work to lose weight, but chooses to act like a thin person, the ultimate end result is one becoming thin, therefore coming to the realization that the thin person’s actions were correct, thust becomeing a “believer” in thin ways).

Another illogical fallacy in an athiests mind is their refusal to use provable facts as such facts.  As I stated earlier, evidence outside the church and scripture are verifiable that Jesus Christ was a man, did exist, was crucified, and arose on the third day, was witnessed by over 500 witnesses (how many witnesses does a court need in a case for the judge to believe, MUCH less than 500) as being alive, on earth for up to 50 days AFTER his crucifixion, before doing exactly what he said he would do (ascend into heaven).  Again, if this is all false, why did 11 of the original apostles chose to die rather than admit their accused deception, especially when they were too chicken to stand with Christ when he was condemmed by the Rabbi’s and ultimately crucified by Pontious Pilate.

I would suggest that an atheist who has an interest in posting here, is really searching for answers, if they would look past their personal pride in thinking that they are their own god, and ultimately render unto God what is God’s for their own personal peace.  Because ultimately, if an athiest has no real interest in discovering God, they would not waste their time professing thier non-belief.

I pray that my words here, which are ultimately not mine, come to help all those who are troubled in their non-belief, serve to be a “seed” that may help them come to their own revelation in believing.

God Bless all of you.

Christine if you are an adult, then please act like one. Either way I am done trying to converse with you. If it makes you feel better about yourself to believe I am ‘running away’, go right ahead.

I responded to you very reasonably because I believe that sometimes silence is not the best answer as it can be construed as concession or agreement. There are times when we need to speak up to defend/explain ourselves, our faith, the Church, and the Pope.

I recomment Michael Shermer’s “Why People Believe Weird Things.”
.
But Michael Shermer is a member of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy. I’ll bet the Vatican has already banned his works.
.
theplummer:
Your long tirade about atheists not getting over their pride is really funny. Your so proud of yourself.
.
You said the words are ultimately not yours—do you ever have an original thought by yourself? As Kathleen and Joanp62, you are doing as I predicted—finding Biblical/Catholic reasons for your contempt of Helen and myself—and why we should be tolerated because we are mentally deficient.
.
Next, some one here is going to pray that I stop being angry and find Christ.
.

Theplummer

‘The real root problem here is personal pride. While the athiest chooses to use pride to make themselves their own god, the thiest chooses to use their pride to give obedience to another(God).’

Not at all. It is theists who believe they are made in the image of a god and are immortal whilst atheists know we are simply primates (usually)
  ‘
‘God does not care How one comes to believe, but rather that they do believe’
You realise how many gods there are and how many theists are sure their god speaks to them whilst disbelieving in identical experiences of other people with different gods?

‘the illogic in the athiest is, they are unwilling to accept that they can become internally obediant to a supreme authority, while they are willing to accept authority to other authorities (parents, laws, governments, moral relativism, etc.)  If you can give obediance to society in some ways, why can you not give yourself over to the fact that there is a supreme ruler of rulers? ‘
Because there is no reason to think this supreme authority exists? Presumably you only believe in one god. Why are you unwilling to become eternally obedient to all the ones you don’t believe in? Could it be because you don’t believe in them? That would be logical surely, not illogical?

Lots of people claim to be the only god.  ‘Christ on the other hand, has never been proven wrong.‘Christ comes from the earlier sun gods doesn’t he? Mithra and Horus and all the others born to a virgin on 25th dec called the way, truth and life, having 12 disciples, dying for our sins after a last supper in which they said to eat bread and drink wine as a symbol of his body and blood and then rising again on a sunday? Except that Christ was the most recent. This story is recorded 600 years earlier by numerous sources and applied to Mithra? It would be a very unlikely coincidence for all three of them (and Krishna) to have been born on that day to a virgin (especially as only twlo gospels say Mary was a virgin) and do so many things exactly the same and Christ does not even have the validation of being the first. He has been wrong of course - he did say he would be back in the lifetime of some of the disciples and that he could see the whole world from the top of a mountain showing he did not realise the world is round? 

‘His perfect answer was “Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar’s.’ Yes an example of separation of state and faith - see Strauss’s ‘Life of Christ’ to see how this idea was becoming popular amongst Jews at this time.

’ All of his words stand the test of time, it’s us that do not understand.’
So, how can they be said to stand the test of time if they make no sense now? 

‘That’s ultimately frustrating for a athiest’s mind to grasp.’
Yes, its ‘God works in mysterious ways’ that theists say whilst atheists say ‘This makes no sense’. The difference between these two is theists say its fine not to understand and atheists keep trying to.

‘When we(mankind) think we have found something to prove Jesus wrong, we find that we were wrong in how we view what he said, and ultimately come to the realization that we were wrong, as Jesus is the ultimate “teacher”.’
Can you give an example

  ‘Once something is “revealed” to us as truth, believers simply accept it and move forward.’
Yes, its this acceptance without understanding which causes problems in today’s society. You do need to justify your ‘truths’ if you want anyone to respect them especially when you dismiss the ‘truths’ of other faiths which conflict with yours.

‘The Humanist views “science” as the ultimate interpreter of our existance’
No, Science does not interpret. It forms models and hypotheses and either proves them and forms theories around them or finds them inconclusive or disproves them. Any scientist who came up with an interpretation of the origin of life would never see the light of day.

‘The Christian uses science as a tool to explain his nature, and his desire to reveal himself to us.’
Christians use science the same way the rest of us do. Technology, medicine etc. They only deny science when it conflicts with religious doctrine. 

’ I tell the uninformed to imagine the Superdome as all of what god is(in reality this is not logical, as god is infinate, but we live and reason in in finite ways, as we are finite, the Superdome has an ending point, God does not).  Science is merely a pin hole in the skin of the dome(of God) that we are able to peer into to see God’s nature, which is actually revealed to us through sacred tradition and scripture, we just don’t understand it yet, as he has not chosen to reveal it to us, YET.  God is slowly allowing that “pin hole” of understanding to expand, as he states that we are slowly becoming aware, as he says that will happen (again unrefutable by athiest, and ultimately frustrating for one who believes that they are their own god, because there is no arguement to a believer contrary to that fact).’

This analogy is very similar to one made by Richard Dawkins - he used the symbolism of the burqa - we can see a tiny bit of everything there is to see and there is so much we can’t but if we think how recently we did not know about DNA and oxygen and antibiotics and all sorts of things, it’s awe inspiring to consider how fast we are moving and exciting to consider how much we have still to learn. This is not at all frustrating for atheists! On the contrary its theists who seem to feel frustrated with not knowing everything all at once and either make up answers and gods to explain it or say their god will reveal all when he is ready and stop looking for answers. Intellectual curiosity is a wonderful thing and I feel sad for people who want to limit it all to man made gods and myths.

Again you say atheists are their own gods. This may be because your belief in god is central to your life and decision making and so you attribute independent decision making and morality to a godlike attitude? Of course there is no such thing really as individual morality or decision making - we are all products of our society and our family. I am not a god. I am a mammal. A primate. And so are you.

‘That’s why one athiest claimed that talking to a believer is like talking to a rock.  Actually, the writer of those words is the “rock” of which she spoke of.’

Not at all no, atheists seek answers whilst theists believe they either have them all or will have them all at one point. This attitude is rocklike and impossible to reason with. If you show me evidence of a god, I will change my mind and I am always interested in hearing the reasoning behind faith.

Pascal’s wager is nonsense because it only takes one god into account and there are 30,000 of them. You have a 1 in 30,000 chance of being right if there is a god. Now, usually with dictators, the people who have followed a rival get killed whilst those who have kept out of it get a second chance. In this case atheists may get off better than monotheists if there is a god. No reason to think there is tho but if we are trying to be logical, putting all your eggs in one basket is surely a mistake when there is no more evidence for your god than any other?

‘Another illogical fallacy in an athiests mind is their refusal to use provable facts as such facts.  As I stated earlier, evidence outside the church and scripture are verifiable that Jesus Christ was a man, did exist, was crucified, and arose on the third day, was witnessed by over 500 witnesses (how many witnesses does a court need in a case for the judge to believe, MUCH less than 500) as being alive, on earth for up to 50 days AFTER his crucifixion, before doing exactly what he said he would do (ascend into heaven).  Again, if this is all false, why did 11 of the original apostles chose to die rather than admit their accused deception, especially when they were too chicken to stand with Christ when he was condemmed by the Rabbi’s and ultimately crucified by Pontious Pilate.’

Ah, you are not a monotheist. If you accept this as evidence of the Christian messiah, presumably you accept all the scriptures, witnesses and martyrs of all the other faiths as proof of their gods too? Most of them have more documentation than christ of whom nothing is written until at least 30 years after his death. You will be a polytheist by this reasoning and accept many many gods who meet this standard of evidence?

‘I would suggest that an atheist who has an interest in posting here, is really searching for answers’ Yes, I am. I want to understand.

‘if they would look past their personal pride in thinking that they are their own god’
No, you believe yourself to be made in the image of god and have an immortal soul. I am a primate.

‘and ultimately render unto God what is God’s for their own personal peace.’
Evidence of any god would be great.
 
‘Because ultimately, if an athiest has no real interest in discovering God, they would not waste their time professing thier non-belief.’
I have two reasons for being an active debating atheist
1) Christianity is the biggest social problem faced by the West at the moment and responsible for many human rights abuses and I think its important to get active when you see something wrong in society. I missed abolition of slavery, the women’s movement and the civil rights movement but gay rights and religion are the two most important things to tackle now.  See this report on the correlation between Christianity and social problems. http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/religious-belief-and-societal-health/
2) I am always interested in understanding the beliefs of others and if evidence of a god ever emerges, it will be the biggest discovery ever and very exciting. Nothing yet but I live in hope of being given some evidence from a theist one day. My google alert for ‘evidence of gods’ brought me here. I find this all very interesting and keep an open mind ready for any evidence which may emerge.

‘God Bless all of you.’

Well, thank you. You take care of yourself.

I looked up Mithra on Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithra

Nothing about him being like Jesus, or claims that Jesus is just another Mithra.

Here is an explanation of the thought that Jesus is simply Mithra reborn:
http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/pearland-news/article/Friendswood-principal-leaves-after-Islam-101-1767048.php

Where are you getting your info. Helen?

Helen, you cite a very biased site as a source for believing Christianity is the biggest social problem facing the West. We’ve heard it all and refuted it before, but they repackage it as something new. And the United States as a whole, is not as religious as others claim, and many who claim to believe in God in some survey, couldn’t really even tell you what that means to them. Saying one thing and living as though you really believe it are 2 different things, unfortunately, I’ve seen some who claim to believe in God, yet commit crimes, and I’ve seen plenty of criminals in the news and on documentaries who spout atheist rhetoric as well.

Posted by Christine on Thursday, Jun 14, 2012 11:34 AM (EST):I recomment Michael Shermer’s “Why People Believe Weird Things.”
.
But Michael Shermer is a member of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy. I’ll bet the Vatican has already banned his works.
.
theplummer:
Your long tirade about atheists not getting over their pride is really funny. Your so proud of yourself.
.
You said the words are ultimately not yours—do you ever have an original thought by yourself? As Kathleen and Joanp62, you are doing as I predicted—finding Biblical/Catholic reasons for your contempt of Helen and myself—and why we should be tolerated because we are mentally deficient.
.
Next, some one here is going to pray that I stop being angry and find Christ.
*****
This is the third time I’ve attempted to respond to this post, only to find that my responses won’t post.  God is telling me that the words that I have previously chosen were not the words he chooses for you to read.

Sometimes he does frustrate me, But I love him nonetheless.

Posted by Helen Pluckrose on Thursday, Jun 14, 2012 11:43 AM (EST):

Helen, I have a tremendous amount to say to you about your response to me, although I do not believe it would serve any positive gain for you.

Therefore, I am going to concentrate on one particluar point that you made:

2) I am always interested in understanding the beliefs of others and if evidence of a god ever emerges, it will be the biggest discovery ever and very exciting. Nothing yet but I live in hope of being given some evidence from a theist one day. My google alert for ‘evidence of gods’ brought me here. I find this all very interesting and keep an open mind ready for any evidence which may emerge.
*****
You claim that you will be given some evidence from a thiest of God’s existance someday.

I ask you to ask yourself, What would it take for me to actually believe in Christ?  Clearly define it for yourself.  Set conditions upon that which when revealed, you will no longer be skeptical and grow to accepting his divinity.  I recommend you take this in small steps, allowing one thing to lead to another, building upon themselves.  A simple example of this would be to think of a friend or relative that you haven’t heard from in quite a while.  Then ask God to have that person contact you.  Ask like a child though, with complete confidence that he will give you what you ask for, not as a skeptic who is testing God.  Just wait and see what happens.

theplummer:
Shame on you! God didn’t like what you were thinking!
He knows when you are sleeping
He knows when you’re awake
He knows if you’ve been bad or good
So be good, for Christ’s sake!

Joanp62:
Wikipedia has to be politically correct and therefore makes a special effort not to post “offensive” information on its own site. Look up some of the links at the bottom of the article.
.
Oh, wait—you might learn something!

theplummer:
What would it take you to believe in Thor, Zeuse, Apollo, Vishnu, or the Flying Speghetti Monster?
Clearly define it for yourself.  Set conditions upon that which when revealed, you will no longer be skeptical and grow to accepting his divinity.  I recommend you take this in small steps, allowing one thing to lead to another, building upon themselves.  A simple example of this would be to think of a friend or relative that you haven’t heard from in quite a while.  Then ask God to have that person contact you.  Ask like a child though, with complete confidence that he will give you what you ask for, not as a skeptic who is testing God.  Just wait and see what happens.

Helen,
Don’t you just laugh out loud when they tell you your sources are biased?

Posted by Christine on Thursday, Jun 14, 2012 1:23 PM (EST):theplummer:
What would it take you to believe in Thor, Zeuse, Apollo, Vishnu, or the Flying Speghetti Monster?
Clearly define it for yourself.  Set conditions upon that which when revealed, you will no longer be skeptical and grow to accepting his divinity.  I recommend you take this in small steps, allowing one thing to lead to another, building upon themselves.  A simple example of this would be to think of a friend or relative that you haven’t heard from in quite a while.  Then ask God to have that person contact you.  Ask like a child though, with complete confidence that he will give you what you ask for, not as a skeptic who is testing God.  Just wait and see what happens.
******
And we christians get accused of being narrow minded.  Again, I’m not the one searching, you admitted that you were.  I’m only trying to help you answer your own desire to seek his TRUTH.

It’s obvious that you do not mean what you say when you chose to respond to a heartfelt answer with utter mockery.

So, do you see how your responses only serve to infringe on a believer, and you cannot expect one not to get incensed when you do mock, especially when you are the one coming onto believers domain.

I turn the other cheek and forgive you, allowing you to strike me again.

FYI: I’m not able to recommend it because I’ve not read it yet, but the son of Madalyn Murray O’Hair has published a book:“My Life Without God “

Christine must be an embarrassment to intelligent, reasonable Atheists.

Joan - I am a student of religion and there’s an awful lot of information on the Mithraic religions. Have you found a source which claims that Mithra was NOT born of a virgin on Dec 25, did not perform miracles,did not have 12 disciples and did NOT die for our sins and rise again on the sunday? If so, please do pass this information on to me as I would be very interested. Here is my search results on the similarities.
http://uk.search-results.com/web?l=dis&o=1921&q=mithra+and+jesus&atb=sysid=406:appid=119:uid=90119fc1df07ac67:uc=1324244157:q=mithra+and+jesus:src=ffb:o=1921

Of course, the church did specifically try to incorporate pagan myths into Christianity to try to stamp it out. I have some copies of letters between clergy from the 3rd century.  Few biblical scholars think Jesus really was born on Dec 25th for example. Its likely the stories just got mixed together in the same way the Christian festival of Easter is still named after the pagan goddess of Spring, Eostre. It does of course raise some doubts about how much of the story of Jesus actually is about him - it does seem odd so many gods around that time died and rose again three days later.

The site is atheist yes but the study was not. If i could find it on a Christian site I would link that but surprisingly Christians aren’t interested in publishing it.Have a look at the sources of the statistics. It surely cannot be a coincidence that in a country where at least 90% of the population is theistic and 85% Christian the academy of science has 93% atheists and the prisons only 0.2% I am not suggesting that Christianity leads to crime as such but that education results in atheism and poor education results in both religious belief and crime. You are clearly an educated theist but you are in the minority.

Theplummer. I was a Christian for many years. I converted as a child. My parents were atheist. I believed I received communication from God and that I had a personal relationship with God which felt so real that the suggestion that God did not exist seemed as ludicrous to me as if someone had suggested that I doubt the existence of my mother. I KNEW I was right because God spoke to me and I felt the Holy Spirit in me. Of course wider reading showed me that many millions of people experience this very thing in relation to gods I did not believe in and once the idea that this was psychological and mere wish fulfillment had occurred to me, it became increasingly clear that this was exactly what it was.

What would it take for you to believe in any of the thousands of gods you do not currently believe in? The Christian god seems one of the least likely. I do not claim that I will recieve evidence of a god one day. It seems very unlikely but I keep my mind open to it and actively look for evidence of gods. I could not in all honesty have respect for my integrity as an active atheist if I did not try to prove myself wrong. It was this attitude which stopped me being a Christian.

You said to Christine ‘It’s obvious that you do not mean what you say when you chose to respond to a heartfelt answer with utter mockery.’ :( It is very clear that you are an utterly sincere person who fully believes you have the key to salvation and you want to share this with others and risk critical responses. Please try to understand that many atheists too feel they can be of help and when you see mockery this is not simply humour at your expense but a method of trying to put your beliefs in perspective. What Christine and I have been saying is that there are 30,000 gods and everyone who believed in them felt as strongly as you do that they had the right one. If an atheist takes your words and applies them to a different god and you find the result ridiculous to the point of calling it ‘utter mockery’ you may be able to see how they seem to people who do not believe in your particular god and may make you question your belief? This would be a good thing from our perspective that religion does so much psychological and material harm to society. You feel victimised and persecuted now by having your words applied to gods you do not believe in but a theist would very rarely feel they were being oppressive or mocking an atheists point of view when they talk about a god to atheists - the whole subject of this blog is about that.  You think you are helping - your intentions are good. Consider that ours might be? Freeing myself from superstitious fear and guilt was the best thing I ever did and I would like to share that with others.

Christine- I know. Scriptures and texts by religious people can be quoted by theists but if an atheist draws on another atheist, its bias. It is very difficult to get through on any level - not necessarily to prove any of my points but just have them considered. What can we expect really when doubt is a sin?

Theplummer:
Again, you have shown yourself too obtuse to get my point. Here it is straight out:
Why is Christ different from any other diety of worship? Why should I or Helen, or anybody else choose Christ over any other “divinity?” Why should I believe in any divinity at all—especially without proof.
.
If I told you your wife was unfaithful, wouldn’t you want more evidence before you confront her? If your religion designated death by stoning as an appropriate response to her infidelity, would you stone her to death?
.
I know you’ll say that is “not the way of Christ,” but if you were born and raised on the other side of the Greenwich meridian, you probably would because you would not even think, let alone dare, to disobey religious authority. Judeo-Christians have the same agenda of putting what they think is “God” over humanity.
.
How many times will you allow yourself to be “hit?” Don’t you ever fight back over anything? Would you let someone get away with bullying your child?
.
Kathleen there are Christians who have atheist parents and vice versa.
.
Joanp62—it’s not like you to suggest there are ANY intelligent, reasonalble Atheists. Can you tell me of any Atheists you admire for their ideas? It would certainly make me consider if you are as shallow as I think you are.

‘Christine must be an embarrassment to intelligent, reasonable Atheists’

Joan - did you not complain that we were getting personal earlier? Don’t think we said anything like this, did we? I doubt any intelligent reasonable atheists would be embarrassed by Christine. Can anyone tell me why an atheist telling a Christian they are wrong is unreasonable victimisation whilst a theist telling an atheist they are wrong is simply a sign they care and want to help?

Helen, you are much more kind than I’m inclined to be when you explain what should be obvious. Kudos for not losing your patience.
.
You are right that it’s difficult to get through to some one who considers doubt a sin. It seems like they experience drug withdrawal symptoms when they deal with people who are not addicted to religion. I sometimes get that way when I’ve missed my morning coffee.

Sometimes we are just too smart for our own good.  The most intelligent thing I’ve ever heard is the quote “The only thing that I know, is that I know not.”

I respect your comparison of my God to other gods, as there are what seem to be, on the surface, similarities.  But no other god’s were created by God, they were all of men and were like men.  Christianity turns that premise on its’ head and says that we are made in his likeness.  The deeper I delve into my faith in God, the more I conclude that the ways of the world are in complete opposition and twisted to preclude that right is wrong and wrong is right.

simple examples the HHS mandate.  the culturalist feminists would have you believe that the church is waging war on women.  Fact is, Christianity was the catalyst for lifting women and venerating them to a very high standard.

Another example.  Abortion.  We all know it’s wrong to murder, even through moral relativism, though we go through all sorts of thought processes to justify that it’s fine to kill a human life, when that victim’s only desire is the desire to survive.  What’s really funny (not funny ha ha, but funny stupid) is that the same folks who have rationalized abortion as ok and a woman’s choice, are the first to scream about animal rights, peta, smoking in public as a afront, abdicate gun control to protect the innocent, but yet wish to have the freedom to murder all for the sake of non-believers view of we are just mammals, in procreative (sport sex), and no other animal is given that ability without the natural consequences of creating life, if conditions are perfect.

So you see, it’s pretty obvious that our world is a fallen world, and scripture and the church clearly identify the wrongs, and are persecuted for doing so, just as scripture says it will be.  I find it amazing that scripture predicts absolutely everything in our life and this was compiled by uneducated idiots over 2000 years ago. 

Doesn’t seem logical does it?

I’ll bow out now because you obviously cannot see the differences between christianity and these other 30,000 so called gods that you lump together.

Helen, most Christians do not think Jesus was born exactly on Dec. 25th. The site I linked for you stated that also. It also claimed that Mithra was born of a rock, not a virgin.

You may be a student of religion, but I doubt you have studied Christianity much when you think doubt is a sin, and are confused about whats in the Bible. Being a Christian for awhile, unfortunately, does not make you an expert either, many so-called Christians have no clue what Christianity really teaches.

I expect to learn about Christianity from Christians and Atheism from Atheists. It’s when Atheistic sites try to tell you about Christianity and whats wrong with it, then biased it is. Why do you have so much trouble comprehending?

The link you gave takes me to a Search of various articles about Jesus/Mithra. From what I’ve seen, no references on the sites, basically just saying things are facts with no evidence. It appears that people are really confused about this Mithra thing, and over time people believed various things about him/it. Not so with Jesus.

This site is written by a non-christian. Check it out if you care:
http://www.sullivan-county.com/bush/travilocity1.htm. It’s a strange place to put this article on a travel site, but there it is.

I’ve said it before, I believe in Jesus, God the Father and the Holy Spirit because the other thousands of gods cannot compare with the Judeo/Christian God. The information on all these other gods seems to be lacking and there is much confusion surrounding them. Maybe it’s because they have so many of them. They clearly seem man-made to me.

But Helen, from you comments, you apparently are working to have Christianity eradicated from the West. Good luck. But don’t let your hatred for it and its followers drive you crazy.

I’ve never understood how God could expect His creatures to pick the one true religion by faith - it strikes me as a sloppy way to run a universe. [Robert Heinlein, Jubal Harshaw in Stranger in a Strange Land]

Theplummer:
Sometimes we are just too smart for our own good.  The most intelligent thing I’ve ever heard is the quote “The only thing that I know, is that I know not.”
.
At last you said something on which we agree!

I respect your comparison of my God to other gods, as there are what seem to be, on the surface, similarities. 

I saw Helen needed to explain my point to you.

But no other god’s were created by God, they were all of men and were like men.  Christianity turns that premise on its’ head and says that we are made in his likeness.  The deeper I delve into my faith in God, the more I conclude that the ways of the world are in complete opposition and twisted to preclude that right is wrong and wrong is right.

The Olympian, Roman, and Norse gods were like men, and the goddesses were like women. I don’t have certain body parts that would make me the image of men, who, as you say, were made like God. Are women God’s mistake?
.
I’m not going to get into a fight with you about the Judeo-Christian attitudes toward women and children. As Joanp62 would point out, it is not the subject of the article—and you know you are just trying to provoke an online shouting match that would shift our debate so you can feel superior in your faith.
.
What makes you think the men who wrote the Bible (New Testament) were uneducated? Jews even let women become Rabbis. Most people of the time were uneducated slaves, but the men knew how to read and write, and eventually edit the Bible to their liking. Biblical scholors know this.
.
Well, Helen, you are now an official enemy of Christianity. I bet you wish people “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas.” This is the usual response when Christians can’t dispute your point.

Gosh, I am an enemy of Christianity aren’t I? We’ve had the full range now, the claim that we do not understand Christianity, we are full of pride and think we are god, the ‘poor victim’ act and the accusation of hate. You’d never guess that we simply disagree with their beliefs and say so. Its all very dramatic.

Helen you are a trip! Did you already forget what you posted earlier today:

<<Christianity is the biggest social problem faced by the West at the moment and responsible for many human rights abuses and I think its important to get active when you see something wrong in society. I missed abolition of slavery, the women’s movement and the civil rights movement but gay rights and religion are the two most important things to tackle now.  See this report on the correlation between Christianity and social problems. http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/religious-belief-and-societal-health>>

Just exactly what did you mean by your desire to tackling religion, since you “missed the abolition of slavery.”?

I meant to type tackle religion not tackling.

Helen,
It’s their defense mechanisms—their responses were easy to predict. Watch out, though, Joanp63 is beginning to respond like a cornered rat.

Joanp62 and theplummer—have you ever looked at any other mythological books? The Pagan gods are much more interesting and certainly not as depressing as the Christian god/Jesus.

Joanp62 said: “Also, the slaves of that time were more like indentured servants, not slaves as we think of in American history.”

If you could be beaten to the point of death (Exodus 21:20-21) and not allowed to leave, then you are a slave. It’s pretty straightforward.

Joan - ‘Just exactly what did you mean by your desire to tackling religion, since you “missed the abolition of slavery.”?’

Ah, the human rights abuses stuff? Yes, I would like to take away the power religion has to affect the rights of others. I fully support freedom of private religion. It would be ideal if no-one believed in it at all but that will take a bit longer than my lifetime. The main aim of my activism, most of which takes place through the British Humanist Association include Stopping the state funding of faith schools which do not admit children of other faiths, getting communal worship out of schools, getting bishops out of the House of Lords, giving older children the right to decline taking part in communal worship, proper sex education for all children, gay marriage and so many more - here is a full list.
http://www.humanism.org.uk/campaigns

I am also involved in a petition to stop the Catholic church from forcing a prosecution of Sanal Edamaruku for proving that ‘miraculous’ blood from a statue of Jesus was in fact caused by a leaking pipe. The church does not claim he lied and therefore libelled the church. No, they admit he was correct. He is being arrested for ‘hurting religious feelings’ by disproving the claim of a miracle. This is very important because apart from the rights of the poor man, if there is a contemporary precedent for prosecuting people for proving the church wrong with science we will be back to the dark ages and Galileo again.

https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/we-call-on-the-catholic-archdiocese-of-bombay-to-encourage-the-withdrawal-of-complaints-against-indian-rationalist-sanal-edamaruku

I see you have misunderstood my wish to stop religious privilege and oppression , mostly Christianity, to be a hatred of Christianity. These things are not the same. Most Christians are drawn to Christianity because of a message of love and responsibility and a sense of community. These things no-one wishes to stop - you may have noticed few atheists tackle Buddhism (which I realise is atheist but still has supernatural beliefs most western atheists do not accept) Hinduism or Sikhism? This is because they have every right to believe things we think are erroneous. We tackle Christianity, Islam and to a lesser extent Judaism because of the negative effects they have on society. Mostly Christianity I admit but I am involved in another campaign against forced marriage and one against female genital mutilation which are largely Muslim issues and I am campaigning against the rights currently held by Jews and Muslims to circumvent animal cruelty laws because their religion dictates that food animals bleed slowly to death.

Please do not think I hate Christianity or Christians. I simply am raising awareness of the social problems and human rights abuses associated with it. The ones I have mentioned are largely British but the US has its own social problems

Study on divorce rates by various religious groups (including aethists) in the US: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm the finding is that Evangelical Christians have the highest divorce rate of any group in the entire US.

Study which shows the Bible Belt has the highest divorce rate: http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.ph…ticle_ID=10961

Facts about teen pregnancy (including which states have highest teen pregnancy rates): http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/09/12/USTPstats.pdf

National and State-Specific Pregnancy Rates Among White Adolescents in the United States, 1995—1997: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00053654.htm

Also denial of evolution is partly responsible for a distrust of science causing all but two states to fail children in science http://www.theatlanticcities.com/technology/2012/02/american-cities-are-failing-miserably-science-education/1138/
Denial of man made climate change causing America to fail to lower carbon emissions which will affect the whole world and particularly Africans fairly soon.
The restriction of reproductive freedom http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/29/opinion/womens-health-care-at-risk.html?_r=
The rights of Christians to bully gays because of their freedom of religion http://jezebel.com/5899461/christians-fight-for-their-childrens-god+given-right-to-bully-gay-kidsetc etc etc

Nope, if there was ever a drive to ban religion, I would be very active against it. I do not need to agree with your beliefs to support your right to have them but will get active against all the social problems related to Christianity.

Yes, Helen, based on your posts I would say it was hatred. Many of the items on your list are debatable. Many are just the opinions of others. While complaining that religion infringes on society, you want to push your opinions onto others. Human rights abuses? I think it is abuse of the mother and her child to encourage abortion. I think it is abuse to just pass out condoms and clean needles, instead of helping people with drug addiction and teaching people that they are more than just animals, they have dignity and can practice self control because safe sex doesn’t work. Same thing with teen pregnancy. They are given condoms and free access to the pill, yet its still not working, they still get pregnant. Abstinence doesn’t work? I’ve never met anyone who got pregnant from not having sex. Again, these children need to be taught that they are loved, that they are greater than mere animals, that sex outside marriage does more harm than good, boys need to learn to be men and not brutes only looking to get laid. When we fail in this, we fail our children and humanity at large and that is abuse. Pushing homosexuality on our children in schools at younger and younger ages, when they aren’t even thinking about sex, and then being told they are gay when they have a natural/normal “crush” on a teacher of same sex, when it most likely doesn’t mean anything is abuse. Same thing with sex education on 5 year olds. We need to teach our children to respect homosexuals as human beings with dignity, not that homosexual sex is ‘normal’.

I have nothing against the theory of evolution being taught, they just need to stop claiming that as evidence against God, because it’s not.For that matter, I am fed up with schools indoctrinating our children instead of teaching them how to think, they teach them what to think. That is human rights abuse.

Religion causes divorce? That’s a new one and again, opinion. Noting how many people get divorced based on what their religion is does not automatically mean that their religion is the problem. Probably a lack of living their religion.

Man made global warming- also still up for debate despite what Al Gore says. Many good scientists do not agree, but oh they are all shills for the oil industry or quacks. Don’t agree with the going thought of the times, your ostracized and ridiculed. That’s abuse.

So tell me, why do your ideas of human rights abuses take precedence over mine? People have different ideas about what is good for humanity and what isn’t. Who decides what those are?

So much of what is going on lately reminds me of the Emperor and His New Clothes. Everyone ignores the obvious and just goes along with what they are fed by the media and the loud, well funded groups, so they can just get along with everyone. And the longer the lies are told, eventually we come to believe them as true.

As I expected, Joanp62 lashed out at you like a cornered rat. Notice how victimized she is and how humanity and not God/Jesus causes human suffering. She reminds me of people who obsessively cut themselves. It’s amazing how Catholics really hate and despise humanity, yet still believe man was created in God’s own image.
.
It’s kind of an “I’m rubber, you’re glue. Whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.” response from a child who has no better reply. Don’t fall in the trap of explaining why your secular views “take precidence” over hers. Reality will happen regardless of her faith, and if doubt hurts her feelings, we have made a crack in her armor. Let her pray herself better.

Ok, you drug me back in again.  Much earlier in this discourse, Helen specifically stated that she was #1 committed to eradicate religion, and #2 searching for evidence of god.
Does anyone else here see how illogical those two statements are.  I know religion isn’t the same as god, Wrong!  Since Jesus Christ is God, and he created the church, when he gave peter the keys to the kingdom, they are one in the same.

So, how can you be comitted to killing something that you are seeking, unless your real desire is to find it and kill it.

Also, I hear Christine and Helen are now accusing Joan of doing exactly what they have been continually doing throuought this entire discourse.  Then when I recognize a tresspass and offer forgiveness, I’m accused to playing victim.  See how there is absolutely no satisfying either of you two, you have all the pat comebacks for every situation designed to constantly be on the offense, while NEVER conceeding to ANY verifiable FACT. 

No one, I repeat No one has refuted the evidence that a man named Jesus did in fact walk the face of this earth 2012 years ago, was crucified, died, resurrected and was seen by over 500 people.  These facts are irrifutable, therefore tactics are employed to attack the messenger when there is no ability to attack the facts.  You guys are either defense attornies by trade, or well trained in athiest apologetics.

By the way, didn’t one of you to already claim that you would be referred to as a “Troll”.  Well, I may not know exactly what that definition is, but who is spouting what nonsense on what website.

Ironic isn’t it,

Theplummer= “No one, I repeat No one has refuted the evidence that a man named Jesus did in fact walk the face of this earth 2012 years ago”

The closest thing to a historical Jesus that I’ve found would be Jehoshua Ben-Pandira and he is out of time by about 200 years AD.

Some sources put Jehoshua Ben-Pandira at 102 BC to around 70 BC.

‘So tell me, why do your ideas of human rights abuses take precedence over
mine? ‘
They most certainly do not. I would strongly object to anyone telling you you had to marry a woman, have an abortion, get divorced or use contraception. That would be a human rights abuse. There is absolutely no justification for making religious people legally obliged to act in a way that is contrary to their faith. There is also no justification in making non-religious people and people of different faiths to the dominant one act in a way according to beliefs they do not share either. This is why I am campaigning hard for gay marriage whilst also arguing against churches being obliged to marry gay people. Gay people must have the same legal rights as everyone else and religious people must have the right to act according to their conscience. This is simply solved by legalising gay marriage but not forcing it on religious institutions.

‘Much earlier in this discourse, Helen specifically stated that she was #1 committed to eradicate religion, and #2 searching for evidence of god.’

That is almost correct. I would love for us to enter the post-theist stage which is surely coming, in my lifetime but the way to work towards this can never be to force anything on anyone. That does not work anyway - when have authorities ever been able to enforce belief or disbelief but instead can only enforce behaviour on people. That would be an abuse of human rights too.
I am searching for evidence of gods. Perhaps you do not realise that whenever a scientist comes up with a hypothesis, they then need to test it by trying to disprove it. Not just by trying to prove it because evidence can always be found to support things but by trying to find evidence which disproves a hypothesis, you ensure that you do not simply find what you want to find.
I am no scientist but I want all of my opinions to be well supported. How can I claim disbelief in gods based on reason and logic if I do not sincerely attempt to find evidence of gods? Theists make the hypothesis that gods exist and this hypothesis has failed to be supported. Atheists make the hypothesis that gods are man made and then try to disprove it by things like: Finding any god which has emerged in two cultures which have never met, finding any god which emerged with commandments contrary to the culture of the people it emerged amongst, trying to find any teachings attributed to gods which gave humanity verified information it could not have found by empirical means at that time, trying to find that any one faith has a higher percentage than any other of things called ‘miracles’ and ‘answered prayers,‘trying to find any near death experience in which a theist saw any god other than their own. None of these have happened. Given this and the evidence that some gods are proven to be man made provided by the cargo religions and others, the hypothesis that gods are man made is strongly supported but remains unproven because disproving gods is not possible.

On a personal level, I do not hate Christians. I strongly dislike the ones who believe their god will torture me and many other good people for alternity and worship him anyway. That is a given and I am mainly told this by Protestants. I resent being told that I should not have sex with my husband by the Catholics because I need to use contraception. In my first pregnancy a benign cyst in my brain grew because of the pregnancy hormones and paralysed me, damaged my vision and caused intense pain and epilepsy. Fortunately, it has shrunk enough now that I have full use of my body although I remain epileptic and visually impaired and in some pain. Another pregnancy would kill me and my doctor advises a belt and braces approach to contraception because I would never be able to go through with an abortion for personal reasons. The Catholic church believes this means I must not have sex ever again. This is ludicrous. Yes, I do feel religion is currently harmful to humanity but if Christians and Muslims could behave like Hindus and Buddhists and never attempt to legalise their own beliefs, I would have no right to work against them.

Helen, your last line above says you think Christians and Muslims should not attempt to legalise their own beliefs, but those who believed abortion should be legal worked to legalize it and it worked. Do you see the contradiction here?

Anyone who thinks Christine is sane and logical and mature, please try to defend this comment posted here: Christine on Thursday, Jun 14, 2012 8:32 PM (EST)

ThePlummer wrote: “No one, I repeat No one has refuted the evidence that a man named Jesus did in fact walk the face of this earth 2012 years ago, was crucified, died, resurrected and was seen by over 500 people.  These facts are irrifutable, therefore tactics are employed to attack the messenger when there is no ability to attack the facts.  You guys are either defense attornies by trade, or well trained in athiest apologetics.”

The only evidence for the “500 people” are a few lines from Paul based on something he heard or read second-hand. He never met Jesus. there is just as much evidence for the incident in Matthew after the Crucifixion, when the saints rose from their graves (before Jesus did!) and began walking around Jerusalem. Is that irrefutable as well? of course not. Few Christians even know the story and those who do, don’t mention it, because it would be silly to think that such an incredible occurrence would be utterly ignored by historical sources. the Bible is historically unreliable.

Let’s see now.
Secularist/atheist society has imposed the following on poor Christians:
.
Allowing a woman to take care of her own health.
Allowing people of the same sex to love and commit to each other.
Allowing same sex couples who do live and are committed to each other to adopt children and raise them in loving homes.
Not forcing prayer in schools.
Providing barrier and chemical methods of contraception so people can have sex and not produce a child and/or pass sexually transmitted diseases.
Corruption to children by exposing them to sexual education that is not just abstinence only.
.
I’m sure I didn’t get all of our “crimes” against Christianity, but that is a start.
.
I think our problem is that we allow humans to look after themselves because we expect them to grow up and become responsible for their actions. These people need an authority to tell them how to think and act, or else they would have no philosophy to prevent them from killing, raping and pillaging. Deep down, they know they would do so if they weren’t terrified into not doing it with words like “sin” and “damnation” and “excommunication.”
.
theplummer: Yes, it is true that I cannot distinguish between your God/Christ and any other mythology in terms that any of them are worth my putting faith in them as reality. Would you rather I choose one of those gods than be atheist?

Let’s see what the Secular/Atheist/Progressives have imposed on everyone else:

Banning prayer in schools so that even if the students want to have a prayer, they cannot.

Promoted contraception in the form of dangerous Pills that cause blood clots, stroke, even death. (Yaz anyone?)

NOT letting people think and choose for themselves- banning sugars and fats in some cities, while again promoting other dangerous things like the Pill, so called “safe sex” and sex for children, and anal sex.

Promoting abortion and not giving a damn about the dangers to both mother and child because its all about money and greed.

Keeping the poor poor, while claiming it’s the fault of the “other guys” so that you can get their vote. Why is it that the largely Democrat cities have the worst housing and neighborhoods for the poor? Once there, most have no way of getting out, unless they are eventually evicted.

There’s more but I gotta run. But when all is said and done, both sides have answers and counter-answers to the others’ questions and concerns. The difference is I do not want to take away your right to speak out and try to change things, but for those of us who think you are as wrong as you think we are- we are shouted down, ridiculed, called names, etc., instead of given reasoned, intelligent responses.

500 people saw the IPU (Invisible Pink Unicorn) at the pizza joint last night.  We know that She is the divine creator of the universe because she is both invisible and pink at the same time.  By faith we know She is pink and by logic we know she is invisible since no one can see Her.
.
What?  Why would you be skeptical?  I have 500 witnesses?
.
Okay, okay.  What about the 11 witnesses who saw the golden plates given to Joseph Smith by the angle Moroni from which he translated the book of Mormon? 
.
The point, yes there is a point, atheists and theists seem to talk past each other all the time.  I see the point theists try to make, I just don’t find logic behind it at all convincing.  No more than most Catholics find the IPU, Mormonism, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Bahaism, Confucianism, Jainism, or Shintoism convincing.
.
I have a hard time understanding how theists can write off other faiths with the same arguments that apply to their own faith.

‘Helen, your last line above says you think Christians and Muslims should not attempt to legalise their own beliefs, but those who believed abortion should be legal worked to legalize it and it worked. Do you see the contradiction here?’

Not really. I have to put aside my own feelings about abortion and go with the evidence. I cannot enforce my beliefs on others. I always felt and still ‘feel’ abortion to be wrong because it does not only affect the woman. It affects the potential child and the potential father too.  The fact is that the probability of any of us being alive is so mathematically tiny that those of us who do exist are incredibly lucky and it ‘feels’ wrong to begin a life and then stop it when it is so easy not to get pregnant in the first place.
I used to argue from an anti-abortion standpoint on these grounds but having seen the evidence and been presented with logical arguments I have to admit that this is a personal value and ‘feeling’which is not based in fact and which I can live my own life by but which I have no right to enforce on others. I wil explain but it is lengthy so please do not feel the need to read it.

To my objection that life had begun when an abortion takes place I was presented with evidence that whilst the embryo is ‘alive’ it is not sentient, its nerve endings do not work and it is incapable of either thought or feeling and it cannot survive outside the mother.  It is a bunch of cells which is a potential human but not a human. To be against the ending of any form of life I would have to be vegetarian for a start and realise I actually destroy more living cells by exfoliating for a year than would be destroyed by an abortion and stop that too.

To this argument, I replied that whilst it is demonstrably true that the embryo is a clump of cells which do not think or feel,the central point is that it is a clump of cells which will become a HUMAN BEING if left alone and denying it the right to life is wrong. It was then pointed out to me that I use contraception and it actually makes very little difference to the potential person who did not get the chance to live if that possibility ended when the living sperm was prevented from meeting the living egg or when the clump of living cells produced by the meeting of the two was removed from the uterus. Both occur before the potential person is able to be aware of it in any way. You may well agree with this perspective as many Catholics believe that contraception is wrong too because it prevents children being born.

However, so does abstinence. Have you ever considered how many human beings have not been given the chance of life because of sexual abstinence? We all see the emotive picture where a woman is holding a blanked out baby shape and a man is saying ‘This would have been a photo of my baby had its mother not decided to abort it.’ Very moving. However, that would work just as well if the caption said ‘This would have been a photo of my baby had its mother not been against premarital sex due to her catholicism.’
That potential human being who could only experience life if a unique sperm met a unique egg is considered by Catholics and other theists to have the unquestionable right to that life if its parents are married and no right at all to it if they are not. This is clearly nothing to do with the individual’s right to exist and everything to do with controlling sexual behaviour. If it really was about being ‘pro-life’ theists would advocate sexual promiscuity from the moment a child becomes able to ejaculate or ovulate to ensure as many potential people got the chance of life as possible. To say ‘It is OK to deny life by abstinence but not by abortion’ when both prevent the life before consciousness of any kind is clearly illogical. 

I still ‘feel’ that abortion is wrong but cannot support my position logically or rationally and it is clear that my feelings are all about me and not about the evidence. My husband’s ex partner became pregnant by him and aborted late leaving my husband absolutely devastated and still thinking about the child who might have been on the due date each year. His feelings are valid and I empathise with them making me biased. I also had two miscarriages in the days before the brain tumour and those babies were already much loved, prepared for and wanted by me. As an atheist I know that there was something wrong with my embryos for this to happen and it is just one of those things tho I grieved deeply. Christian friends told me it was God’s will and my babies’ souls were in heaven which seems to me to be quite at odds with the perception that God is against abortion. However, I do not blame any gods simply because I do not think they exist. This combination makes me ‘feel’ that abortion is wrong but I cannot support that with any evidence at all and therefore I do not have the right to enforce it on others who feel differently. 

The reason abortion is legal is solely because of this medical evidence - that is why the cut off date is before the brain begins to lay down pathways and before the nerves have developed to feel pain and before the embryo is a foetus with any chance of survival. The courts accepted this because it is a fact. Theists think abortion is wrong not because they can disprove any of these facts but because their doctrine says it is wrong. This doctrine cannot be forced on people who do not share it.

‘Banning prayer in schools so that even if the students want to have a prayer, they cannot.’
.
Except they can and do.  There is even a “moment of silence” every day (in Texas anyway).  Well biased towards silent prayer, I mean meditation, winkwink.  If your praying is out loud or you need to sacrifice a chicken or something you’ll need to wait.

Joan wrote - Let’s see what the Secular/Atheist/Progressives have imposed on everyone else:

Banning prayer in schools so that even if the students want to have a prayer, they cannot.
DO THEY REALLY DO THIS IN AMERICA? HOW IS IT ENFORCED? GOD CAN HEAR YOU WHEN YOU THINK SO I AM NOT EVEN SURE HOW PEOPLE WOULD KNOW IF A CHILD WAS PRAYING. I HAVE HEARD AMERICAN ATHEISTS SAY THAT CHILDREN ARE ALLOWED TO PRAY IN SCHOOLS BUT THERE CAN BE NO LEAD PRAYER FOR ANY RELIGION. I MAY BE WRONG ABOUT THAT. WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF A CHILD WENT AND SAT QUIETLY BY HERSELF IN BREAK TIME AND PRAYED AND READ THE BIBLE OR QURAN? WOULD SHE BE TOLD TO STOP?

Promoted contraception in the form of dangerous Pills that cause blood clots, stroke, even death. (Yaz anyone?)THE CONTRACEPTIVE PILL CAUSES THESE BY PRODUCING THE SAME HORMONES YOU GET IN PREGNANCY BUT AT A LOWER RATE. PREGNANCY IS FAR MORE LIKELY TO CAUSE BLOOD CLOTS, STROKE AND DEATH THAN THE CONTRACEPTIVE PILL.

NOT letting people think and choose for themselves- banning sugars and fats in some cities, while again promoting other dangerous things like the Pill, so called “safe sex” and sex for children, and anal sex.
REALLY? WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF A PERSON IN ONE OF THOSE CITIES ATE A CAKE - WOULD THEY BE ARRESTED? THE PILL IS PROMOTED WITH ALL DUE WARNINGS. SAFE SEX IS ALSO PROMOTED ALONGSIDE EDUCATION SO IT REALLY IS SAFE. PEOPLE RETAIN THE CHOICE TO GET PREGNANT INSTEAD AND TAKE A GREATER RISK WITH THEIR HEALTH OR TO DEVELOP A STD. ANAL SEX IS PROMOTED IN AMERICA? THAT DOES SURPRISE ME. IT IS NOT PROMOTED HERE IN THE UK AND I ALWAYS BELIEVED WE WERE MORE SEXUALLY LIBERATED THAN YOU. WHERE DO THEY PROMOTE ANAL SEX?

Promoting abortion and not giving a damn about the dangers to both mother and child because its all about money and greed.DON’T UNDERSTAND YOUR MEANING HERE.

Keeping the poor poor, while claiming it’s the fault of the “other guys” so that you can get their vote. Why is it that the largely Democrat cities have the worst housing and neighborhoods for the poor? Once there, most have no way of getting out, unless they are eventually evicted. I DO NOT KNOW TOO MUCH ABOUT THIS SITUATION BUT DO KNOW THAT AMERICA HAS A MUCH HIGHER DEGREE OF POVERTY AND GHETTO LIFESTYLES THAN EUROPE BUT AM NOT SURE HOW THIS INDICATES SECULARISM IS RESPONSIBLE AS YOU ARE THE MOST CHRISTIAN CONTINENT AND WE ARE THE MOST SECULAR.

I think Christine has a much more realistic take on the crimes of secularism against theism and I share her views.

Here’s some wisdom from C.S. Lewis :
What we call ‘being in love’ is a glorious state, and, in several ways, good for us. It helps to make us generous and courageous, it opens our eyes not only to the beauty of the beloved but to all beauty, and its subordinates (especially at first) our merely animal sexuality; in that sense, love is the great conqueror of lust. No one in his senses would deny that being in love is far better than either common sensuality or cold self-centeredness. But, as I said before, ‘the most dangerous thing you can do is to take any one impulse of our own nature and set it up as the thing you ought to follow at all costs’. 
—Mere Christianity

Mark, ridicule is not going to help the progress of a discussion. It’s a major turnoff. Why do Atheists feel the need to use ridicule so excessively, are you unable to come up with a reasoned, intelligent response?

When high school students want a prayer said at their Graduation and are not allowed, that is unacceptable, imo. Oh, just keep your mouth shut when praying, as long as we don’t have to hear you, that’s fine. That’s wrong. The double standard is that Atheists claim believers are forcing our beliefs down their throats, but claim it’s a whole different ballgame when they make it so that those who want to pray can’t. I agree that majority rules in government is not always just. But in individual situations, it seems really unjust to favor the one over the many.

Hi Kathleen. I like your quote. When you said ‘Mere Christianity’ did you mean that the quote stems from Christianity and is profound or that Christianity is the thing that it would be dangerous to set up and follow at all costs?

If the second I agree. If the first, I also agree that a lot of very moving and profound thoughts come from Christians. I am very fond of the Prayer of St Francis of Assisi and the serenity prayer. Very insightful. Many religions have wonderful things like these attributed to them. I was pleased to see so many Christians have adopted the Hindu quote from Gandhi ‘Love the sinner. Hate the sin’ and my personal favourite comes from Marcus Aurelius in the second century.

‘Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.”

I think the reason so many faiths have similar ideas - Jesus teachings about brotherly love were far closer to Hindu beliefs than the Jewish ones he grew up with - is because we have an innate empathy and compassion - these are human ideas rather than religious and you will find the same ones in the concept of Humanism which began during the Renaissance. I think it was you who said you also believe we have these innate characteristics but you feel they come from God, wasn’t it? I like these ideas which bring humans together rather than divide them. :)

The excuse that pregnancy is more dangerous than abortion or the Pill does not make sense. Pregnancy is a natural biological function of the human body, abortion and the Pill are unnatural. It’s the way humanity and animals have continued the species for eons. And if infant and maternal mortality rates are as high as they claim for this country- that is also unacceptable given the technology we have. I am really curious to know what exactly is behind those figures.

If a store or restaurant in one of these cities was selling/serving a banned product, I suppose they would be fined. But as usual, those on the left like to assume the extreme, as if that furthers their point.

When I speak of anal sex being promoted in America, you know exactly what I mean. Homosexuality and its subsequent behaviors is held up as wonderful, good, moral, and biologically normal. And if 1500 animal species do it, that doesn’t mean it is the norm for them either.

Maybe Europe (is that where your from?) thinks we are the most Christian continent (all of N. America?) it sure doesn’t seem to be the reality here. It used to be that Europe was one of the most Christian, now it’s not and what the heck is going on over there? The news we are getting is not good. But of course, I’m not saying that a lack of Christianity is directly involved. But it could be.:)

Besides the obvious harm to the baby, abortion can cause emotional, psychological and physical damage, some of it long-term.

Joan, you have missed Mark’s point and he specified it quite clearly. If having your logic applied to a god or entity you do not believe in makes it seem ridiculous to you, then you can begin to see how others percieve your own faith. There is the same amount of evidence for invisible pink unicorns or flying spaghetti monsters as there is for gods and you necessarily dismiss thousands of gods who have been widely worshipped by your belief in the Christian one. Theists so often seem to pick up on the mockery inherent in parody and miss the central point of the parallel.

Helen, your comment to Kathleen really shows your ignorance of what Christianity is all about and especially of the Catholic Church.
Mere Christianity is a book written by C.S. Lewis, he was writing a sort of apologetic for the basics Christianity. I have the book, I suggest you try to find it and read it. He is speaking against lust, as opposed to real love, and I think it is a great treatise against our over-sexed societies that we live in today.

If you are claiming the “love the sinner, hate the sin” is from Mohandas Gandhi d.1948, then you are incorrect. The love the sinner, hate the sin goes back to Jesus- his teachings are very clear on that.

You may know some individual Christians who have adopted the Marcus Aurelius quote, but the quote itself does not express Christian belief.

I did not miss Mark’s point, I chose not to respond to his ridiculing comment about the Pink Unicorn. I then responded to his second comment to me about prayer in schools.

That said, Atheists think believing in Christ and the Bible is just as silly as belief in any other god because their idea of Christianity is immature and silly. They compare Christianity with every other religion out there from the well-known to the most obscure. Helen, your comments and questions continue to show that whatever a student of you are, it has not been of Christianity. Being a student of religions makes it impossible to study any of them at great depth. Which is proven by your extremely shallow and confused idea of Christianity.

Several points. ‘Banning prayer in schools’ is not the same as ‘When high school students want a prayer said at their Graduation and are not allowed’ which is again not the same as reality where what is not allowed is for the school officials to lead a prayer.  Students can and do lead prayers at graduation (in Texas anyway, YMMV by state).
.
This is not due to ‘favor the one over the many’, but due the anti establishment clause in the 1st amendment.  Tyranny of the majority, separation of church and state, etc etc.

Mark, I do not agree.

Joan - the pill stops ovulation by tricking the body into thinking it is already pregnant by providing the same hormones as produced in pregnancy. These hormones increase a woman’s risk of DVTs etc. Yes, pregnancy is natural and women take the risk - I did and was one of the few who ended up seriously harmed by it and am now warned never to take the pill as it could do the same thing. Just because something is natural does not mean it is harmless. Medical science makes pregnancy much safer now but there are always risks - high blood pressure, stroke, migraine, DVT etc. The pill is less advisable than condoms and the coil because they cause none of these side effects. Here is some patient information which shows that 1 in 1000 women get a deep vein thrombosis from pregnancy whilst the contraceptive pill only slightly increases the risk. http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Deep-vein-thrombosis/Pages/Causes.aspx The cause of DVD is blood clotting issues so this also relates to stroke and high blood presure issues.

You are undoubtedly right that pregnancy is natural and has been for millenia but evolution, whilst impacting fertility hugely for obvious reasons, does not really protect us from things that happen as a result of pregnancy. In England in Victorian times half of the causes of death for women were pregnancy related - mostly because of poor medical care and multiple pregnancy. Here are some statistics on that.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1633559/

Can’t really understand your point of view on homosexuality. It just exists and if it were not natural it wouldn’t. I do not believe everything natural is good anyway but homosexuality affects no-one except homosexuals and so cannot be considered a bad thing in any way. The church used to be very suspicious of left handed people and this was another thing which just existed in a minority of people and harmed no-one so I am hopeful the church will get over this soon.

Yes, America has 85% Christians tho I admit this includes lots of different groups all considering the others ‘not true christians’ whilst Europe is more than half atheist. I am not sure what you have seen that makes you concerned about Europe? We have the lowest murder rates and crime rates generally and a much higher standard of education and benefit systems for the poor not to mention national health services.

Here are some statistics on crime showing America only just behind Africa for murder rates and central Europe at the bottom.The last is a direct comparison between Britain and America on all crime figures. We in Britain lead Europe for violent crime whilst Sweden is lowest. It would be skewing statistics to suggest that this is because Sweden is the most atheist and we one of the most theistic countries - correlation does not equal causation. You will see we have higher rates of assaults than you - I think its slightly above but you have 58 times as many murders and 668 times as many murders with firearms.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/world/americas/23iht-23prison.12253738.html?pagewanted=all
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime

Joanp62:
The difference is I do not want to take away your right to speak out and try to change things, but for those of us who think you are as wrong as you think we are- we are shouted down, ridiculed, called names, etc., instead of given reasoned, intelligent responses.
.
We are not taking away your right to speak out and try to change things, but we are exercising our right to criticize your ideas and resist your imposition on others. We are no longer giving religion a “free pass” in the exchange of ideas. The same thing happened to other religions when the early Christians criticized and mocked them, and the pagans gave the same responses as you. We are not burning books and destroying libraries and Christian art, nor obliterating Christian thought. We are exercising our right to disagree with you.
.
I agree with Helen that it will be a milestone in human evolution when religion is eradicated, or at least regarded as the mythological fiction that it is. Too many people identify themselves with God and think they have the priviledge of dictating to others.

‘That said, Atheists think believing in Christ and the Bible is just as silly as belief in any other god because their idea of Christianity is immature and silly.’  No more silly and immature than what YOU think of Mormonism, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Bahaism, Confucianism, Jainism, or Shintois.  You’ll note I did not throw in Scientology, Heaven’s Gate, snake handling, Branch Davidian, Jehovah Witnesses, or any of the (mostly) no longer followed mythologies such as Egyptian, Greek, Norse, Roman, Babylonian, Celtic, Wiccan, and those are just the well known ones.

Helen,

Your last two lengthy posts are a very clear example of exactly why there is the absolute necessity to have an authority in morality that is above being able to be swayed by mankinds feelings or opinions. Yes I said feelings, your logic is soley based on feelings, and you are willing to twist logic to the point of absurdity to come to your desired vision of utopia.  You seem to detest the fact that anyone whom has the ability to submit to an unchanging truth, while you desire the entire world to submit to YOUR version of morality/truth is nothing more or less than you placing yourself in the position of the ultimate leader (God).  No one has that right, except the one that cannot be swayed by feelings of man, which generate an opinion.  I do not even have to ask how you feel about whether the Holocost was right of wrong, because everyone in todays society agrees that it was a horrible atrocity.  But let’s look at the facts: Hitler used the same RIGHT you are using to justify YOUR beliefs to justify his own.  The only difference is Hitler was in power and had the authority to write laws that made it legal for him to do what he did.  Factually he did not commit one single crime in killing anyone, why because he used his power and authority to create laws that made it legal for him to impose HIS will on His people, oh wait, he imposed his will on other countries through occupation also, but that was legal by his laws also.

Do you see the “slippery slope” that you are full willing to agree to.  With your philosophy, that you should be able to define what “abuse” is, logically dictates that anyone else also has that right, and ultimately the one in power has the ability to impose that set of standards on the subjects that he/she rules over, which ultimately includes YOU.  Ultimately your subjecting yourself and society to the concept of “MIGHT MAKES RIGHT”.  In order to negate that possibility of ever happening again is to agree that there is a set of standards that can NEVER be changed by ANY man/men.  Therefore the necessity of GOD.  Which God, well of course the one God that takes into account the ultimate protection of all, and the Catholic church does that.  You may disagree with that statement, but I can assure you that is either out of plain ignorance, or your ability to twist logic to wrong meanings and derive how you think that Catholic doctorine is somehow “oppressive”.  I’ll agree it is oppressive appearing on the surface, but if you would take whatever issue, one at a time, and investigate it (from a Catholic perspective), you will clearly see that while your view of oppression, is ultimately protecting some other group of people that are lesser from the oppression that you so desperately despise.  That’s exactly why Jesus is said to be “King of kings” and “Lord of lord’s”.  That’s exactly why on Good Friday, the church celebrates the concept of “Servant Leardership”, by the priest washing the feet of the laity, just as Jesus did to the apostles after the last supper.

I implore you to take your passionate beleifs and really examine to whom YOUR opinion about how the church is oppressive to one group, if changed, would ultimately be oppressive upon another, lesser group. 

My statement still stand and has never been disproven “The one who is intolerant of another’s percieved intolerance is ultimately the most oppressive”.

Your logical arguement arguing for a sexually free society, while still maintaining a view that abortion is wrong is in complete contradiction to each other, again schiziophrenic logic.  We ALL have disordered minds, thats why the Catholic teachings are as clear as they are.

‘Mark, I do not agree.’  about what?  You need a web link to court cases or a news article?
.
Texas Ruling Banning Religious Terms During Graduation Overturned http://www.neontommy.com/news/2011/06/texas-ruling-banning-religious-terms-during-graduation-overturned

Ah! Thank you Joan, for explaining the Mere Christianity reference. I know Lewis was an aplogist but did not know the book. It is very hard to say if having a wide knowledge of many religions is more helpful or less than having a deep understanding of one interpretation of one branch of one religion. It depends on your perspective. For me, as a historian, the social impact of Christianity in Britain from the beginning to recently looks more at psychological and social effects than deep theological argument. For my purposes, these are less useful because most medieval Christians could not read and ‘History from below’ is best expressed in customs and church records and sermons from priests who themselves could often not read. I am interested in how Christianity affected people. The way in which is affected Britain was by giving it great social cohesion and producing a network of social care via little parishes run by priests and a hierarchical system going back to Rome. This cared for the poor and orphans and widows and dowered girls and was of huge social benefit. It is partly the reason Europe became such a power. Catholicism has been hugely beneficial for its social care aspects and producing of common goals. Don’t think I do not know this. It wasn’t great if you were gay or a beaten wife wanting to separate from her husband of course but for common crises like disability, death of main wage earner, unemployment, sickness etc it was a lifeline for many and very positive. It became corrupt at the top but the parish priest was often a very positive member of the community. This is incredibly complex and both recognition for good works and social cohesion and condemnation for human rights abuses are due to the catholic church. We will not agree as you focus on the first and I on the second because it still affects people today and needs addressing. I wonder if you have seen this debate ‘Is the Catholic church a force for good in the world’ by intelligence squared. You will find my concerns and views covered perfectly by Stephen Fry - he says the church does not need to be a force for harm in the world, it has not always been and may well not always be and there is much good in it but at the moment it os certainly not a force for good. You may agree more with Desmond Tutu and Anne Widdecombe, of course.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2W_yoeFJpsU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niUXpfrkixA

I am going to force myself away from this debate now for today as I am actually meant to be writing an essay on madness and protestantism in the 17th century but have become sidetracked here.

Well, finally a reasoned, adult response from Christine.

“We are exercising our right to disagree with you.”

So why, when I exercised my right to disagree with you,
instead of giving me the same respect I tried to give you which I’m sure you expected to receive, you treated me with contempt? I believe some of your ideas are contemptible, but I have treated you respectfully, until you became irrational. I also responded to your comments instead of just dismissing them.
****

Being shouted down and ridiculed is working against our freedom of speech. I have seen conservatives giving a speech and liberals screaming so loudly that the speech could not be heard. As far as I know, the right to free speech includes the right to be heard, not shut down.

Christians believe in spreading the faith in words and actions. We are not out to eradicate non-belief as you wish to eradicate our faith/religion (do not separate them please), we propose our faith and it is your free-will to respond positively or reject it. Our way is more passive. What you and Helen are trying to do is aggressively seeking to push Christianity to the fringes, making it harder and harder for anyone to have the opportunity to hear the Gospel. Kind of like what happens in Muslim theocracies.

And it was pagans who mocked and ridiculed, tortured and executed, the early Christians, not the other way around. It is against the very core of Christianity to do that to others, and any Christians who did, were not following the teachings of Christ.

Theplummer? What? Hitler was Catholic and frequently said so and used it to justify his actions tho catholics do condemn him, thank goodness.

‘I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.’

- Adolf Hitler, to General Gerhard Engel, 1941

‘We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.’

- Adolf Hitler, Speech in Berlin, October 24, 1933

And the founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of his estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary, He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God; because then, as always, they used religion as a means of advancing their commercial interests. But at that time Christ was nailed to the Cross for his attitude towards the Jews; whereas our modern Christians enter into party politics and when elections are being held they debase themselves to beg for Jewish votes. They even enter into political intrigues with the atheistic Jewish parties against the interests of their own Christian nation.

- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 11

My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. ...Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. ...

- Adolf Hitler, speech on April 12, 1922

You do not have an absolute morality as is quite clear by the fact that you have just said that it was wrong for Hitler to gather up non-christians and torture and kill them but presumably believe in hell where your god will do exactly the same thing and not only to Jews but to atheists and muslims etc as well and for all eternity. So is this right or wrong? I say both cases are wrong because people are harmed by them.

How exactly do you feel Hitler used my concept of human rights for all to justify the oppression and murder of gays and homosexuals and gypsies and the oppression of atheists? You are being ridiculous. Humanism is the way forward in my opinion and within this everyone has the right to fulfill their own needs as long as they harm no-one else and everyone has the responsibility to provide humanitarian aid to those less fortunate and ensure human rights for all.

I am fully aware that almost no Christians today interpret Christianity the way Hitler did and I am equally sure that Hitler was motivated by power much more than his Catholicism. However, the fact that he interpreted CHristian doctrine one way and theplummer interprets it a very different way and protestants interpret differently again and Orthadox Christians a different way and Satanists another way and all the smaller denominations differently again leading to people believing all sorts of contradictory things are correct and commanded does tend to make the Christian claim of an objective morality dictated by god laughable. You have all killed each other for centuries over what this morality is. Even now most of you claim that the new testament is the one to go by and God’s teachings about slavery, genocide, raping virgin girls and murdering babies in the old testament is no longer relevent because Jesus brought a new covenent. IT IS THE SAME GOD IN BOTH TESTAMENTS. Your god himself does not have a consistent idea of morality. Where do you go with that? How do you decide to eat shellfish and wear mixed fabrics but still quote the old testament for the ten commandments and homosexuality being an abomination. Where does this moral authority come from?

Joanp62:
So why, when I exercised my right to disagree with you,
instead of giving me the same respect I tried to give you which I’m sure you expected to receive, you treated me with contempt? I believe some of your ideas are contemptible, but I have treated you respectfully, until you became irrational. I also responded to your comments instead of just dismissing them.
.
I’ve been to this site before, so I did not expect to receive any respect. I don’t have contempt for you, only your refusal to accept another point of view—“love the sinner, not the sin” as you would put it.
You can believe what you want, and you have consider secular ideas repulsive and illogical (from your standpoint)and to even to try to “shame” us into “repenting” our “sins.”
.
I am criticizing your religion because, as a consequence of your beliefs, you have contempt for everyone else—not just their ideas but their very humanity. As I wrote above, you identify with your god—who is not human, but “made man in his image.” As you haven’t mentioned Satan or other devils, you put mankind into Satan’s role because we all know there is good and evil in this real world. This is your basis for your contempt of human behavior and people who don’t conform with “God’s will.”
.
If you’re going to put your ideas as a philosophy for moral behavior that should supercede all other philosophies, you have to expect criticism and defend your position.

Argh, Christine, my brain is gonna explode. The frustration. The patience or whatever it was you credited me with yesterday has now officially departed.At times like this I despair of humanity, I really do. Think I had best beat a retreat and stop following this blog before my diplomacy disappears altogether and I say something I do not mean. >:-[

‘I have seen conservatives giving a speech and liberals screaming so loudly that the speech could not be heard.’  FYI, IMHO, you persuade atheist with evidence.  Like this…
.
Tea Party Town Hall Strategy: “Rattle Them,” “Stand Up And Shout”
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/tea-party-town-hall-strategy-rattle-them-stand-up-and-shout.php
.
Except, of course, you’d probably want a link to some Occupy people behaving badly.

Helen,

Here you go again, you are claiming that Hitler speaks for Catholics.  He was NOT.  He was using a political stratagy by claiming he was what the majority of his countrymen were to gain political power.  He was lying, he was twisting catholic beliefs.  Stop,stop,stop quoting BAD Catholics (of which there are many) as the authority in Catholocism.  They are not.  He was no more Catholic than atilla the hun was. 
My point is, power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely, but when a leader adopts the fact that he has an ultimate authority that he has no ability to persuade, and chooses obediance to that authority, servant leadership is the ultimate result.  There has been NO government EVER that has fully been able to implement that concept fully.  The U.S. Constitution has come the closest in concept, except that it still allows for “man’s interpretation” of the document to userp and oppress others, unless the ones interpreting are standing on the ultimate guidpost of morality in deciding the interpretation.  What is that guidpost, THE CROSS, where is it located, squarely on Calvary mountain.  Throuought history, man has been attempting to dig up and move that moral guidpost down the hill to the “Gutter of immorality” for centuries.  You are doing nothing more than what you are ultimately abdicating against, based on your own opinion.
I’d strongly suggest that you stop lumping christianity into the basket of all other man created Gods and seriously investigate the morality of the teachings.  The Catechisim of the Catholic Church is a fantastic place to start.  Now, I guarantee you are going to disagree with many of its statements,  when you stumble upon a disagreement, I’d suggest you not allow yourself to have a “kneejerk” reaction to your objection and write the teaching off as BS, but rather use a scientific approach and find out WHY the teaching is what it is, and see if it makes logical sense.  The best place I’ve found for that is simply to go to websites like EWTN and Catholic.com.  Both of those sites have incredible search engines that will lead you to the true teaching, while man may not be living the teaching, does not mean that the teaching is wrong, but merely that the one implimenting it is wrong.  I’m absolutely baffled that you take such a strong desire to oppress something that you do not understand.  I do not want to offend you, but your attitude toward the Catholic Church is tanamount to how a member of the KKK feels about race.

No, I said quite clearly that Hitler was motivated by power and not Catholicism and I have given a summary of the positive effects of Catholism on Europe. You claimed that Hitler saw himself as a supreme authority and that this was how atheists think. Hitler claimed that he emulated Christ so that is nonsense. Why on earth do you think atheists are in favour of dictatorships? There have been some atheist dictators certainly but throughout history most dictators claim they have a god on their side. Atheists are far more likely to be liberal than Christians. You will find far more of us supporting human rights causes.

I am afraid I cannot stop lumping Christianity with other man made religions. (I assume you did not mean to suggest that Christianity is man made when you said that?) You see a difference but you fail to respect the fact that to other theists, their god is every bit as real as yours is to you.

Where on earth do you get the idea that stopping one religion from imposing its ideas on everyone else is oppression. I fully support your right to believe what you want and live according to your faith. I just dont want to.  You cannot really compare criticism of religion to racism. Discriminating against people for their race, sex or sexuality is attacking people for who they are. Criticising religion is tackling people on what they say and do and their values. If we stop having the right to evaluate others on their attitudes and actions, we will have anarchy.

Chri
stine, where did I say you were going to hell and all the other stuff? I find it hard to believe that most of the Catholics on here would be the way you claim, and I dont appreciate being treated as tho I did those things. I am at work and unable to respond more.

Helen Pluckrose ,
Thank you for your quotes & comments.
“Mere Christianity” is the title of a C.S. Lewis book.

Joanp62:
I did a search for the word “hell” over this blog page and found no mention of the word from me. Would you care to cite it?
.
Why are you bringing all that up instead of answering to my more recent comment of your religion being subject to my contempt?

Misquoted, sorry. It was shame us into repentance is what you said. So when have I done that? I have never told anyone to repent on here..

Joanp62
No, it was not a direct quote, more of a metaphor. The point is you want us to “repent” not believing in Christ in general and your Church in particular. From all the talk here, you seem to think we’re attacking you personally when we critize your religious/philosophical beliefs in a public forum. As Helen said, you consider Doubt a sin that you must never do because your God/Church tells you so—no other reason that I can fathom. You can critize my ideas all you want—what I’m trying to do is get you to critize your own with the same scrutiny. “Remove the mote from you own eye.”
.
Atheists don’t believe in God, so it follows that we don’t worry about “blasphemy” - i.e. the commandment not to take his name in vain. Personally, I don’t worry about God and don’t practice any religion. I’m getting involved because Christians are dictating what I should NOT do. What I should not do is my choice, not any God’s or yours.
.
Need I repeat—no one is forcing you not to pray, or do anything you want to do. But all of us are subject to living in a secular world and we have to live with each other while we’re here.

Don’t go with that “Hitler wasn’t Catholic” bit—it doesn’t matter-he effectively acted as a Catholic when he marked Jews as “the other” (enemy) and rallied other Catholics into the Holocaust. Even though there were moral Catholics who shelterd Jews during that horrible slaughter, there were enough practicing Catholics who joined in with enthusiasm. The same for Rwanda, the Balkans, and all the other politico-religous atrocities in history.
.
Religion is gets good people to do bad things. While you can cite Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, and maybe one or two others, They are exceptions to the general history of human genocide and were repeating the history established by religion.

Christine- you are not criticizing us, you have been ridiculing, demeaning and rude. Nobody reacts favorably to that kind of treatment. So please, don’t play all innocent like “you can’t handle criticism”, when what we’ve been getting from you is lousy behavior. You have treated me in particular with anything but respect and you were the one becoming irrational- go back to your own posts. I stated what I thought of your posts yesterday.

And please stop telling me what I think and believe. When have I said that I want you to repent for not believing in Christ or my Church?? And if you are claiming that Catholicism teaches that you are incorrect. Where have I shown contempt for other people? In spite of your outrageous,immature behavior these past few days, I remained reasonable.

I also repeat, I have never said Doubt was a sin and neither does the Church say it. Yet, you ignore that and continue to repeat these lies. Wherever you and Helen are getting your information, it surely isn’t from Church sources. If I want to find out what Atheist think and believe, I would go to Atheists to find out. If you want to find out what the Church really believes you need to go to Church sources. Obviously. But you ignore this and continue to spread your shallow ideas of the church.

And I don’t think I’ve actually said anything against your non-belief. You are pulling this stuff out of thin air.

As far as living in a secular world, as long as we keep our beliefs to ourselves, you tolerate us. No matter the fact that we think our beliefs are just as True as you think yours are. But you think that you can promote your ideas publicly with billboards, etc., but you, Christine, think that we have no right to do the same. It’s not enough that homosexual’s as persons, receive the respect they deserve as a human being, no, they demand that we approve of their lifestyle and force it on society. And when Christians try to push back about having secularism forced down our throats, we are accused of pushing our beliefs on others.

You know, Christine, your posts are so full of lies about me, the Church, you lie about how you have treated me in this forum, you falsely accuse me of doing the very things you and Helen are doing.

Joanp62.
1. Everyone has the right to be offended.
2. Again, you are getting hysterical and taking things too literally and personally. I mean that your religious philosophy demands that others repent their non-belief and spurs contempt for non-believers.
3. Everybody on this blog thinks they are being reasonable—that is why a public forum is so important—so you can learn how others see you.
4. You never said “Doubt is a sin.” Helen was saying that the Church considers doubt to be a sin, or at least wrong in its “eyes.” Since you have devoted yourself to the Church it is implied that you are at least uncomfortable about doubting because it is an attack on your faith. Maybe you don’t care if I believe or not, but you certainly act offended when I tell you why I don’t.
.
I am not pulling stuff out of thin are—just non-catholic sources. You don’t really expect to find anything that causes doubt in a Catholic publication, do you?
.

As far as living in a Catholic world, as long as we keep our beliefs to ourselves, you tolerate us. No matter the fact that we think our beliefs are just as True as you think yours are. But you think that you can promote your ideas publicly with billboards, etc., but you, Christine, think that we have no right to do the same. It’s not enough that Catholics as persons, receive the respect they deserve as a human being, no, they demand that we approve of their lifestyle and force it on society. And when secularists try to push back about having Christianity forced down our throats, we are accused of pushing our beliefs on others.
.
You know, Joanp62, your posts are so full of lies about me, Helen, and other critics. You lie about how you have treated me in this forum, you falsely accuse me of doing the very things you and Helen are doing.
.
Right back atcha. However, I never accused you of lying, except to return your comment. Pray to get over your anger at the real world.

Posted by Joanp62 on Friday, Jun 15, 2012 3:56 PM (EST):
“And please stop telling me what I think and believe.”
.
Posted by Joanp62 on Friday, Jun 15, 2012 9:40 AM (EST):
“That said, Atheists think believing…”
.
Pot kettle black.
.
“they (homosexuals) demand that we approve of their lifestyle and force it on society”
.
Evidence for this?  Or does “equal rights” mean “force you to approve”?

Joan - you began this discussion by accusing anyone who disagreed with you of ignorance and failure to understand. It is very unfair of you to suggest that only we have been confrontational. Your own view on Christianity is not the only one which could be right and it is very prideful of you to keep suggesting it is and asserting that contradictory opinions are the result of ignorance.

An example of this is your insistence that ‘the church’ never says that doubt is a sin in spite of all the countless theological debatea about whether it is the worst sin or not. Google ‘Is doubt a sin’ and find numerous Christians claiming that it is in fact what the original sin actually was. Eve was tempted to doubt God. The bible repeatedly says that doubt is a sin and many theologians argue that is the worst sin. I was certainly taught that it was when I was Catholic. Here is some of the biblical evidence. You are of course within your rights to interpret this any way you please but PLEASE do not say again that ‘the church’ does not say doubt is a sin as if all the people who have dedicated their lives to the church and to god and to scriptural studies and the writers of the gospels are ignorant of the true meaning of christianity if they disagree with you.

James 1:5-8.  If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him.  But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind.  For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.

John 20 - 24 Now Thomas (also known as Didymus[a]), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!”
But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”
26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”
28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”
29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

‘And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. (Heb 11:6)

Christine, calling me hysterical to get back at me for calling you immature and irrational? Quoting you: “I mean that your religious philosophy demands that others repent their non-belief and spurs contempt for non-believers.”

Will you at least STOP trying to tell me what is going on in my head?
You don’t know what MY religious philosophy is because I haven’t told you, I certainly never said that it demands others repent their non-belief, etc. Or do you continue to claim that is what the Church teaches? Well, it does not teach that nor is that the Church’s philosophy. We all are in need of repentance, and do not have contempt for non-believers. However, your contempt for us has been obvious from the beginning.

Your next quote: “. You never said “Doubt is a sin.” Helen was saying that the Church considers doubt to be a sin, or at least wrong in its “eyes.” Since you have devoted yourself to the Church it is implied that you are at least uncomfortable about doubting because it is an attack on your faith. Maybe you don’t care if I believe or not, but you certainly act offended when I tell you why I don’t.”

Helen has shown over and over that she has little knowledge of Catholicism. But you believe what she, a non-Catholic, claims the Church teaches and ignore my response. The Church does NOT even think doubt is ‘wrong’. The only thing that bugs me is that your reasons for disbelief are based on completely illogical, untrue, and unfounded ideas about Catholicism. At least learn about what you really are rejecting. After that, I couldn’t care less if you believed. I can only tell you what I believe is True, I can’t force you to accept it, and those who don’t believe have no bearing on my faith. I don’t need others to believe in order to be certain in my faith.

Christine I am continuing my response to your latest: I pasted the rest of your post here and will respond to each point.

“I am not pulling stuff out of thin are—just non-catholic sources. You don’t really expect to find anything that causes doubt in a Catholic publication, do you?”  Why are you going to Non-catholic sources to find out what the Church believes and teaches? That is nonsense.
.

“As far as living in a Catholic world, as long as we keep our beliefs to ourselves, you tolerate us. No matter the fact that we think our beliefs are just as True as you think yours are. But you think that you can promote your ideas publicly with billboards, etc., but you, Christine, think that we have no right to do the same. It’s not enough that Catholics as persons, receive the respect they deserve as a human being, no, they demand that we approve of their lifestyle and force it on society. And when secularists try to push back about having Christianity forced down our throats, we are accused of pushing our beliefs on others.” So, just copying my own post and changing the words-brilliant.
.
“You know, Joanp62, your posts are so full of lies about me, Helen, and other critics. You lie about how you have treated me in this forum, you falsely accuse me of doing the very things you and Helen are doing.
.
Right back atcha. However, I never accused you of lying, except to return your comment. Pray to get over your anger at the real world.”

You have no reason to accuse me of lying because I haven’t lied. And it is you who seem to be angry at much of the world.

“they (homosexuals) demand that we approve of their lifestyle and force it on society”
Such arrogance and pride. Gay people in no way demand the approval of anyone for their lifestyle. What is a gay lifestyle anyway? What is a heterosexual lifestyle? My colleague is a lesbian and she, like me, has a typical academic lifestyle - lots of reading and writing and debating. How on earth does someone being gay constitute a lifestyle and how is it any of your business or how does it affect you in any way?

They force a homosexual lifestyle on society. If you can find me one person saying that everyone should have a homosexual lifestyle, I will be astonished.

Mark, I’ll finish that quote of mine: “That said, Atheists think believing in Christ and the Bible is just as silly as belief in any other god..”

I said that because that is what some Atheists on here said themselves. I am not drawing my own conclusions as so many of you have, or deciding for myself what I think you all think, this was based on an actual statement from an Atheist. Pot, kettle, black? Don’t think so.

The evidence for homosexuals demanding that we approve are everywhere in the news, etc. Too much to cite. When talking about “equal rights” if you mean marriage, not so sure marriage is a right. No, I mean what I said in my post, they are not content to be left alone and treated like any other person, which I agree with, they want us to give our approval of their lifestyle. Yet it’s perfectly fine for society to be vocal of their disapproval of other lifestyles, like smoking, obesity, etc.

Oh and here we go again. I can do that too.

Joan has shown herself to be completely ignorant of Christian history by disagreeing with me. I am not sure where she gets her information from but it is certainly not the church or the bible because I know everything and overrule everyone including the apostles.

Was that convincing or does it just sound like a desperate attempt to be superior without actually contributing anything solid to a discussion about faith or backing your position up with any scriptures or theological argument?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines these three sins against the faith in this way:

  2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it.

  “Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate DOUBT concerning the same;

  apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith;

  schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” [Code of Canon Law c.751]

Doubt is heresy according to the code of canon law but perhaps they have not heard that Joan says its not against the church’s teaching. I am sure they will overturn all that when she explains that they have no understaning of Catholicism.

Once again Helen, and I really can’t believe that you don’t understand this, I have never said that you are ignorant of Church teaching because you don’t agree. You have made numerous claims in this forum about what the Church teaches and believes that are false. If you want to disagree or not believe in the Church, fine. But at least get your facts straight and know what it is that you are disagreeing with!  Really, I just don’t see why this is so difficult for you.

You posted: The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines these three sins against the faith in this way:

  2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it.

  “Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate DOUBT concerning the same;

  apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith;

Ok Helen, here goes. See the words revealed truth, willful refusal, Obstinate, Post-baptismal denial? The Church is talking about baptised people, those who have been baptised into the Catholic Church, having heard the Truth then willfully deny and refuse it. So, I guess, any baptised Catholic who then became an Atheist would be in that position. This does not, I believe, apply to any non - baptised person. To be an apostate, you would have to have been in the Church to begin with. Someone who was never a Catholic would have nothing to apostatize from.

That being said, based on they way you and Christine were using the term ‘doubt’, I thought you meant simple, basic doubt that we all deal with from time to time. Like Thomas doubting that Christ had risen from the dead until he saw Him for himself. Having questions and doubts about certain matters of the faith until these questions can be answered. None of which would be a sin.

Helen wrote: Doubt is heresy according to the code of canon law but perhaps they have not heard that Joan says its not against the church’s teaching. I am sure they will overturn all that when she explains that they have no understaning of Catholicism.

Is that really necessary Helen? But go ahead, it’s just more evidence of what I’ve been saying about your attitude and behavior on this forum. I politely respond to you, but both you and Christine can’t keep from getting snotty, again.

Joan, please try for just a modicum of self awareness and humility. Continually telling anyone who disagrees with you that they know nothing about Catholicism and completely avoiding supporting your claim to superior knowledge is not polite - it is incredibly arrogant and rude.

I will respond incaps, but I’m not shouting. Helen said: . “Joan - you began this discussion by accusing anyone who disagreed with you of ignorance and failure to understand.NOT TRUE. YOU HAVE MADE STATEMENTS ASSERTING THAT THE CHURCH BELIEVES AND TEACHES THINGS THAT ARE INCORRECT. BEFORE YOU DISAGREE WITH THE CHURCH, LEARN THE TRUTH OF WHAT IT TEACHES. It is very unfair of you to suggest that only we have been confrontational. YOU AND CHRISTINE WERE CONFRONTATIONAL, SARCASTIC AND ARROGANT FROM THE BEGINNING. IN TIME, MY RESPONSES REFLECTED YOURS.Your own view on Christianity is not the only one which could be right and it is very prideful of you to keep suggesting it is and asserting that contradictory opinions are the result of ignorance. I DO NOT BELIEVE I AM EXPLAINING MY VIEW OF CHRISTIANITY BUT WHAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACHES. BUT AGAIN, YOU ARE DOING THE VERY THINGS YOU ACCUSE ME OF AND IT’S GETTING TIRESOME.

An example of this is your insistence that ‘the church’ never says that doubt is a sin in spite of all the countless theological debatea about whether it is the worst sin or not. Google ‘Is doubt a sin’ and find numerous Christians claiming that it is in fact what the original sin actually was. THE CHURCH HAS CLAIMED THAT DISOBEDIENCE WAS THE SIN OF ADAM AND EVE. BUT THERE ARE PLENTY OF THEOLOGIANS OUT THERE WHO MAKE UP THEIR OWN IDEAS CONTRARY TO WHAT THE CHURCH HAS TAUGHT. Eve was tempted to doubt God. The bible repeatedly says that doubt is a sin and many theologians argue that is the worst sin. SEE MY COMMENT ABOVE.I was certainly taught that it was when I was Catholic. Here is some of the biblical evidence. You are of course within your rights to interpret this any way you please I TRY VERY HARD NOT TO INTERPRET BUT RELY ON WHAT THE CHURCH SAYS, YOU HOWEVER LIKE TO INTERPRET PLENTY ABOUT THE CHURCH AS YOU PLEASE but PLEASE do not say again that ‘the church’ does not say doubt is a sin as if all the people who have dedicated their lives to the church and to god and to scriptural studies and the writers of the gospels are ignorant of the true meaning of christianity if they disagree with you. WHERE ON EARTH ARE YOU GETTING THAT??

James 1:5-8.  If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him.  But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind.  For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways. PERSISTING IN OUR DOUBT WITHOUT TRYING TO GET IT CLEARED UP IS THE ISSUE. ALSO, WE ARE ASKED TO BELIEVE GOD WILL GIVE TO US WITHOUT DOUBTING, DOESN’T SAY THAT WE ARE SINNING IF WE HAVE SOME DOUBT.

You and Christine were not this specific when talking about doubt, and as I just explained in the last post, having some doubts, not being sure of something, as long as we don’t willfully persist in it, is not a sin.
I think I mentioned the doubting of Thomas as an example. Christ did not rebuke him for doubting, but showed himself to Thomas so he wouldn’t doubt any longer. Had he still persisted after seeing Jesus, that would have been another matter.

Perhaps you are the one attempting to be superior. The tone of your posts reflect that. I will not be silent when someone makes a claim about what the Church teaches, and that claim is false. It needs to be corrected for the sake of anyone reading these posts who may not know better. You go on about your ‘credentials’, yet, when it comes to Scripture and the Church, you make untrue statements as if they were true. To let it go uncommented is against our mandate as baptised Christians to defend and promote the Gospel, in my opinion.

‘Obstinate, Post-baptismal denial? The Church is talking about baptised people, those who have been baptised into the Catholic Church, having heard the Truth then willfully deny and refuse it. So, I guess, any baptised Catholic who then became an Atheist would be in that position. This does not, I believe, apply to any non - baptised person. To be an apostate, you would have to have been in the Church to begin with. Someone who was never a Catholic would have nothing to apostatize from.’

You are now saying you are not baptised or in the church? Or have you forgotten that the conversation about doubt being a sin for catholics was related to catholics on here being unwilling to consider any viewpoint but their own? It was not related to me. I do not believe in sin but did convert to Catholicism anyway and was part of the church for four years. 
Yes, it is considered a sin for Christians to have doubt about their faith. Jesus said so and so did James and so does the church. You keep claiming that I am wrong and need to get my facts straight but you do not straighten them for me or explain how you understand Christianity better than Jesus - you just keep saying you don’t understand why it is so hard for me to understand that you know better than most of the religious leaders, the pope, the apostles and Christ himself. At least back up SOME of your claims with anything written by someone recognised as an authority in Catholicism.

Gosh, Helen has a bad attitude because she told you something about Church history that challenges your statement! And here is was, hoping you might get my point when I substituted “Catholic” for “homosexual” when I returned your “I’m a victim” screed.
.
Helen was using sarcasm to emphasize the arrogance of your statement about homosexuals. Tell me, how does it feel to have some one (like me) write about Catholics as you did? Were you insulted, or do you just choose to ignore it? I’m sure you didn’t laugh at your gaff and feel the need to apologize.

Joan, please try for just a modicum of self awareness and humility. Continually telling anyone who disagrees with you that they know nothing about Catholicism and completely avoiding supporting your claim to superior knowledge is not polite - it is incredibly arrogant and rude.

Helen, does it make you feel better about yourself to believe that?

I’m not the only poster here who questioned your knowledge of Church teaching. Here’s one:
Posted by Kathleen on Tuesday, Jun 12, 2012 3:05 PM (EST):

Helen,
Where did you get these ideas about Catholic teaching? Hard to imagine it was in the Anglican Church.
I attended Anglican Sunday school too, but Baptism preceded Confirmation.

YOu also claimed surprise that I did not know the Biblical account of Genesis I believe, have accused me of not reading the bible,(rather rude) yet when I pointed out that you thought Adam made his fig leaf, and I told you it was God who made animal skin clothing for them, you dismiss it as unimportant. But if you could be wrong about that, you could be wrong about other things. The reference to Ezekiel you gave being about Satan, I never heard that interpretation before. And in rereading that chapter did not see a reference to Satan but to the King of Tyre.
So, Helen, you have shown that your interpretation is, not different from my interpretation, but different from the Catholic interpretation that I’ve ever heard. That needed to be clarified so I have made attempts to clarify it. Like I said before, when error is stated on this site, it is up to faithful Catholics to correct it, if at least for those who may be reading this and do not know any better.

From the get-go you have been less than kind toward me, probably because I was one of the first to call attention to your strange, un-Catholic ideas about the Bible and the Church, and you just couldn’t stand that, I guess.

Helen, I don’t understand this statement at all: You are now saying you are not baptised or in the church? Or have you forgotten that the conversation about doubt being a sin for catholics was related to catholics on here being unwilling to consider any viewpoint but their own? It was not related to me. I do not believe in sin but did convert to Catholicism anyway and was part of the church for four years.

Where do you get that I am not baptised from what I wrote? Not willing to consider any viewpoint but my own? No, that’s you. But when you state as fact something that is not, then I will speak up.

I think your idea of doubt and the seriousness of it and my own are on totally different levels. As a lifelong Catholic, going to Mass weekly, reads the bible, studied the bible for over 8 years, goes to confession regularly, reads numerous Catholic spiritual books - no, doubt has not been made the big, bad sin that you are making it out to be. Not simple, short term doubt and questioning that I am thinking of.

Christine, please quote from my posts, I have no idea what you are referring to. But once again, you are back to the same old childishness.

Its infuriating, Christine. Its as if Joan has been taking part in some debate in a parallel universe where she is the one offering scriptural and statistical evidence for her viewpoint and being polite and pleasant about it whilst we have been the ones insisting she does not know what she is talking about and that she has got all her facts wrong without offering any explanation or supporting evidence. You start to understand why there has been so much bloodshed between Christian demoninations when you see all the unfounded dogmatism and arrogance. Just because James said ’ ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind.  For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways’ we are not to think that doubting is at all a problem for christians. James was probably having a bad day or did not understand the church. Jesus too when he told Thomas to stop doubting and that those who believe without seeing are blessed is not in any way to be interpreted as a warning not to doubt. Maybe he was a little confused - he had just come back from the dead after all. Must be disorienting. Fortunately there are people like Joan who are willing to explain to the world what he really meant to say.

She reminds very much of this person.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mLOUWl-L-s

Here’s a post from another Catholic about Doubt from another combox:

Posted by JD on Friday, Jun 15, 2012 5:56 PM (EST):

“Some atheists insist that we call doubt a sin, no matter how many times they have been corrected.”

This is a popular misconception for one of three reasons:

1. Some priest or religious mistook questioning for disrespect and whacked them with a ruler for asking questions.

2. They come from a Protestant background where salvation is by “faith alone” and questioning faith is a literal sign of damnation. (And if the background is strict Calvinist, it is strong evidence that one is predestined to damnation.)

3. They heard this popular misconception from others.

So, Helen and Christine, I am not giving just my opinion. Based on our experience as Catholics, a doubt is not a sin. And Christine, in an earlier comment made it sound like we Catholics think any doubt of any significance was against the Church. And I repeat, that is untrue.

What, no response to my comments. That’s it?? Well then be infuriated. Just add that to your arrogance, childishness, self-righteousness, etc. But stop putting words into my mouth, stop trying to guess what I mean, and take a long hard look at yourselves. Reread your posts from day 1. You are both so full of yourselves, and consider that you may not be as smart as you think you are.

Good luck.

You know what, I’ve been rereading our exchanges. I still hold to everything I said. But the pattern I see is that, whenever you have no real response to my statements, you resort once again to ridicule and more distortions. You gather together, Helen and Christine, like two clucking hens.

Genesis 3:7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

I said that doubting was a sin and this was why you and theplummer will not consider other gods. You said I was wrong and so I showed you the Catholic churches definition of heresy. You answered that this only applied to people who had been baptised.
‘The Church is talking about baptised people, those who have been baptised into the Catholic Church, having heard the Truth then willfully deny and refuse it. So, I guess, any baptised Catholic who then became an Atheist would be in that position. This does not, I believe, apply to any non - baptised person. To be an apostate, you would have to have been in the Church to begin with. Someone who was never a Catholic would have nothing to apostatize from.’

The obvious inference was that you were saying this does not apply to you because you are not baptised? I did not think that could be right and so questioned it.
Now you have confirmed you are baptised, this obstinate doubt does apply to you. Is this any part of the reason why you will not intellectually consider the possibility of all the gods you do not currently believe in or the possibility that gods do not exist. Is it because that would be sinful? Your later rejection of James and Christ’s teaching that doubt is a sin makes me think it is not the reason.

This is very interesting. “Some atheists insist that we call doubt a sin, no matter how many times they have been corrected.”
This is a popular misconception…Based on our experience as Catholics, a doubt is not a sin’

Why do Catholics think Jesus said that it was then? And James said that ‘one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind.  For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord’
Is the criticism of Catholicism by protestants true when they say that Catholics do not go by the bible but by the invented doctrines of the church? What jsutification did the person you quoted give for overruling Christ and James on this?

If this indeed the case then I must apologise for thinking that Catholic church is based on christianity.  I know Protestants say it are not but I had always thought this was just divisional nonsense. Do you accept the bible as the word of god or do the pope’s teachings rate higher? I have noticed you often say ‘What the church says’ and not ‘what God says or what Jesus says’

How much validity do you give the scriptures?

Doubting Thomas would be S.O.L. if doubting was a sin, doncha think?  Now, to entertain doubts…that’s a horse of a different color.  Temptation is not a sin either.  And I’d venture to say that doubt works much the same way.  Give into temptation…sin.  Give in to doubt…sin.  Be tempted…not a sin.  Have a doubt…not a sin.  Pretty straightforward.

Unless I’m missing something?

As for all that Genesis stuff…you do realize that Genesis was written in mythological “language” which is NOT, NOT, NOT to say that it is mythology.  The authors were telling a story.  The “moral” of the story is inspired truth.  The genre is not.  At the time it was written, that is the mode that was used to transmit stories.  Mythological Language.

Think of the story of the grasshopper and the ants.  It’s told as a fable, but the TRUTH of the story is very real.  Arguing over whether they were red ants or flying grasshoppers sort of misses the point.  6 days, 6 million years, sun first, sun last, Adam then Eve, Eve from Adam…all irrelevant.  That God created everything?  Bingo!

Helen,

I know I’m jumping in here late in the game, but maybe I can help.

The Catholic Church stands on what we call the Three Legs of the Stool, the Stool being Divine Revelation.  The Three Legs of Divine Revelation are A. Scripture B. Sacred Tradition and C. The Magesterium.  None is more important than the other.  Technically, the New Testament came OUT of Sacred Tradition.  The Church clarifies what Scripture tells us.  They all work together in a beautiful dance.  But Scripture does not take precedence over the other two.  None, in fact, can be properly understood without the other.

While nothing we believe can CONTRADICT Scripture, not every thing we believe is IN Scripture, explicitly. 

MK - the quote from Genesis was because Joan keeps insisting I am wrong to say Adam and Eve made their own coverings and because I am wrong about that I could be wrong about everything else. It was related to a point made earlier about God being said to be omniscient but also not knowing that they would eat the fruit and not realising until he saw they were embarrassed by their nakedness.

I am quite willing to accept that there are levels of doubt and things are not this black and white but the person I am debating with keeps insisting that my understanding of Christianity is completely wrong so when she argued that doubt is in no way a sin and this is another example of my ignorance, I wanted to show my sources. I think that as one of them is Jesus, he should really count as a trump card but Joan is arguing that the Church trumps Christ.

Here’s what’s really ironic.  The Athiests here are the ones quoting scripture here much more than the theists.  If they don’t believe in God, have no use for God/pope/bible/church, why is it that they continually use OUR(catholic’s)book to beat us over the head with it. 

Notice how Helen deflected my statement that her imposing HER beliefs upon the world is tanamount to HER being the ultimate leader (God), to include all Athiests. 

Helen, someone asked me earlier if I ever have a thought of my own.  I have plenty of thoughts, I doubt seriously that my thoughts are original though, because there have been billions of people walking the face of the earth prior to my existance, and to think that any thought I might have to be the first time that thought was pondered is arrogance in the absolute.  When it comes to matters of faith and morals, NO I do not have a thought of my own that contradicts the Church’s teaching, unless I’m ignorant to the teaching.  When the teaching is revealed to me, and I question it, I seek a logical answer why from accurate church sources and the logical reason always emerges.

You have continually stated “facts” about the church that are absolutely wrong teachings, when pressed, you admit you get the info from non church sources, claiming that if you got the info from the church, it would somehow be tainted or skewed and false doctorine.  Again, utterly the most illogical reasoning I’ve ever heard. 

I get it you “hate” the church and what it stands for so much, you have placed all your eggs in that basket and to conceed to one falsehood on your part would utterly destroy you.

I now kick the dust from my sandals and move on.

As to your James quote…He is talking specifically about asking God for wisdom and then trusting, without doubt, that his request has been heard and will be answered.  He is not talking about general doubt. 

One must be careful when reading Scripture not to confuse Exegesis with Eisegesis.  We must not put into Scripture what we need it to say, but rather must read what is there, in context, as a whole, and let it speak to us. 

What you just did is to claim that Scripture was saying something you wanted it to say, when it wasn’t saying that at all.  That is very dangerous.  It’s why there is one Catholic Church and thousands of Protestant Denominations.  If you really believe Scripture is God’s word, then you should treat it very carefully.

Pax.

‘Notice how Helen deflected my statement that her imposing HER beliefs upon the world is tanamount to HER being the ultimate leader (God), to include all Athiests.’

I did not deflect this at all. I said quite clearly that my beliefs should never be imposed on anyone else. I would fight against anyone trying to ban religion and I accept that my personal feelings against abortion should not be pushed on anyone else. I have loads of beliefs which I have no right to push on anyone else and I would not try to do that. Also I do not share beliefs with other atheists. We only have a disbelief in common.

I do not claim that Christian sources would skew the statistics on problems associated with religion but that they don’t publish them at all. Can’t do much about that. Ironic that you complain first that I quote the scriptures and then that I quote atheist sources. What sources would you accept?

I do not hate the church and am not invested in atheism. I am invested in truth. If that truth turns out to be Catholicism, I will change my mind with the evidence.

Genesis 3: 21 And the Lord God made for Adam and his wife garments of skins, and he clothed them.

Joanp62:
As far as living in a secular world, as long as we keep our beliefs to ourselves, you tolerate us. No matter the fact that we think our beliefs are just as True as you think yours are. But you think that you can promote your ideas publicly with billboards, etc., but you, Christine, think that we have no right to do the same. It’s not enough that homosexual’s as persons, receive the respect they deserve as a human being, no, they demand that we approve of their lifestyle and force it on society. And when Christians try to push back about having secularism forced down our throats, we are accused of pushing our beliefs on others.

You know, Christine, your posts are so full of lies about me, the Church, you lie about how you have treated me in this forum, you falsely accuse me of doing the very things you and Helen are doing.
.
Christine (me)
As far as living in a Catholic world, as long as we keep our beliefs to ourselves, you tolerate us. No matter the fact that we think our beliefs are just as True as you think yours are. But you think that you can promote your ideas publicly with billboards, etc., but you, Christine, think that we have no right to do the same. It’s not enough that Catholics as persons, receive the respect they deserve as a human being, no, they demand that we approve of their lifestyle and force it on society. And when secularists try to push back about having Christianity forced down our throats, we are accused of pushing our beliefs on others.
.
You know, Joanp62, your posts are so full of lies about me, Helen, and other critics. You lie about how you have treated me in this forum, you falsely accuse me of doing the very things you and Helen are doing.
.
I think my only mistake was not replacing “Helen” name with “Theplummer”—but I was in a hurry.
.
What do you mean, Joanp62 by: “Christine, please quote from my posts, I have no idea what you are referring to. But once again, you are back to the same old childishness.”?
.
I repeat—How does it feel when you read “Catholics as persons, receive the respect they deserve as a human being, no, they demand that we approve of their lifestyle and force it on soc.iety.”?
.
Don’t you feel a bit insulted by that sentence, among all my other statements?

Helen,

Help me understand then.  Perhaps the person misunderstood also?  Adam and Eve, it is my understanding, covered themselves in shame.  I don’t recall God covering them, but I could be mistaken.  There are two Genesis stories after all.

But does it matter?  I mean really?  The point is that something happened, by their own choice, that made them aware they were naked for the first time.  This gave them shame, when 24 hours (figurative) earlier it did not.

In other words, their relationship with God was perfect until they did something that changed that.  And in their shame, they tried to hide from God.  Don’t we all do that?  When we do something wrong?  Try to deny it, or rationalize it? 

But I would hate to think that your Faith was shaken by something so insignificant as whether or not Genesis happened exactly as it is written.

I’m not saying it did.  I’m just saying that you can’t let something like Genesis cause you to give into doubt.  But I don’t think it’s a sin to question.  I question all the time.  I think the difference is that at this point in my life, when I doubt, I know that I have to figure out a way to change my thinking to align with the Church.  BUT, that is only because FIRST I asked a million questions (and did TONS of doubting) which led me to the conclusion that the Church had the answers.  But that conclusion was the second step, not the first.  The first step was to care enough TO doubt…and then ask.

I’m a revert, and I can tell you, 20 years ago I made doubting Thomas look really good. 

We’re all on a journey and I think that we are all in different places.  Perhaps doubting is the first step to knowing.  Ask questions. Don’t settle until your satisfied with the answers.  If we don’t know them, we’ll find them for you, or direct you to them.  If there is no answer, then we’ll put it aside for awhile.  You know we’re famous for saying (when we come up against a wall) “It’s a Mystery”.  We don’t mean that as an excuse or rationalization. We mean we’re too dumb at this point to understand it (surprise, surprise…we’re talking about God here.  I’d be more suspect of a Faith that claims to have ALL the answers).  But if you have an open mind and are willing to follow the questions to their logical conclusions (and sometimes that will take a whole heck of lot more reading than these comboxes) you might come to believe, as I did, that the Church contains much wisdom and can be trusted.  Then when you come upon one of those “mysteries” you won’t be thrown for a loop.  If She has been right 99% of the time, she is probably right about the things that can’t be explained.  That’s where the trust comes in.

Joanp62: Your quote from Genesis 3:21 describes what God did AFTER the “fall.” A perfect allegory for the Judeo-Christian faith. Eve and Adam disobeyed God (the Father). God became disgusted with the sex-parts of his “creation” even though they were his own image—like he regretted creating them male and female.
.
No wonder Catholics get so hysterical about sexuality.

No, I was not talking about general doubt either. Very specifically about guidance from God. That reference came from this Christian argument that doubt is a sin. http://peculiarpilgrim.wordpress.com/2010/01/25/is-doubt-a-sin/

I understand that this may be a different denomination and you may interpret things differently. I will not be told that this means all other interpretations are wrong and caused by my ignorance. (It was not you who said this, of course)

Thankyou for your explanation of the three legs of divine revelation. I had not realised it could alter the interpretation of the scriptures to this extent. It is a breath of fresh air to have someone explain a perspective rather than just say ‘No. You’re wrong. You don’t know what your talking about. i don’t know where you got that’ when I get my information from scriptures and theological arguments which are available to all.

I don’t agree with you, of course, but I do appreciate civilised discussion on an interesting topic.

Helen, I never said obstinate doubt did not apply to me. How can you be so obtuse? Or are you purposely trying to give me a hard time? You pasted my quote, where did I say or infer that I was not baptised? I said it may not apply to non-baptised persons. You are not making sense here.

Where do you get the idea that we will not consider other gods because of this doubt thing, which we do not consider to be a sin? Where did Jesus or James call doubt a sin???? It does not say that in the verses you quoted!

I will not consider any other gods because I find them to be irrelevant for too many reasons, and as I have stated in or another comment box, the case for Jesus and the Catholic Church is way too compelling. You insult us again for implying that we are what-afraid-to ‘change religions’ because of your wacked out notion of doubt?

Where do you get the idea that the Catholic Church is NOT Christian? I for one have been using Catholic and Christian interchangeably.

“I think that as one of them is Jesus, he should really count as a trump card but Joan is arguing that the Church trumps Christ.”

Helen, I think it may be a sin to put words in other people’s mouths.

Helen,

I am invested in truth. If that truth turns out to be Catholicism, I will change my mind with the evidence.

That just took my breath away.  I could have written those words myself, and in fact said them, 20 years ago.  I commend you for regarding Truth above all else.  If that is really what you prize most, then it won’t belong before you’re dipping your hand in Holy Water.  ;)

Have you ever read Theology of the Body?  It would be a REALLY good place to start.  Just get a paperback copy of the one for Beginners (and don’t be fooled by that title). To me, TOB (Theology of the Body) gets to the heart of what Christianity/Catholicism is all about.  And that is Love.  Real Love.  Agape.  Self sacrificing, submissive, all giving, total self donating, Love.  Once you get that, who put the clothes on Adam and Eve will seem like 4 year old Sunday School. 

Helen—watch out!
They are getting you into a conversation about interpretation of Biblical text. That suggests that the Bible should be taken seriously as a model for ideal human thought and morals. Don’t lose your perspective by getting caught in an (admitting) enticing book club conversation on a work of fiction.

Now Christine,

Play nice.  I am not trying to get Helen into a conversation about anything.  I was merely explaining where the disconnect was happening.  I didn’t even realize until a few minutes ago that Helen wasn’t a fellow Christian.  I actually thought she was a Protestant.  But that doesn’t make any difference.  I just wanted to answer a question she had.  Do we think the Church trumps Jesus.  My answer is no.  Nothing trumps Jesus.  But Jesus did set up a hierarchy and an authority and we respect that.  Not because we did it, but because HE proposed it.

Here’s how we see it…A thing is not true BECAUSE the Catholic Church says it is true.  The Catholic Church SAYS it is true, because it IS true.

In other words, it is not the Churches job to invent Truth, but rather to discover, discern and protect Truth.  Objective Truth.  Many people in today’s world do not believe in Objective Truth (and I don’t mean of the empirical/scientific kind…I mean metaphysical Truth…morality.)

You do not have to be Catholic to believe in Objective Truth or Natural Law.  You only have to seek Truth for it’s own sake and keep your mind open.  One does not have to know God to know good, any more than one has to know who DaVinci was to appreciate the Mona Lisa. 

I’m leaving now, but I’ll be back in the am and really look forward to continuing this most enjoyable conversation.  I hope you will also be back.

Christine, christine, you are accusing me of what I rightfully accused you of doing, and you do it over and over. I stopped being civil toward you after 2 days of your nonsense. You have put words into my mouth, claimed to speak for me, and together with Helen you cackle to each other about what an ‘idiot’ I am and so forth. Your posts are there for you to see, I do not have time to copy and paste it all for you.

as regards this: I repeat—How does it feel when you read “Catholics as persons, receive the respect they deserve as a human being, no, they demand that we approve of their lifestyle and force it on soc.iety.”?
.
Don’t you feel a bit insulted by that sentence, among all my other statements? You have insulted me often, what’s one more. Not isulted by the above. Maybe a bit hurt about it that’s all.

My quote was :“It’s not enough that homosexual’s as persons, receive the respect they deserve as a human being, no, they demand that we approve of their lifestyle and force it on society”. No, not demeaning at all, unless you want to twist it around to suit what you want it to mean. I believe it was MK perhaps who commented, perhaps on another article, that many gays with their obscene parades (they parade around naked, i’ve seen the photos on their sites), having special Gay days at Disney, as examples of this.

Okay, one more.

God became disgusted with the sex-parts of his “creation” even though they were his own image—like he regretted creating them male and female.

Now that’s just silly.  Did you know that JPII was appalled that a previous Pope had covered up the “naughty bits” on the Sistine Chapel and the “covers” removed?

That’s the idea behind Theology of the Body…somewhere along the line we got the crazy idea that our “bodies were bad”.  That could not be further from the Truth.  Our bodies are GOOD.  It’s not that we think sex is bad…it’s that we think it is SO GOOD that it must be treated with the reverence that it deserves.  Seriously, what other act can a human person do that presto chango, a new human being is created????  THAT is awesome.  And should be seen as such.

MK - the debate about Genesis was to do with the logical impossibility of God being both omniscient and also expressing surprise and anger at the actions of humans and regretting having made them. I am not suggesting anyone here thinks it is literally true.

I am an ex-christian and was very devout. I am now a Christian historian from a sociological, anthropological perspective. I am interested in religious debate and understanding people’s mindset. People get very defensive about this and tell me I am wrong from ignorance which is annoying when the info i got is from committed Christians who have studied their faith very deeply and hold their views just as strongly as Christians who tell me I just don’t know what I am talking about. I also value atheist analysis of Christianity and bring those points up. For me, this is all academic but my own views are important to me and they adjust with evidence.

I am in the UK where it is 2.30 so must sleep now. Will check in tomorrow.

Christine - :) Don’t worry. I like debate about the bible and giving contrasting interpretations - I do find the bible itself quite morally objectionable and will not forget that but it is interesting to see how the same words can be interpreted so differently by different denominations and different individuals within denominations. I read the bible four times myself and a lot about it so I am in my comfort zone here.

Joan - I am not going to go round and round in circles - just read back through the posts if you don’t understand. Its really not central to the debate. Just a misunderstanding where I was asking you if you felt doubt was a sin for you personally and your answer that it is only a sin for baptised catholics (in the context of the canon) made me think either you were saying you were not baptised or you had not realised I was asking you personally. I know your position on that now.

I could probably expand on that to make it clearer:

In the past homosexuals were treated badly, as if they weren’t human, which was very wrong. But that has changed. Most of us wouldn’t dream of hurting a homosexual because of his sexuality. And it is a crime to do so. I believe, as the Church states, that Homosexuals must be treated as human beings, not as gays,  because they are made in the image and likeness of God, they are so much more than their sexual attractions,  and deserve our respect as human persons, just like anyone of us does. Now, that that has come about in our society here in the year 2012, that does not seem to be enough for them. They want us to approve what they do and say it’s wonderful- and we cannot be forced to approve an activity that we feel is sinful, harmful, and against the natural order of things.

Hmm. I see the usual is happening here.

Atheists are interpreting the Bible in a more literalistic, ham-handed, and fundamentalist way than any snake-handling fundamentalist would.

Genesis 1-2 in particular cannot be properly understood unless a person absorbs the poetical word-picture being painted, not to say the prophetic vision. For atheists of a certain age, the best advice is to read these passages the way you’d read Jon Anderson’s lyrics in an early 70’s Yes song, or perhaps the lyrics to Don McLean’s “American Pie.”

That’s why there’s a talking dragon (okay, “serpent”; the word is ambiguous), and two parallel accounts where the important item is either put chronologically first or last in order to depict its importance, and the creation first of realms of order and then monarchical “rulers” for each realm, and light before there’s a sun, and so on.

The way some of you folk go on, anybody would think that you’d listen to the Yes tune “Roundabout” and conclude that, as the band were on a traffic-circle driving home after a tour, mountains descended from the sky and landed softly beside (and partially in) a nearby lake, narrowly avoiding crushing an eagle on the way down.

“Everything in the Old Testament is true, and some of it actually happened.”

Hey Atheists! You want to personally see Our Lord with your own eyes? Have hard proof? Ok! Since you don’t want to have it the easy way, then you’re going to have to go the hard way!
Volunteer to:
1) feed the hungry
2) give drink to the thirsty
3) welcome a stranger into your house
4) clothe the naked
5) care for the ill
6) visit the prisoner
Then, Rejoice when our Lord sees that you are willing to LOVE him (that is Catholic Love, not hollywood love ((The difference is that Catholic Love is the entire selfless giving of yourself to the other and hollywood love is what pleases you from another)) for only when you open the door to him, he will show himself to you. You see, Our Lord is not a raper that will force himself upon you and you will see that if you Love him in this way you will get your undeniably super irrefutable proof.
7) Pay it forward with with another atheist and save a soul!
As simple as that? Don’t want to spend the time and effort? Ok, but don’t say we didn’t show you the way to obtain your desired proof! You shall be an atheist by choice and laziness ;)

‘Homosexuals must be treated as human beings, not as gays’

Sums you up doesn’t it? No point in trying to reason with someone this disturbed and hateful.

No, no, I realise that much of the bible is metaphorical - the creation, talking snakes, global floods, the resurrection etc

Helen,

I am now a Christian historian from a sociological, anthropological perspective.

Why do people get defensive?  That doesn’t make sense.  I think it sounds fascinating.  I love watching a show called the “Naked Archeologist”.  He’s a Jew that is also fascinated with all aspects of the bible, both new and old testament.  He comes at it with such a unique perspective. 

You say you are an ex-Christian.  Do I understand correctly that you mean Protestant and not Catholic?  Because when it comes to studying Scripture’s nuances, we are worlds apart.  I say this because I think that if you were to study how the Catholic Church sees Scripture and understands it’s message you might gain some new insights.

You say you study Christianity from a sociological/anthropological viewpoint.  You could do that for years and never even make a dent.  So much material…The Catholic Church is like that.  It’s not as simple as Jesus loves you, only believe (and yet of course it is that simple).  There are as many facets to the Faith as there are on a finely cut diamond.  No matter how deep you dig, high you fly, much you read…there is always more, More, MORE…higher up and further in as they say in Narnia.

Sociology/anthropology is one of those facets.  So is Church Teaching, Church History, Theology, Biographies of the Saints, The Sacraments, the Prayers, Spiritual Works written by the Saints…it goes on and on.  It’s one of the reasons I love the Faith.  I love learning and with The Church the opportunities are endless.  And yet the beauty is that I don’t have to read a single one of those things to be fully Catholic. 

As to the debate about God being Omnipotent, yet we still have free will…what exactly is the contention?  And how does doubt enter into it?

Also, kudos for having such an open mind.  Once you close the door on “possibility” you’re world becomes very small indeed.

Heck, as a devout Catholic I realize that I could be wrong. The Church could be an illusion, a lie, figment of someone’s imagination.  Obviously, I don’t believe that, but just cuz I believe something doesn’t mean it’s true.  I’ve read, discerned and experienced God for myself, so I am satisfied.  But who knows.  At this point, I have found the Church to be true, and it makes more sense than anything else I have heard.  So I feel convicted and will continue to believe.  But admitting that I don’t know everything doesn’t make me a doubter.  It just keeps me humble.  My Faith is tested often.  So far it hasn’t been shaken.  I don’t think it will be.  But I’m an idiot.  What do I know?  I just keep pluggin’ along, grateful that something in this crazy world makes sense.

lol…my captcha word is England74..whereabouts are you?

Ioannes,

“Everything in the Old Testament is true, and some of it actually happened.”

:)

Genesis 3: 21 And the Lord God made for Adam and his wife garments of skins, and he clothed them.

So Adam made fig leaves, then God made clothing of animal skins for them.

MK, I was born to atheist parents, became Christian at 7 when I was at school. Took myself the Sunday school at the local Church of England Church and was baptised at 11 and confirmed at 13. Converted to Catholicism at 14 and attended classes from 14 to 18. Very devout as converts often are. Annoyed atheists and non-religious people immensely. Read widely about other faiths at this time, discovered that people of other faiths felt just as sure about it as I did, tried to bolster my faith with reading of Catholic texts aimed at people questioning their faith, discovered that Christianity in general has no more evidence than any other and if people with gods I do not believe in felt just as sure of their relationship with God as I did, maybe I was deluding myself too. Became intellectually an atheist at 18, psychologically still theistic but becoming less so. Declared myself atheist at 30 and study Christian history mostly out of interest its psychological impact on people. I could not live long enough to understand everything I want to understand about Christianity.

The debate was not about omnipotence and free will. Of course an individual can be all-powerful and yet allow others their personal freedom. It was about omniscience - knowing everything, being outside space and time and having all knowledge. Much of the relationship between God and humanity in the bible is based on God not knowing what humans were going to do. He is said not to have known that Adam and Eve would eat the fruit and been angry with them. He is said not to have known the world would become so wicked he would have to drown almost everyone - he said he regretted making people after that. He is said to have made a big sacrifice to humanity in the form of his son to save us all. If we accept the trinity it appears that God came down in the form of his son, to sacrifice himself to himself in order to appease himself as this was the only way humanity could be saved even tho he was omniscient and omnipotent. I was asking for some Catholic insights on this and recommendations for books but instead was told simply that I understand nothing and am ignorant.

Doubt was discussed in a different context. I suggested to another atheist who, like me, was becoming frustrated at the refusal of Catholics on here to compare their faith to others and open their minds to the possibility of other gods whilst accusing us of not opening our minds to theirs despite us being on a Catholic site asking questions. I suggested that this could be because considering the possibility of other gods could be considered doubting and this is sinful. Joan answered that it is not considered sinful and again stated that I know nothing. This annoys me because the subject of doubt is widely discussed amongst Christians in relation to original sin and the first commandment and widely believed to be a sin. I understand that some people may come down on the side of doubt not being a sin but become annoyed when people suggest that if I consider the writings and sermons of those Christians who do feel it is the worst sin, this translates to my being ignorant. Different viewpoints are valid and whilst I may disagree with yours, I will say that i disagree, that I do not understand your reasoning or that I feel your logic is flawed or unsupported but to say that someone has proved they have no knowledge or understanding of theological matters because they disagree is the height of arrogance.

I am just outside London in Essex.

Posted by Helen Pluckrose on Saturday, Jun 16, 2012 3:51 AM (EST):

‘Homosexuals must be treated as human beings, not as gays’

Sums you up doesn’t it? No point in trying to reason with someone this disturbed and hateful.

Helen, why don’t you quote my entire post? What is hateful about saying that they are human beings and should not be defined, or define themselves by their sexuality alone? And you say that you have been the reasonable one.

Maybe doubt is widely discussed amongst Protestant Christians, but with Catholics it is not a major subject. In all my readings of scripture and the Saints, doubt is just not mentioned much if at all.

Helen,

Thanks for clarifying…

Let’s look at this statement.

Much of the relationship between God and humanity in the bible is based on God not knowing what humans were going to do

What makes you say that God didn’t “know”?  To get the point across, I can see the authors of those passages interpreting God’s actions as “not knowing”, but is that really the way that it was?  I don’t know. 

I guess that’s what I meant by bumping up against something and saying it’s a “mystery”.  It’s not that there isn’t a way to understand it, it’s just that we don’t have the faculties to do so.  We say things like “outside of space and time”, but it is only very recently that science has even entertained the idea that space and time are something you CAN be outside of.  See what I mean?  We have no frame of reference for how things appear outside of time and space.  We have such a linear view of things.  I’m sure some theologian somewhere has taken on this topic, but it’s never bothered me so I haven’t looked into it. I can say this tho, the idea that God couldn’t know the future just doesn’t jive with our definition of God.  Trying to explain Him using our own perspective seems futile.  It reduces Him to our standards instead of asking us to accept Him on His own terms.  Does that make sense?  It just seems to me, that without a clear understanding of time and space, and I do mean clear, no judgment about what that would mean can be made. Only speculation.  Which is why the authors of that passage would have seen it as if God didn’t “know”.  Because they can’t see the “future”, God musn’t be able to see it either.  Something like that. 

I think there is a lot of things like that in Scripture.  Like when the authors say the “Wrath of God”, or “God was sorry He had created humanity”.  It’s not that they have gotten it wrong, so much as they were locked into their way of looking at things, and explained them that way. 

If it were them, and they caused/allowed a great flood, it could only mean they were seriously ticked off.  But God is pure love and wouldn’t kill humanity out of anger.  He might however, to preserve humanity, need to remove certain persons…to protect those that were following Him. 

That seems cruel to us, but we aren’t looking through His eyes.  I’m not saying that IS what happened, only that it’s a possibility.  Perhaps it was out of a great love for Noah and his family (and for all humanity) that He gave us a second chance.  Viewed that way, it doesn’t seem hateful at all.

Helen,

If we accept the trinity it appears that God came down in the form of his son, to sacrifice himself to himself in order to appease himself as this was the only way humanity could be saved even tho he was omniscient and omnipotent. I was asking for some Catholic insights on this and recommendations for books but instead was told simply that I understand nothing and am ignorant.

I think that is a misunderstanding of the Trinity.  God didn’t come down in the “Form” of His Son.  He sent His Son down.  His son already existed. 

It’s a fine point, but I think it’s an important distinction.  I think to understand why God did this, you have to understand Love.  (Not that I totally understand Love).  You need to understand that what God did, sending down His Son, was an example to us (among other things).  This was Agape Love.  Not self serving, egotistical love.  Not pleasure seeking love, and not even the love of friendship.  But a total donation of self.  Whatever “Adam and Eve” did, it involved allowing Good to be compromised. 

Augustine says that there is no such thing as evil, just as there is no such thing as dark.  Dark is the absence of light, and evil is the absence of good.  We were created good, but through choice, we sort of ceased to be as good as we were created to be.  In the garden, Adam and Eve are said to have eaten of the Tree of Knowledge.  We don’t know what that means exactly, but we do know that knowledge can be good or not so good.  Not knowing is often a blessing.  Before they did whatever they did, they were in pure, perfect goodness.  Whatever they “learned” showed them a world that was imperfectly good, a world that was lacking good.  What we would call evil.  From that moment on, God has been trying to get us back to that place where we are perfectly good.  But that is a process.

I don’t know if you have kids, but look at a 2 year old.  They are all about themselves.  They want what they want when they want it.  By 5, they have learned to temper their wants and compromise.  Not quite so many temper tantrums as the two year old.  Then of course there are the teenage years where they want their independence.  And they are just discovering that they don’t have to go to mommy and daddy to get what they want anymore.  Now they need to learn SELF discipline.  Hopefully (and we know that this is not always the case) a fully grown, mature adult, can discipline himself, and has learned to want and desire what is good for him.

Of course, this doesn’t always happen and we have a culture today where we are told to seek pleasure and avoid pain.  Do what we will, harm ye none.  But that is really more like the 5 year old or the teenager.

Now look at humanity as a whole from the fall to today.  God had a bunch of babies on his hands.  People who wanted what they wanted when they wanted it.  He had to show them, over thousands of years, that He knew best and that they should trust Him.  He chose a small group of people to work with, and then eventually sent those people out to share what they knew with others.  After years of training and discipline, this group of people was ready for God to perform an act that was so selfless, so filled with Love, that humanity would be saved by it.  Some of the original group (what I’d call the mature adults) understood this act for what it was and went out into the world trying to teach everyone, not just the chosen, the Truth about who they were.  We call this last group Christians.

But humanity is far from grown up.  2,000 years have passed and the people who took the lesson to heart and live it out are few and far between.  But they DO exist.  We call them saints.  And there is another group who continues to try to be like them. 

But it’s a process.  Could God have just waved a magic wand and put it all back together?  Sure.  But then He would have interfered with Free Will and it wouldn’t be Love.  We would be like puppets.  God IS Love and the one thing He desires from us is to BE LOVED.  That can only happen from free choice.

The fault was not Gods.  It was ours.  Our obstinate refusal to listen, to learn and to accept.  He’s been very patient with us.  As I have been with a few of my own children.  As a parent all I can do is teach them what I know, hope they get it, and sit back and let them do what they’re going to do.  It’s hard.  And I never quit trying.  I started when they were babies and I’m still going now that they are grown and have kids of their own.  I expect it is the same with God.  He loves us that much.

Helen,

As for doubt…

I’m still not getting this.  I don’t see anything inherently wrong with looking at other gods or faiths.  If God is Truth, then looking at these other things would only confirm that.  If God is a lie, then I’d want to know.  I, personally, have looked at many other religions and still find them fascinating.  C.S.Lewis and Tolkien loved mythology. 

But you would have to be strong in your faith.  I mean, it could shake some people and then it would probably be best if they steered clear of it.  That’s a personal decision.  Plus, some people just might not care what other religions think or believe. I couldn’t care less about sports and wouldn’t spend a minute of my time learning about them.

Baptized or not, if your faith is strong and your interested, I’d say, go ahead and look up what other faiths teach.  You can’t really argue you’re cause unless you know what you are arguing against.  Don’t you think?

Here is something I found…note that this is not a definitive teaching, but I think it reflects Catholic teaching.  It’s one priests explanation. It basically says what I said earlier, that entertaining doubt is a sin, but having doubts is not…

The Catechism in number 2125 says that: “Since it rejects or denies the existence of God, atheism is a sin against the virtue of religion.”

So a deliberate rejection of belief in God is sinful, but the Catechism goes on to say that: “The imputability of this offense can be significantly diminished in virtue of the intentions and the circumstances. Believers can have more than a little to do with the rise of atheism. To the extent that they are careless about their instruction in the faith, or present its teaching falsely, or even fail in their religious, moral, or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than to reveal the true nature of God and of religion.”

So it also depends on what is going on inside a person who is undergoing a struggle about believing in God and whether they make a sincere effort to overcome their doubts or not.

Doubts, like temptations to sin, are not sinful in themselves, but we need to be careful how we deal with them. John Paul II explained this in his exhortation Reconciliation and Penance - “For those who beseech the Father not to be tempted beyond their own strength and not to succumb to temptation, and for those who do not expose themselves to occasions of sin, being subjected to temptation does not mean that they have sinned; rather it is an opportunity for growing in fidelity and consistency through humility and watchfulness.”

John Paul II also said, when addressing young people, we should not doubt in God’s love for us. Our first reaction can be one of fear or doubt, the pope said, just as happened with some of the prophets but we should be confident of God’s love and support of us.

http://www.xt3.com/library/view.php?id=7783

I’ll try to find more but I have to leave right now.  I’ll be back later.

Peace.

I have an 8 year old daughter. Like all children, her prefrontal cortex did not fully develop until she was 5 and she was then able to feel empathy and make value judgements which I guide. We are not children tho - we are primates, social mammals who work co-operatively by empathy and consideration. This is the basis of morality. The bible contains some highly immoral and unethical commandments and we have a responsibility to consider these from the perspective of their impact on the human rights of others.

This and your mention of atheism being a sin, brings to something a little different which I have always had trouble understanding. When a Christian says that disbelief is a sin and failure to follow the word of god is a sin and genuine repentance is needed ...how would someone actually go about that?

For example - If I wished not to commit the sin of disbelief, how would I go about believing? I tried for many years but cannot believe. I could pretend to believe, surround myself with believers and echo their sentiments, read works by believers and try to apply them to my life but when it comes down to it ... belief is not a choice. Imagine yourself trying to believe something you simply dont believe in. How would you accomplish that?
Equally how do you genuinely repent of something which you feel is not only justifiable but ethically essential? As a faithful married woman who contributes time and money to charity and actually enjoys church services and hymns etc, I would not find a Christian life at all arduous. (The exception would be in the Catholic doctrine that, as someone who has been warned never to become pregnant again if I do not wish to die, I should now abstain from sex with my husband for ever rather than using contraception.)The problem for me, when I was in my teens was in accepting that I should worship a god who sends good people of different beliefs to eternal torture, I should fail to support and even work against gay rights and, according to many branches of Christianity, I as a woman should have a certain role in life which is subservient to that of men, despite the fact that academically, I had the ability to achieve success in a way that my husband, an intelligent and hardworking man who nevertheless has great difficulty with literacy had not.

My greatest problem was reconciling Christian teachings with my conscience and here I am accused of arrogance in believing my perceptions of right and wrong to be superior to God’s. I do not believe my perceptions to be more valid than anyone else’s but also cannot respect myself if I support things like genocide (hell) homophobia, sexism and any form of bigotry or intolerance. Have you ever come across any advice for people who feel uncomfortable with biblical or clerical concepts of morality?

@MK:
Come on, don’t get you knickers in a twist. It’s just an opinion on how I’m interpreting the story. So, you interpret it a different way. No one said that all Christians literally hate their bodies. It seems some do, however, or why would a the Pope before JPII cover the “naughty bits” of a statue?
.
@Joanp62:
“I believe, as the Church states, that Homosexuals must be treated as human beings, not as gays,  because they are made in the image and likeness of God, they are so much more than their sexual attractions,  and deserve our respect as human persons, just like anyone of us does. Now, that that has come about in our society here in the year 2012, that does not seem to be enough for them. They want us to approve what they do and say it’s wonderful- and we cannot be forced to approve an activity that we feel is sinful, harmful, and against the natural order of things.”
.
So why did you write “It’s not enough that homosexual’s as persons, receive the respect they deserve as a human being, no, they demand that we approve of their lifestyle and force it on society.” as if you are just tolerating of their existence? You also imply that you wouldn’t treat homosexuals as human beings if the Church hadn’t told you so. If I wrote that I believe that Catholics should be treated like human beings because Richard Dawkins said so in a video, would you think I really had any respect for you?
.
Homosexuals are “coming out” because they have been raised in a society (Judeo-Christian) that condemns their sexual orientation as a sin and they should feel bad about themselves.
.
If you care for what science has studied about sexual orientation as a choice, you may want to take 5 minutes to watch this video:
,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKqKsXdokCM
.
Watch it at your own risk—you might learn something new and have to think about it.
.
Most Christians are baptized whey they are infants and cannot choose for themselves—it’s their parents’ choice for them. It was a practice from pre-20th Century times when many babies died and parents were anxious that their souls would be trapped in limbo and never be blessed. If they did live beyond infancy, they didn’t dare contradict their elders or the Church—public executions were pretty common before the 20th Century as well.

MK:
“But God is pure love and wouldn’t kill humanity out of anger.  He might however, to preserve humanity, need to remove certain persons…to protect those that were following Him.

That seems cruel to us, but we aren’t looking through His eyes.  I’m not saying that IS what happened, only that it’s a possibility.  Perhaps it was out of a great love for Noah and his family (and for all humanity) that He gave us a second chance.  Viewed that way, it doesn’t seem hateful at all.
.
God loved Noah and all of humanity and gave us all a second chance by wiping out everyone except Noah, Noah’s family and a pair of all animal species? Does God love the lone survivor of an airplane crash and the hundred or so other people that died?
.
That kind of justification for human suffering is even more twisted than Joanp62’s interpretation of Galileo stepping into theological territory. 
.
If God makes no distinction between the people who die in natural events (e.g. a massive flood/tsunami) and those who survive, why is God necessary? God is certainly not necessary to explain natural events—no “supernatural” being gives evidence of existence. Even if there is a God
(Pink Unicorn, Thor, Yahweh, etc.) that we don’t understand, then what difference does it make?
.
John Paul II’s speech equates doubt with temptation, which one definition is “enticement or the allure to do something often regarded as unwise, wrong, or immoral.” (Dictionary.com). Who dictates what is moral? Why, the Catholic Church! So, he’s basically saying that you should not be tempted to think maybe the Church is incorrect about something(s)—like what is a “sin.” He just wants us to “Shut up” and not suggest he or the Church might be in error. What an arrogant prick!
.

Helen;
I gave you the formula for believing again. I don’t mean giving money, but I mean personally contributing in an engaged interaction with these people. You might have to go to a catholic mission in Haiti or something, but the key is to give yourself (Love) those people in a complete way in order to detach yourself from this world and see Christ personally.

Well MK, as you can see, you have been polite and patient, but it just doesn’t make a bit of difference, as per Christine’s posts:

<<That kind of justification for human suffering is even more twisted than Joanp62’s interpretation of Galileo stepping into theological territory.

What an arrogant prick!
Come on, don’t get you knickers in a twist>>

This is so unnecessary Christine to be so rude and borderline obscene. And you either still don’t get it, or you get your jollies acting like a you know what.

@ Christine who wrote: You also imply that you wouldn’t treat homosexuals as human beings if the Church hadn’t told you so.

Again, twisting, assuming, and putting words in my mouth, will get you nowhere. I did not imply, say, or even think that Homosexuals should not be treated as human beings. What I said should have been clear enough to a 5 year old. When it comes to treating people as human beings, I don’t need anyone to explain it to me.  You continue to be so intellectually dishonest, maybe you are pretending to misunderstand, either way, you have done everything BUT treat me as a human being on this forum. Oh well, what goes around comes around, eventually.

Oh and if that sounds too hard, then it is no wonder Jesus tells us “Have you come to believe because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed.” For we who believe without seeing don’t need such a big crowbar to detach us from the world. (Although personally I did need quite a big crowbar myself in order to see him personally.) Only Love in God will fulfill us—this is the peace that Jesus talks about. The problem is that I thought Love is what society presents as Love (what gives you pleasure) and not Jesus’ Love which is the complete giving of yourself to the other. Our goal in life is to become a Saint (meaning one with God). EVERYTHING that happens to each one of us is meant to align our path into becoming such Saint. That’s why the farther you are from God, the harder re-alignment you will need. When you realize that these realignments are done for the purpose of Christianly Loving God, then you will accept them with your whole heart and be thankful. Unblessedly for you, the only way for you to see Jesus will be to:
1) feed the hungry
2) give drink to the thirsty
3) welcome a stranger into your house
4) clothe the naked
5) care for the ill
6) visit the prisoner
And it will be hard because you might have to go to a place like Haiti to accomplish a great part of that list. But in the end, you will see Jesus. And at last, you will have your “proof” and you’ll do everything you can so other people do have to go to great lengths in order to ‘believe’. If you don’t want to go to such extremes, then alas, you are too attached to the ways of this world and will have to appeal to God’s mercy. (You can pray the divine mercy everyday at 3:00). For more info on the divine mercy devotion read St. Faustina.

Joanp62:
Your citing Church authority to treat homosexuals as human beings implies that doing so would not occur naturally to you, just as stating Richard Dawkins’ authority to treat Catholics as human beings implies that it would not occur naturally to me.
.
Gosh, you get so jumpy at the hint of vulgar reference. You are so sensitive! Some times people need to vent frustration.

In general:
There is a routine of the Three Stooges where Shemp has been (comically) knocked unconscious and Moe calls for a doctor. Larry say he’s had two years of medical school, and declares that Shemp is dead. Shemp sits up and says “No, I’m not” and Moe slaps him back down telling him not to make a fool out of the doctor.
.
It seems to me that this is the Catholic problem with doubt—it may make a fool out of the Pope/Church.

The only fool is you, Christine. I really do feel sorry for you because it is apparent that you have some personal problems. I have said some prayers for you.

Helen,

This is the basis of morality. The bible contains some highly immoral and unethical commandments and we have a responsibility to consider these from the perspective of their impact on the human rights of others.

I’m unclear what you mean by “commandments”.  The only commandments that we are required are the famous 10.  What in those do you find highly immoral?

Atheism…those weren’t my words, but the priests.  Tho I do agree with him.

You ask how someone who doesn’t believe can suddenly believe.  My short answer is, baby steps.  I hear what you’re saying.  But Faith comes from two places. One, the assent of your will to want to believe, and then from Graces given by God.  Faith is a theological virtue along with Hope and Love.  Other virtues, like patience or prudence, are called cardinal virtues.  We have the ability to practice and hone the cardinal virtues.  These are habits that we form but doing them often.  But the Theological Virtues are different.  They are gifts, given to us.  We can’t do them on our own.  The only thing we can do is ask for them.  And then be as open as we can to receiving them. 

I assume you have asked but have not yet received these gifts.  Each person is different, their story unique.  I’d say that you/we would have to look specifically at the areas that keep you from receiving them.  Is it some particular teaching?  A lack of Catechesis and a clear understanding of what the Church teaches, and why?  Your baptized and confirmed, it might simply be a matter of making a good confession.  Is it too hard to change your lifestyle?  All of these things and more can be stumbling blocks.  We’d/you’d need to explore what your own personal stumbling blocks are. 

If I could recommend two and only two books for you to read, they would be Theology of the Body for Beginners by Christopher West and The Abolition of Man by C.S.Lewis.  One deals specifically with Catholic Theology and one with the Philosophy of what it means to be a moral man. 

You say you seek Truth and that is such an important step.  My own conversion story is long and complicated, but suffice it to say that I was a cradle Catholic who rejected everything the Church taught and only came into the Faith kicking and screaming.  I had to SERIOUSLY change my lifestyle.  Hardest thing I’ve ever done.  And the easiest.  It took over a year of little things that just started adding up.  I wasn’t looking, but still, things kept happening.  Then there came a moment, when I simply surrendered.  Just flat out said “FINE!  YOU WIN!”...that was twenty years ago and I have never looked back.  Being Catholic has not made my life easier, but it HAS given it meaning.  I didn’t even realize how messed up I was.  I thought I was fine.  I thought I was happy.  Now, after 32 years of marriage and six kids, I realize my life didn’t really start until the moment I surrendered. 

My son struggles with this now.  He so wants to do it on his own.  He struggles with an addiction.  But he doesn’t want to turn to me, his wife, God or anyone for help.  He wants to be able to say he licked it himself.  It’s been 10 years.  He still hasn’t licked it.  But he also still will not surrender.

I have a friend who sounds so much like you that I’m wondering if you’re her, using a different name…lol.  After months of discussion, she finally admitted that she didn’t <i>want/<i> there to be a God.  It would simply mess up her world.  She admitted that what I was saying made perfect sense, but that she still didn’t want anything to do with it.

My point is, that each of us has their own story.  And we each need to examine ourselves to find out what is stopping us from taking that leap.

But given the type of person you seem to be, I think you’d do well to understand the deeper meanings of the Churches Teachings.  My mother believes and never asks questions.  She is a simple soul, and has always simply accepted her Faith as a given.  I am SO not like that.  I’m that 4 year old who keeps asking “WHY?  WHY?  WHY?”  So I started reading.  And reading.  And asking.  And reading.  Until I the Truth of it convinced me.

And then, all the Graces that I had stored up but weren’t using just exploded and I had a knock you down complete and mind boggling moment.  Grace is amazing stuff, btw.

As to us being animals…

We are unique creatures.  Yes we are animals.  But we are also spiritual beings.  We have access to a world that other animals don’t.  We have free will.  We have the capacity to create and appreciate beauty.  We have the capacity for higher reasoning.  We can imagine.  We can choose to live as animals, denouncing our spiritual selves, or we can aim higher, and literally the sky is the limit.  We have the ability to experience a world that cannot be seen, or touched, or smelled, or heard.  We have one foot with the beasts and one foot with the angels.

We can rut, or we can make love. 

When my kids were little we used to go to Foster Ave. Beach and spend the day building a sand castle.  Around 5:00 kids would start circling the castle like vultures.  They were just waiting for us to leave so that they could knock it down.  Once of my kids asked me why they did that.  I said because some people choose to create and some people choose to destroy. 

Only humans are capable of making that choice.  Some animals hunt and kill, some like butterflies hurt no one.  But a lion couldn’t stop killing and a butterfly could take down an antelope.  It couldn’t even want to.  Because it can’t make those kinds of choices.

When you lump us in with other animals, even highly intelligent ones, you do humanity a great disservice.  And when you choose to act like them, you do humanity a greater disservice still. 

Beast or Child of God.  That’s the choice we all have to make.  Do we seek to satisfy ourselves or seek to satisfy others.  Is pleasure our God?  Or are we truly one body, what harms one person harms all?

Morality is not just some arbitrary feeling we have based on circumstances and desires.  It doesn’t change with the times.  It is objective.  This is what the Abolition of Man discusses.  That unless there is TRUTH, objective moral truth, then morality becomes relativistic and humanity destroys itself.  Society begins to unravel.
You don’t have to be a believer in God to recognize that there are certain moral Truths that exist always, in all circumstances. 

I’ve been thinking about the “Flood” question…

I hadn’t really thought about it before, and you made me wonder…

So here is what I have come up with after consulting with my Spiritual Director…

Remember I said that Genesis was written in Mythological Language?  Well at the time that Genesis was written, the people that were to become Israel were living among the Babylonians.  These were pagans who worshiped many gods.  They sacrificed to these gods because they were afraid if they didn’t, their crops would fail. Or their children would die. or whatever.  They believed that you had to constantly appease the gods or they would punish you.  They even had a flood story.  So the people who were faithful to the One True God, got a lot of their way of thinking from the culture they lived in.  Their understanding was colored by the stories of the Babylonians. 

A flood is basically neutral.  They happen.  So do hurricanes and tornadoes and fires.  Not as punishment, but just because that’s nature.

The story of the flood in Genesis is meant to show us and the Babylonians that Our God was different.  If we were faithful to Him, we could trust that He would always take care of us.  That when bad things happen, God would be there for us.  The bad things might still happen, but we would not be alone.  And they used the language of the Babylonians to tell this story.  Language like God was Angry, was because that is the language the Babylonians (and also the would be Jews) knew and understood. 

But the lesson is not that God gets angry and kills people.  Rather, that the sun will rise, the sun will set.  The stars are fixed in the sky.  God is in His Heaven and all is right with the world.  Everything is under control.  Just trust Him.

Christine,

It seems some do, however, or why would a the Pope before JPII cover the “naughty bits” of a statue?

You always have to look at the time period that things happened during.  In the case of covering up the naughty bits, sex was viewed by everyone as “dirty”. 

See the thing is, the Truth does not change.  It does not evolve.  But our understanding of it does.  So our bodies were never bad, but given the times, our understanding was skewed.  500 years from now, people will look back at Nancy Pelosi and Kathleen Sebelius and say, WOW, the Catholic Church used to think that abortion was good!  And of course they would be wrong, even tho they could show video tapes of Nancy Pelosi incorrectly claiming that Augustine said it was.  Then on some blog, some one will pull up a you tube of her saying that and say “SEE!  There’s proof!  In 2012 the Church thought abortion was a good thing!”

What I am saying is that Nancy and Kathleen are products of their time.  Just as the pope who covered up the naughty bits was a product of his.

But over the years, we have looked at the idea of our bodies with fresh eyes (Thank you JPII) and come to a deeper understanding that it is not our bodies that are bad, but our abuse of them.  Our bodies are good, and have always been good.  That has not and will not change.  But now, thanks to JPII, we know it and understand it.

Christine,

John Paul II’s speech equates doubt with temptation, which one definition is “enticement or the allure to do something often regarded as unwise, wrong, or immoral.” (Dictionary.com). Who dictates what is moral? Why, the Catholic Church! So, he’s basically saying that you should not be tempted to think maybe the Church is incorrect about something(s)—like what is a “sin.” He just wants us to “Shut up” and not suggest he or the Church might be in error. What an arrogant prick!

lol…why don’t you tell us how your really feel?

I’ll attempt to address this, but if you cannot show respect when dialoging with me, I’m afraid I’ll have to withdraw from our conversation.  I don’t really want to do that, but common courtesy should be the very least of civil behavior when talking to another human being.  You certainly do not have to agree with the Pope or me on anything, but seriously?  Can’t you express yourself in a more mature fashion?  Heated, I’m okay with.  Calling the Pope a prick?  Pushin’ the envelope.

Who dictates what is moral…well, if you’d read my earlier comment you would know that I said that the Catholic Church most certainly does not dictate anything.  What She does is discover, discern and protect the Truth.  The moral Truth. 

Morality is objective.  Every civilization has some form of the 10 commandments.  Some don’t have all of them, but no society has none of them.  Most societies have a version of “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.  The Catholic Church didn’t create this.  It’s always been there.  We didn’t come up with Thou shalt not murder, or steal or lie either.  But these are moral Truths that have been with us in one way or another since the beginning of humanity.  The Church protects these Truths, but she didn’t invent them.

Joanp62:
I knew you would pray for me eventually—If you look back to Thursday, Jun 14, 2012 11:34 AM (EST), you’ll see my prediction.
.
MK; I called the Pope an arrogant prick—not you.
.
“But these are moral Truths that have been with us in one way or another since the beginning of humanity.  The Church protects these Truths, but she didn’t invent them.”
.
If morals are objective truth(s), why do they need protecting? If you can figure out for yourself it is true, why is the Church necessary at all?
.
Not all the Ten Commandments were followed by humankind throughout history. Polytheism acknowledge many gods, not just Yahweh, the storm god. So the first three are strictly for Christians, Jews, and Muslims.

Posted by Christine on Saturday, Jun 16, 2012 6:29 PM (EST):

Joanp62:
I knew you would pray for me eventually—If you look back to Thursday, Jun 14, 2012 11:34 AM (EST), you’ll see my prediction.
.
MK; I called the Pope an arrogant prick—not you.>>

And I knew it would just annoy the heck out of you. Do you have trouble with reading comprehension? You continue to misconstrue, misquote, etc. MK did not think you called her the arrogant pr—k, she said you were pushing the envelope when you called the Pope one.

Christine,

MK; I called the Pope an arrogant prick—not you.

Yes, I know.  And I found that a little over the top.  You don’t have to agree with me, but that crack was just uncalled for.  I don’t make fun of what you believe, no matter how much I disagree. 

Not all the Ten Commandments were followed by humankind throughout history. Polytheism acknowledge many gods, not just Yahweh, the storm god. So the first three are strictly for Christians, Jews, and Muslims.

I acknowledged that and added that all societies do not follow all of them, but NO society follows none of them.

As for the Church protecting them…knowing something is right, and doing it are two different things.  For instance, abortion is intrinsically evil.  It is always wrong.  Yet it is legal here in the US.  The Church is here (among other things) to keep that Truth in the forefront.  To continue to proclaim that killing innocent human beings is immoral. 

MK: Would you tolerate “Jerk” instead of “prick?”
.
Well, obviously not all secularists will agree that an abortion is worse than other consequences of pregnancy. How far are the Church authorities willing to take this “moral” logic? In Brazil last year, with Vatican backing, the Church excommunicated a mother and doctor for saving the life of a 9-year-old rape victim who was pregnant with twins. (At four months pregnant, the girl weighed 80 pounds.) Cardinal Giovanni Batista Re, who heads the Pontifical Commission for Latin America, said “life must always be protected.” Perhaps Mr. Batista Re can explain the Vatican’s 1,500-year tradition of “just war.”
.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/brazil-rocked-by-abortion-for-9yearold-rape-victim-1640165.html
.
“If men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.” (I don’t know who originally said that.) Have you ever had to choose between two evils?
.
Joanp62: You did call me a fool, but you did not answer me: would you think I sincerely regard you as a human being because Richard Dawkins said so in one of his books? The only thing your are really angry about is that I don’t respect your faith.
.
I have no idea who you are, and we are probably hundreds of miles apart for all I know. How can I hurt you? By expressing ridicule at your efforts to defend your false premises? You can turn the computer off, or go to another blog, you know. You don’t have to pay attention to me, but you can’t leave me with the last word.
.
Praying for me does not annoy me or do me any harm. Did you want to annoy me? Not a chance.

No.  Jerk would not be better.  But I think you know that.

What are these consequences of pregnancy?  Having been pregnant six times myself, the only consequences I am aware of are little human beings. 

I have read a number of articles relating to that nine year olds story, and none of them, including an update, explains why her life was in danger.  She herself was not excommunicated, but both of her parents were.

The thing is, if her life was not in immediate danger, they could have waited as long as possible and then taken the babies alive, hoping for the best.  But the intent was to kill the babies.  That is why they were excommunicated.  The story is a tragic one.  No one is disputing that.  But in a civilized society we do not kill innocent human beings to alleviate the suffering of other human beings, no matter how awful that suffering is.  The excommunication had nothing to do with saving the little girls life, and everything to do with taking the lives of those babies.

As for just war…the word “just” has meaning.  There are very few Just Wars, and even when one is considered just (like World War II), the Church does not condone killing innocent people.  Civilian casualties are obviously to be avoided if at all possible.  Sometimes civilians are killed as a consequence, but that is never the intention and certainly should not be done intentionally.  Incidentally, the Iraq War was NOT considered a just war.

As for choosing the lesser of two evils…we never choose evil.  We choose the greatest good.  Sometimes the greatest good also has evil consequences, but it wasn’t chosen for it’s evil components, but rather for it’s good ones.

Well, MK, I’m not surprised by your reply. So tell me—I know you don’t accept without proof(!) that the doctors deemed the abortion necessary to save the girl’s life, but if you did get proof that the 9-year old child’s life was endangered by her pregnancy, would you then give exception? Or should all three—the girl and the twins—have died of “natural causes,” without any effort to save at least one?
.
The girl’s mother was excommunicated (there is no mention of her natural father), but her step-father is still a dear son of the Church. Not surprising, since I have yet to hear of any child-molesting priests being excommunicated by the any members of the church—please post a link to any article you know of to disprove my premise. Thankfully the step-father will receive some kind of retribution by the secular laws, but he is still worth to receive communion with Christ. Do you really think that is just?

MK—I didn’t know if you were male or female, but your mentions of being pregnant 6 times answers that unasked question. Apparently all 6 of your pregnancies went well—good for you and the kids!
.
I’m sure you have insurance and get the best prenatal and post-natal care to ensure you and your babies were healthy. And I’m sure you did not get pregnant until you were married to the man you love at an age when it was safe to have children. I’m sure, if you “had a headache,” your husband did not force himself on you. I’m sure you consider your happy life the product of being, first and foremost, a devout Catholic.
.
No, the only thing I really know about you is that you have access to a computer and the internet, and you think you know everything about how other people should act because the Church told you so.

Hi Christine, I haven’t been following your conversation, but I caught a glimpse of the Brazilian mention. You are very way off the truth with your understanding of that event. It’s so amazing to me how people blindly believe everything the media feeds them. We just saw the lengths they go to with the recent lawsuits in that not one of the major networks (other than Fox) covered such a historic legal occurrence and yet out of nowhere, they started talking about predator priest cases. I wonder how people like you encounter the Lord: ‘Waiiiittttt, you mean to tell me that what I hear in society isn’t the truth and what the church instituted by you is what I should have payed attention too all along??? No waaaaayyyy Jesus!!!!.
In that spirit, Here’s an interview with that Archbishop when the story came out 3 years ago: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2009/jun/09060308

You also ask about just war:
http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/just_war.htm
And it helps to understand what Jesus means when he talks about stuff like turning the other cheek (warning: you will be incredibly surprised!)
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MKY/is_3_29/ai_n11838798/

No, the only thing I really know about you is that you have access to a computer and the internet, and you think you know everything about how other people should act because the Church told you so.

Breathtaking argument.

Christine,

but if you did get proof that the 9-year old child’s life was endangered by her pregnancy, would you then give exception?

No.  My answer would be the same.  Take the babies and do everything in your power to keep them alive.

I read in a follow up article that the father was indeed, also, excommunicated.  I hope he is also in jail.

ioannes,

Thank you so much for that link.  I suspected as much.  She was never in danger of dying and the abortion was just that.  An abortion.  He even says that the doctors agreed they should wait til 6 months gestation and take the babies then.  Exactly what I said.

This is the problem with getting your knowledge of the Catholic Church from Rags.  You think you know, but you don’t know.  If someone still disagrees with how the Church handled the situation, so be it, but at least take umbrage with what She actually did, and not what the National Enquirer SAYS She did.

Good job ioannes.  Thanks again.

<<Joanp62: You did call me a fool, but you did not answer me: would you think I sincerely regard you as a human being because Richard Dawkins said so in one of his books? The only thing your are really angry about is that I don’t respect your faith.>>

Not angry, amazed at your immaturity. You don’t have to respect my faith, just treat me as you would like to be treated, with some respect and civility, I suppose. Instead, because you think the Catholic Faith is a joke, you treat us as though we are less than human.
.
<<I have no idea who you are, and we are probably hundreds of miles apart for all I know. How can I hurt you? >>

Never mentioned that you hurt me nor did I express any concern that you would. Is it something you would like to do?
<< By expressing ridicule at your efforts to defend your false premises? You can turn the computer off, or go to another blog, you know. You don’t have to pay attention to me, but you can’t leave me with the last word.>>

  Aren’t you doing the same by responding to my posts? Why should I leave a Catholic online newspaper that I like to read, just because an immature, possibly unstable Atheist posts in the comments? Perhaps, maybe, in time, you will begin to see how you have been behaving on this site.

The above comment is to Christine, forgot to add that.

@ioannes and MK:
Gosh, The news from a source that is committed to pro-life Catholicism must not be biased. I guess I was wrong all along. What a shock. I didn’t realize that doctors could be so callous and incompetent about medical decisions. And shame on the mother for wanting her daughter to live and perhaps have more children that are likely to survive!
I guess I was wrong all along—my news sources are “rags” and there stories are a real and any siting of flying saucers, bigfoot, and the latest “news” about Brad Pitt!
.
Seriously, here is another link:
.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/272024_Doctor_who_performed_abortion_
.
Quote: “Doctors quickly determined that the child, a victim of rape, was pregnant with twins and that her undeveloped uterus did not have the ability to contain one fetus, let alone two. They prescribed an abortion in order to save the little girl’s life.” (emphasis mine).
.
How long should the doctors have waited before acting in this situation? Until the girl was in physical crisis? At any time at all?
.
Why isn’t the Pope practicing medicine where he can do the most good?
.
@MK, OK, new we know where you stand. Keeping with the hypothetical for a bit, what if your daughter (I’m assuming the odds that at least one of you six children is a female) developed a medical crisis—much like the women in the famous St. Joseph’s Hospital case—where she was in the actual process of dying and could only be saved by terminating her pregnancy? Would you allow her to die along with her nonviable fetus, or how long would you wait? Would you trust the doctors’ diagnosis and prognosis, or would you pray?

MK—alright, I guess I missed the part of the natural father, or he wasn’t mentioned in the article I looked at. Anyway, why would he be arrested? He probably had no idea that his daughter was being molested as she was living with her mother and step-father.
.
Joanp62:
“You don’t have to respect my faith, just treat me as you would like to be treated, with some respect and civility, I suppose. Instead, because you think the Catholic Faith is a joke, you treat us as though we are less than human.”
.
I think the Catholic Faith is a joke, but you are no joke. I am trying to get you to think about ideas you have accepted as inerrant TRUTH so much that you twist logic to justify your faith, in spite of physical evidence or well-documented history. You limit your sources of information about the real world to Catholic interpreted “news” publications and literature yet (as Jennifer’s post suggests) you claim that atheists are “not open” to Catholic literature. And you resent my telling you so.
.
All you can do is tell me that I’m a fool or immature, because I mock your faith. All you can do is justify your faith by what the Magesterium dictates, because you, yourself, have no idea how to distinguish between right and wrong without its authority.
.
You also think I’m insulting you personally because I think the dictates of the Magesterium are wrong and, worse, inhumane. You have no sympathy for that poor child in Brazil or her mother, unless you claim that you are praying for her, so you can say you are following another Magesterium dictate and thus be compassionate because your faith tells you so.
.
Would you want your doctor or your daughter’s doctor to put his/her faith over your well-being as a patient? Or would it be “Thank’s Doc for saving my life, but you killed my unborn child that would have died with me anyway, so you are not worthy of communion with Christ”?

And yet, you also claim you have “free-will.”

Christine,

I was referring to the father of the twins.

Yes, I would trust the doctors.  Yes, I would wait as long as possible.  And then I would take the babies ALIVE.  That is the part that you aren’t getting.

As for sources…I don’t like Life Site News either, but it was an interview with the ACTUAL priest who pronounced the excommunication.  Which by the way was not an act done by the priest.  The parties father excommunicated themselves. 

And yes I would pray.

At Joanp62 again:
“Aren’t you doing the same by responding to my posts? Why should I leave a Catholic online newspaper that I like to read, just because an immature, possibly unstable Atheist posts in the comments? Perhaps, maybe, in time, you will begin to see how you have been behaving on this site.”
.
No one as asking you to leave a Catholic online “newspaper” that you like to read. I’m just telling you there are other online newspapers that are not biased toward Catholicism and try to be more neutral, and yes, others that are more biased against Catholicism and religion that might be worth looking at for comparing ideas and making your own decisions.
.
You can say God gave you “free-will” but how are you using your free-will when you have committed you will to the dictates of a Church that considers doubt a temptation to sin?
.
That is what I was trying to point out with my reference to the Three Stooges routine. The Church is telling you, “Shut up—do you want to make a fool of the Magisterium?” and you obey.
.
Good comedy if it weren’t for real.

MK, The point, especially with the St. Joseph’s event, was that the baby WOULD NOT SURVIVE in ANY CASE. The mother was DYING and the fetus WOULD DIE WITH HER. You would allow two human lives to be lose when one can be saved? Is that what you’re saying?
.
I certainly wouldn’t want a doctor with your morals.

Sorry, that should read “the parties excommunicated themselves”.

The reason we don’t accept your source is not because it isn’t Catholic or Pro-life but because it doesn’t provide any facts and it got at least one of the facts wrong.  The girls life was not in immediate danger (your own source says her womb was too small to carry twins, yet she WAS carrying them, so I must assume that they meant carry them TO TERM.)  As I have repeatedly pointed out, at the moment they became too much for her to carry without her life being threatened they could have removed the babies ALIVE and done what they could.  This they did not do.  Instead they killed 2 innocent children.  Would they have done what the priest and the doctors…not the abortionist…had suggested, all three of those kids might be alive today).  This has nothing to do with sympathy or empathy for that poor little nine year old and EVERYTHING to do with not placing values on some lives and none on others.

MK again:
“
As for sources…I don’t like Life Site News either, but it was an interview with the ACTUAL priest who pronounced the excommunication.  Which by the way was not an act done by the priest.  The parties father excommunicated themselves.”
.
For the 9-year old child’s sake, I’m glad they did, and I’m pretty sure they don’t regret their decision. Would you want an ER technician to pray while you are dying because he/she doesn’t want to excommunicate him/herself?
.
Look at my reply to Joanp62 above.

Christine,

MK, The point, especially with the St. Joseph’s event, was that the baby WOULD NOT SURVIVE in ANY CASE. The mother was DYING and the fetus WOULD DIE WITH HER. You would allow two human lives to be lose when one can be saved? Is that what you’re saying?

Now you’re just makin’ stuff up.  Nowhere does it say that her life was in immediate danger…not in your article, not in mine.  In mine the priest says she was playing with other kids.  Nowhere does it say that the twins would not have survived.  YOU are saying that to elicit an emotional response.  No one else has said that.  You have absolutely no idea if those twins could have survived.  None.  And I think you know it.

And you are the one that thinks intentionally killing two people to save one is morally right.  Not me.  I’m all for trying to save all three of them.  I don’t place more value on the 9 year old OR more value on the unborn twins.  They have equal value.  All should be treated as such.  You are the one placing value on some lives and not others.  You are the one willing to take two lives to save one.

I certainly wouldn’t want a doctor with your morals.

I’m sure those twins feel differently.  I guess that means that you prefer the “doctor” who aborts babies, takes lives, morals over ones that were trying to save all three lives.  Well, it’s a free country. 

The abortionist just might decide that YOUR life did not have as much value as someone elses.  After all, he is in the business of judging the worth of human life.  Me?  I’ll go with the guys who value all human life, regardless of age or circumstance. 

Christine,

You misunderstand (again). They excommunicated themselves by their actions.  They didn’t voluntarily leave the Church.  Anyone who in any way aids or abets an abortion is automatically excommunicated.  They had a choice to make.  They made it.  It resulted in their automatic excommunication.

Would you want an ER technician to pray while you are dying because he/she doesn’t want to excommunicate him/herself?

Huh?  I have no idea what the heck that means?  ER techicians?  Not praying gets them excommunicated?  You’re not making sense.
.

MK yet again:
“As I have repeatedly pointed out, at the moment they became too much for her to carry without her life being threatened they could have removed the babies ALIVE and done what they could.  This they did not do.  Instead they killed 2 innocent children.  Would they have done what the priest and the doctors…not the abortionist…had suggested, all three of those kids might be alive today).”
.
I repeat, how long would you have waited? Until her uterus was bursting?
.
And at any rate WHO ARE YOU TO JUDGE? WHAT GIVES THE MAGISTERIUM THE RIGHT TO BE THE JUDGE?
.
Faith is obviously as important to these people as it is to you, but would you suffer and die for it under any circumstances?
.
Life is not a game with it’s rules defined by the Magisterium. The Pope lives in a palace and only visits sites where Catholicism is strong. He avoided England when Hitchens and Dawkins threatened to have him arrested for crimes against humanity.
.
You are cold-hearted people. I’d rather be a fool than so shallow.

These Christian/atheist debates are always fruitless, (and this one has become very boring), but permit me to jump in here and point out what I think atheists find specifically objectionable to the type of irrational and zealous faith illustrated here. Most atheists couldn’t care less about Christian beliefs that there is a God, that they have a personal relationship with him, and that He loves them. That this usually has the pleasant side effect of eliciting genuinely compassionate and admirable behavior is wonderful and often good for society. But when absolutes that are immutable to change in the face of common sense affect the lives of others, as in the case of the 9 year old rape victim and her mother in Brazil, we react with shock and utter horror.
-
Ioannes, you dismiss Christine as “blindly believing everything the media feeds them” and cite an interview with the Archbishop in question. He indeed claims the little girl’s life was not in danger. Fine. I think that most people on the planet still find it abhorrent and worthy of scorn that the Church would demand that a 9 year old repeatedly raped by her stepfather give birth to their twin children, so that she could gaze upon them for rest of her life and be reminded of how truly horrifying that must have been for her, and reflect on the fact that he can still attend mass and feel God’s loving embrace, while her mother is reviled and cannot. But then there’s this question to his eminence:
-
Q: Would your Excellency have reacted differently if the little girl had really been in danger of dying?
A: No, not at all. We know that even when there is danger of death abortion is never permitted. That is God’s law, as the Church proclaims it.
-
So it seems that your point that Christine misunderstood the details is moot, and we are left with the cold reality that you, mk, and the Church believe that God’s plan may include the agonizing death of a 9 year old (Catholic) girl when a safe and legal abortion is available. I’m also puzzled that mk could write “take the babies and do everything in your power to keep them alive” when the fetuses were at least a month away from any possibility of survival outside the womb. My youngest daughter is not much older than 9, and it gives me chills just thinking of her in a similar situation, and that if the Church had its way, it would watch her die. This is the danger of believing in things without sufficient evidence, and it’s frightening.

Christine,

So what you’ve walked away with is “Yeah!  They left the Church after killing their grandchildren. Wonderful folks”...and skim right over the part about you just made up the scenario of the little girl lying on deaths door while the twins inside of her had no chance of surviving.  And I’m supposed to take your arguments seriously?  No offense, but you suck at debate.

Christine wrote: <<I think the Catholic Faith is a joke, but you are no joke. I am trying to get you to think about ideas you have accepted as inerrant TRUTH so much that you twist logic to justify your faith, in spite of physical evidence or well-documented history. You limit your sources of information about the real world to Catholic interpreted “news” publications and literature yet (as Jennifer’s post suggests) you claim that atheists are “not open” to Catholic literature. And you resent my telling you so.
All you can do is tell me that I’m a fool or immature, because I mock your faith. All you can do is justify your faith by what the Magesterium dictates, because you, yourself, have no idea how to distinguish between right and wrong without its authority.
.
You also think I’m insulting you personally because I think the dictates of the Magesterium are wrong and, worse, inhumane. You have no sympathy for that poor child in Brazil or her mother, unless you claim that you are praying for her, so you can say you are following another Magesterium dictate and thus be compassionate because your faith tells you so.>>

First off, I did not comment about the case in Brazil, so just leave me out of it, I can only handle so much in a given day. I have called you immature and a fool and a few other things, NOT, because you don’t like my faith, but because of the crap you direct toward me and others directly. You say you do not think I’m a joke, but your posts show otherwise.  There are ways to disagree without getting all childish, calling names, and ridiculing the person directly. You are only making me think that Atheists are a very disturbed bunch of people, and if you are an example of the majority, I certainly don’t want what you have.
If it makes you feel better to see Catholics as unthinking, blindly following the Magisterium, after many have tried to give you deeper explanation of our faith, it just shows me that you have made up your mind and are just as dogmatic about Atheism as you claim we are about Catholicism.

For what its worth, most committed Catholics, including myself, have had exposure to other religions, although we don’t have time to examine 30,000 of them, we have looked into other faiths if only to see what it is they believe, and are well aware of the arguments of Atheists. We have read books on Church history along with proofs, and have decided that the most logical and reasonable thing is to believe in God, that that God is the God of the Bible, and that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Jesus Christ to be a visible presence of Christ on earth, and to hold, preserve, and spread the Truth of Christ.

I repeat, how long would you have waited? Until her uterus was bursting?

Lol, when I get my doctorate in medicine I’ll get back to ya!

And at any rate WHO ARE YOU TO JUDGE? WHAT GIVES THE MAGISTERIUM THE RIGHT TO BE THE JUDGE?

I’m sorry, I must have missed something.  Who exactly did they judge again?  If they Judged and declared as you are fallaciously stating, then the babies would have been taken alive, and the parents of that little girl would still be in communion with the Church.  As it stands, the twins are dead, the parents have left the Church and the Catholic Church had nothing to do with that.

You are aware that these people CHOSE to be Catholics, right?  That no one put a gun to their heads?  That they could leave anytime the wanted to (oh, wait, they did) and that the Church was simply stating how canon law says a Catholic must behave to remain a practicing member?  No one HAS to follow Canon Law.  You certainly don’t.  Zeke certainly doesn’t.  So who does….hmmm…oh yes, those that CHOOSE to be Catholic. 

Christine,

Life is not a game with it’s rules defined by the Magisterium.

And this matters to you why?  It offends you that we CHOOSE to be Catholic how?  It affects you in what way?  C’mon tell the truth…does someone have you locked in a closet taking you out daily and beating you until you succumb to the rules defined by a Magesterium that you don’t even recognize?  If not, I’m unclear as to why what I believe or what the Church teaches, matters to you.

I’d rather be a fool than so shallow.

Tell me, how does it feel to be both?

Christine, again: <<No one as asking you to leave a Catholic online “newspaper” that you like to read. I’m just telling you there are other online newspapers that are not biased toward Catholicism and try to be more neutral, and yes, others that are more biased against Catholicism and religion that might be worth looking at for comparing ideas and making your own decisions.
.
You can say God gave you “free-will” but how are you using your free-will when you have committed you will to the dictates of a Church that considers doubt a temptation to sin?
.
That is what I was trying to point out with my reference to the Three Stooges routine. The Church is telling you, “Shut up—do you want to make a fool of the Magisterium?” and you obey.>>

I keep responding because you just keep up with the lies and misconceptions and I believe it is the right thing to do to try to point that out and correct it. With the majority of the media being secular, you do not think I get my news from any other than a Catholic source? You don’t think that almost day in and day out I hear biases against the Catholic Church, and hear ‘their side’ or version of things?? It’s almost impossible to avoid. Yet, because I can think for myself, when I do travel to a ‘free-thinkers’ or ‘humanist’ site, I am not utterly convinced, and at times am greatly amused by what THEY claim to be true. I am so tired of Atheists assuming that we believe in God because we are uneducated, don’t think for ourselves, and weak and assume that if we would only just hear their side we would be convinced. Hasn’t happened with me yet.
Yes, I have free-will, and I have used that free-will to choose to follow Christ and His Church. That choice was not made lightly but was made thru much prayer,study, AND looking into what others believe. For the record, I also have enjoyed reading the late C. Hitchens and watching some of his debates on YouTube,and also Dawkins. They haven’t impressed me either because amazingly, these seemingly intelligent, educated men still have a 3rd grade idea of God.

Zeke,

Q: Would your Excellency have reacted differently if the little girl had really been in danger of dying?
A: No, not at all. We know that even when there is danger of death abortion is never permitted. That is God’s law, as the Church proclaims it.

I see your reading skills are not much better than our Christines.  Let me repeat this very, very slowly so you have a chance to catch up.

When the girl
was no longer able to
carry the twins
without her life being in imminent danger
then they could have
(as the doctors recommended)
taken the babies
A.L.I.V.E.  (that spells alive, as in not dead, which is what the abortion produced)
And the babies might have
LIVED
and the girl would also.

NO ONE anywhere in any article said that she had to keep and raise those babies.  That is all your imagination, and like Christines comments, it meant only to elicit an emotional response.  For two people who whine about how unreasonable we all are, you sure do appeal to emotional arguments a lot.  Try sticking with the facts.

The girl’s life was not in immediate danger.

Her doctors recommended they allow the babies to develop and if necessary deliver them early given them at least a shot at life.

The parents and the abortionist chose instead to kill the babies.

They could have been put up for adoption.  I believe you’ve heard of adoption?  Where babies that are not wanted by the parents, are given to someone who desparately wants them?

Perhaps you could clearly, without rhetoric, explain to me, exactly what the church did wrong, since we have now established that they wanted to save three lives, refused to take two and gave the parents the option of leaving the church or doing the right thing?  Where exactly is the Church culpable in this scenario?  Did they kill the babies?  Did they kill the girl? 

MK: Today my computer keep disconnecting before I can finish replying to some of your comments. I attribute it to solar flares, not any God.
.
“And this matters to you why?  It offends you that we CHOOSE to be Catholic how?  It affects you in what way?  C’mon tell the truth…does someone have you locked in a closet taking you out daily and beating you until you succumb to the rules defined by a Magesterium that you don’t even recognize?  If not, I’m unclear as to why what I believe or what the Church teaches, matters to you.”
.
It offends me the same way the massacre in Rwanda, the “situation” in Darfur, the Holocaust, the AIDS crisis in Africa and other Catholic populations, and all the other human-made hells Catholics suffer because the Magesterium dictation either encourages violence against others or or forbids Catholics to take the scientific and humanitarian help available on pain of excommunication. Their faith in the Church is just as important to them as it is to you, who sit by their computers and complacently approve and adhere to your faith and cannot imagine the suffering that happens in reality.
.
I’m sitting at my computer to, appalled at your efforts to keep yourselves ignorant and comfortable in your faith, rather than experience any compassion for others. The trouble with faith is that it doesn’t stand up to reality.
.
“Tell me, how does it feel to be both?”
.
You tell me.

I’m off now to spend the day with my husband and kids, because we chose NOT to kill them while they were in the womb…

You tell me.

You want me to tell you how you feel?  Why don’t you know.  I’ll pass.  I don’t see you taking it well.  ;)

MK:

When the girl
was no longer able to
carry the twins
without her life being in imminent danger
then they could have
(as the doctors recommended)
taken the babies
A.L.I.V.E.  (that spells alive, as in not dead, which is what the abortion produced)
And the babies might have
LIVED
and the girl would also.
.
MK-My reading skills are good enough. You keep insisting that the babies might have lived, and the doctors were premature in “murdering” them.
How do you know?
Are you,
by chance,
a doctor?
Do you
have medical training?
I don’t remember reading about how long
the NINE-YEAR-OLD CHILD
was pregnant,
but maybe the fetuses would not have survived,
or even have developed beyond the embryonic stage
i.e. would have lived outside the womb)
.
As I asked before—would you have waited until the girl’s uterus burst before doing anything about it? A nine-year-old uterus is incapable of carrying one fetus, let alone two, as the article says. But Dr. Magisterium knows better, right.?
.
“Perhaps you could clearly, without rhetoric, explain to me, exactly what the church did wrong, since we have now established that they wanted to save three lives, refused to take two and gave the parents the option of leaving the church or doing the right thing?  Where exactly is the Church culpable in this scenario?  Did they kill the babies?  Did they kill the girl?”
.
Their faith is at least as important to them, as your faith is to you. How would you feel if you had excommunicated yourself, somehow.
.
Of course such a thing could never happen to you—I’m sure your daughter is a “good” Catholic and would never allow herself to be raped. If I have it correctly, you would have to confess and repent your decision to consent to a medical procedure that saved your daughter’s life, promise you will never make another decision like that again (“repent and sin no more”) and do whatever it takes to get back in the Church’s good graces and become worthy of communion once again.
.
Yes, to me it wouldn’t matter, but it does matter to them because they are as frightened of “dying in sin” as you are. Or is spiritual pain trivial to you?
.
What do you mean “without rhetoric?” Isn’t that what this forum is for?

You want me to tell you how you feel?  Why don’t you know.  I’ll pass.  I don’t see you taking it well.  ;)
.
Well, nice come back. No one will ever know that you’ve had a lobotomy, if you wear a wig to hide to the scars and learn to control the slobbering.
.

I’m back for another round.  Joan, you say in your last post that the popular atheists have “a 3rd grade idea of God.”  Who decides what is a nuanced idea of God, and what is a “3rd grade idea of God?”  I suppose I should ask your concept of what God is first, because what I’ve heard both from followers and preachers is God is sitting in heaven with Jesus at his side, listening to prayers, forgiving sins and manifesting in the Eucharist.  Why is that any more sophisticated that an ancient greek worshipping Zeus who sits atop Mount Olympus casting down lightning, and occasionally visiting Earth to grant favors to his followers?

Joanp62.
Sorry you got caught up in the Brazil argument. I won’t ask if you agree with MK about it.
.
“You are only making me think that Atheists are a very disturbed bunch of people, and if you are an example of the majority, I certainly don’t want what you have.”
.
Why don’t you look at some Atheist blogs before you say you know anything about them. I’ll agree I’m not the best example and many are “more mature” than I am.
.
“If it makes you feel better to see Catholics as unthinking, blindly following the Magisterium, after many have tried to give you deeper explanation of our faith, it just shows me that you have made up your mind and are just as dogmatic about Atheism as you claim we are about Catholicism.”
.
Oh, puleeeze! See my comment above.
.
“I keep responding because you just keep up with the lies and misconceptions and I believe it is the right thing to do to try to point that out and correct it. With the majority of the media being secular, you do not think I get my news from any other than a Catholic source? You don’t think that almost day in and day out I hear biases against the Catholic Church, and hear ‘their side’ or version of things?? It’s almost impossible to avoid. Yet, because I can think for myself, when I do travel to a ‘free-thinkers’ or ‘humanist’ site, I am not utterly convinced, and at times am greatly amused by what THEY claim to be true. I am so tired of Atheists assuming that we believe in God because we are uneducated, don’t think for ourselves, and weak and assume that if we would only just hear their side we would be convinced. Hasn’t happened with me yet.”
.
Do you really read what you write? How do you “know” Atheist bias is worse than Catholic bias? Your Catholic faith tells you so, and Catholic newspapers don’t make you think about anything that happens because they have already interpreted it for you.
.
We both keep responding for the same reason.
.
“I keep responding because you just keep up with the lies and misconceptions and I believe it is the right thing to do to try to point that out and correct it. With your favoritism toward Catholic news sources, you do not think I get my news from any other than secular/atheist sources? You don’t think that almost day in and day out I hear biases against the Catholic Church’s stand against contraception and abortion, and hear ‘their side’ or version of things?? It’s almost impossible to avoid. Yet, because I can think for myself, when I do travel to a ‘Catholic’ site, I am not utterly convinced, and at times am greatly amused by what THEY claim to be true. I am so tired of Catholics assuming that we don’t believe in God because we are uneducated, don’t think for ourselves, and are weak and assume that if we would only just hear their side we would be convinced. Hasn’t happened with me yet.”
.
You may remember MK trying to tell Helen how to become “open” to Christ by accepting him as a child would. Tell me how that is supposed to be “mature” and “educated.”
.
“Yes, I have free-will, and I have used that free-will to choose to follow Christ and His Church. That choice was not made lightly but was made thru much prayer,study, AND looking into what others believe. For the record, I also have enjoyed reading the late C. Hitchens and watching some of his debates on YouTube,and also Dawkins. They haven’t impressed me either because amazingly, these seemingly intelligent, educated men still have a 3rd grade idea of God.”
.
And in choosing to follow Christ and His Church, you gave up your “free-will” to Christ and His Church. It now dictates your morals, and you are no longer open to any criticism of it.
.
I can tell you, the Catholic Clergy are also seemingly intelligent, but they have a 3rd grade idea of medical and physical science—and of what it is like to suffer and have to make hard decisions in a moment’s notice. Their public declarations that people have excommunicated themselves because their decision and their action on that decision in an emergency, are made after “careful Biblical and clerical study and debate, in their palatial homes. No such thing as mitigating circumstances in their court.
.
As I said, you are cold-hearted people. You have the compassion for humanity of a fruit fly and justify it with the will of the Church, to which you have given over your free-will.
.
So don’t tell me you are thinking for yourself—I don’t buy it. You are thinking for your Church.

MK:
“I’m off now to spend the day with my husband and kids, because we chose NOT to kill them while they were in the womb.”
.
And you live to say so. God must love your family more than that 9-year-old girl’s family. Happy Father’s Day.
.
You cold-hearted Catholic jerk.

MK—
Sorry, I meant to write:
.
You cold-hearted arrogant Catholic jerk.

MK—Like I said, solar flares prevented my posts, but they seem to have abated for a while:
.
“You are aware that these people CHOSE to be Catholics, right?  That no one put a gun to their heads?  That they could leave anytime the wanted to (oh, wait, they did) and that the Church was simply stating how canon law says a Catholic must behave to remain a practicing member?  No one HAS to follow Canon Law.  You certainly don’t.  Zeke certainly doesn’t.  So who does….hmmm…oh yes, those that CHOOSE to be Catholic.”
.
Yes, metaphorically they did and do have a gun to their head. They were most likely baptized when they were young. tormented with the fear of damnation in their Catholic education and their parents/families would reject them if they left the faith they had no choice in being part of anyway. I know enough about “Cannon Law.” to know it is inhumane and should be struck down as any other bad law should. Excommunication is the Church’s declaration that certain people should be “unloved” by Christ. That is a terrible judgement for anyone of the faith, as you might be able to imagine if you had any compassion for your fellow man.
.
Or do you think they made the decision to leave the Church so they can “kill their grandchildren?”

mk,
In the hopes of keeping this civil, I will ignore the crack about reading skills and whining and encourage you to read closely as well. You will note that I did not claim that the little girl’s life was in danger.  I couldn’t find much information about the case that provided more information than the links posted here. I’m again willing to accept the Archbishop’s word that the doctors told him that she was in no immediate danger. The point is that when asked the hypothetical question if he (or the Church) would have condoned an abortion in the situation where the girl really had been in danger of dying, his answer was plainly NO.
-
Actually, I never considered adoption, but that’s a very good idea.  But that’s clearly not my point, mk, which is that:
(i) the girl was 4 months pregnant. Fetuses are not viable at 4 months, and
(ii) if the girl’s life was indeed in danger at that very time, and abortion was the only option to save her life, the Church would not allow it.
-
You said the very same thing to Christine (“No.  My answer would be the same. Take the babies and do everything in your power to keep them alive”). You are correct that nowhere in the article does it state that the twins would not have survived. However, we know with some certainty that a 4 month old fetus has never survived outside the womb (the record being almost 22 weeks). This is why I was puzzled by your statement that the doctors “do what they could”.  Is there a distinction between abortion and removing the babies from a pregnant woman (girl) when there is no possibility of their survival? But I suppose that’s a completely different question for another time. And that’s not the question posed to the Archbishop, or to you, was it?
-
It’s clear we are talking hypothetically here anyways, but to be specific, the question is not about what actually might have happened here, but rather what you believe should happen IF a 9 year old girl, pregnant by any means, is brought to a hospital where it is determined that she will die unless the pregnancy is terminated. The fetuses must die or the girl will die. The Church position is clear, what do you think?
-
Also, can everyone just chill out a bit here?

Steve, because that is not all there is about God. You don’t understand the Christian idea of God and it can’t all be explained in a paragraph or two. We believe God is very personal and wants to be a part of our lives on the deepest level. He is loving, merciful, patient, just, generous, to name a few attributes. God is not just ‘out there’ or ‘up there’. God is Spirit who is closer to us than we can possibly imagine and knows us better than we know ourselves. He loves us more than we can imagine also. His main wish is for us to be eternally happy with Him, in His ‘environment’ which we call Heaven. So, He will do whatever is necessary to try to get us there without imposing on us, without slapping us upside the head. God is like a parent, which is probably the best analogy. If you are a parent you can relate. Our parents love us no matter what- so does God. But when a child misbehaves, or tries to do something that is dangerous- the parent has to discipline the child. Not punish for punishment’s sake, but discipline so the child can learn and grow up to be a mature contributor to society.

I have suggested this before, read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, read Saint’s writings, they beautifully write about their experience of God because they have grown as close as possible to Him while in this earthly life.

Christine: <<Why don’t you look at some Atheist blogs before you say you know anything about them. I’ll agree I’m not the best example and many are “more mature” than I am.>>

I thought I said I did in my post.

<<Do you really read what you write? How do you “know” Atheist bias is worse than Catholic bias? Your Catholic faith tells you so, and Catholic newspapers don’t make you think about anything that happens because they have already interpreted it for you.>>

Yes, I read what I write. Do you? I did not write anything about Atheist bias being worse than Catholic bias. I was responding to your claim that I apparently only get my news from Catholic sources.

<<You may remember MK trying to tell Helen how to become “open” to Christ by accepting him as a child would. Tell me how that is supposed to be “mature” and “educated.”>>

Accepting like a child does not mean ‘child-ish’. Like a child means with awe, wonder, humility,trust, and dependence. Like a child with his/her parents. They depend on them, trust them for their care, let their parents hold them, hug them, and love them.

<<I can tell you, the Catholic Clergy are also seemingly intelligent, but they have a 3rd grade idea of medical and physical science—and of what it is like to suffer and have to make hard decisions in a moment’s notice.>>

Do you know many priests have Masters and PHd’s? Some of them are medical doctors themselves. A priest at a parish I lived in years ago was also a neurosurgeon. Fr. Robert Spitzer is the founder of the Magis Institute, a non-profit organization dedicated to public education concerning the complementary relationship among the varied disciplines of physics, philosophy, reason, and faith. The Magesterium of the Church also has astronomers, physicists, medical experts, etc. that they can and do consult with.

Lastly, the world’s idea of compassion and human rights is different from the Church’s view and I agree with the Church because I know their reasons and they do make sense, if you really do THINK about it. You only know that the Church is against contraception, abortion, etc., but you don’t know why nor do you explore the options that the Church that the Church gives, or the alternatives I should say. It’s not just No, no, no with the Church. It’s ‘such and such’ is harmful, this is why, there is another, better way, let us show you.

Accusing us of not thinking, having lobotomies, compassion of a fruit-fly are just more examples of you personally attacking and ridiculing us- so don’t tell me you don’t think I’m a joke and that I get upset with you because you don’t agree with my faith. DO YOU EVER READ WHAT YOU WRITE? DO YOU EVER, EVER USE YOUR BRAIN AND TRY TO REALLY THINK BEFORE RESPONDING IN YOUR KNEE-JERK FASHION?

Zeke, just wanted to say that I appreciate your civility. Both MK and I had responded civilly and politely to Christine, but from the get-go she responded with personal attacks, as she continues to do today. So now, MK and I have had enough of Christine’s rudeness and personal attacks and are responding appropriately I believe. Go back to the 12th and skim through the posts before asking us all to chill.

I for one stand by what I have said. After 6 days of trying to respond and answer her questions and being verbally assaulted, I truly do believe that she is very angry and disturbed and I have had enough of it. If this is what atheism does to a person, because she is not the first one I’ve seen like this, then all she has succeeded in accomplishing is turning people off - no one wants to be treated that way, and she certainly doesn’t inspire any of us to take her seriously.

Joan,
Yes, it’s easy to get upset in these forums and respond with anger to insults, real or perceived. I’ve been guilty of it too. There’s some value to exchanging beliefs here, if nothing else than learning about what the other “side” truly believes and possibly coming to a better understanding.

Zeke—I would chill out, except Catholics are trying to make these issues secular law (I don’t know if you live in the U.S.) They are trying to break down Roe vs Wade and do everything they can to make it difficult or impossible to use contraception of any kind. They would do this in spite of the spread of STDs such as AIDS. They are also politically active in preventing same-sex marriage, teaching about contraception in a healthcare setting, and taking control of all sexual behavior. As I said above, they are also causing mental anguish to their “brothers and sisters in the faith” by declaring them excommunicated for making drastic decisions in favor of the best possible medical outcome.
,
I just cannot stand by and say nothing about it, even if only in a forum on a Catholic blog. Like the AIDS campaign says, Silence equals Death.
.
@Joanp62:
I consider your reply to Steve appropriate for one who has given her “free-will” to the Church. Just because it makes you feel good does not mean it is TRUTH (as you would put it). Many women and children take beatings from their husbands/fathers for the same “romantic” reasons—he really loves me, so I must be wrong and deserve his punishment. If I beg for forgiveness and do what HE wants me to do, he wouldn’t beat me so much, and he will provide for me and the kids.
.
“Do you know many priests have Masters and PHd’s? Some of them are medical doctors themselves. A priest at a parish I lived in years ago was also a neurosurgeon. Fr. Robert Spitzer is the founder of the Magis Institute, a non-profit organization dedicated to public education concerning the complementary relationship among the varied disciplines of physics, philosophy, reason, and faith. The Magesterium of the Church also has astronomers, physicists, medical experts, etc. that they can and do consult with.”
.
Yes, I do know that many priests have Masters and PhD’s. A neurosurgeon is not likely to be involved in obstetrics or be called when a woman is having a crisis because of her pregnancy. I know they study the various disciplines of logic and science and try to make it complementary with their faith. I’m sure they excel in their chosen fields and have earned their great reputations. Catholicism wouldn’t have survived this long if they didn’t compromise with science and logic, which can’t be disputed by faith. They still, however, have a long way to go on human rights and ethics.
.
Show me a Catholic obstetrician who has been in the situation were a mother’s life was in danger because of her pregnancy—I’ll bet he/she dealt with if by refusing to perform an abortion so a non-Catholic doctor had to be called in to do the “dirty-work.” The Catholic nun and St. Joseph’s hospital excommunicated themselves because the patient couldn’t be moved to another hospital in time to save her life.
.
“Lastly, the world’s idea of compassion and human rights is different from the Church’s view and I agree with the Church because I know their reasons and they do make sense, if you really do THINK about it. You only know that the Church is against contraception, abortion, etc., but you don’t know why nor do you explore the options that the Church that the Church gives, or the alternatives I should say.”
.
OK, tell me what options/alternatives does the Church give? Adoption? Anything else? HELLOOOO! Dying doesn’t give much time to make a choice here! They mother is dying, the babies won’t survive in any case! And Archbishops are not all obstetricians. These are not hypothetical scenarios, they are actual events. The Church is cruel and unjust to deny Christ’s love to these people.
.
“It’s not just No, no, no with the Church. It’s ‘such and such’ is harmful, this is why, there is another, better way, let us show you.”
.
So, I’m supposed to study the Catholic scriptures and Catechisms while you won’t even deal with secular ethics? Can you tell me “without rhetoric,” as MK would say why the Catholic way is the “better way?”

Christine,

How do you know?

I don’t need to know.  I only know that I have to try.  Do you really not see that?  Do you not see the difference between outright killing them and taking them alive and giving them a chance?  Do you not see the MORAL difference?

“I for one stand by what I have said. After 6 days of trying to respond and answer her questions and being verbally assaulted, I truly do believe that she is very angry and disturbed and I have had enough of it. If this is what atheism does to a person, because she is not the first one I’ve seen like this, then all she has succeeded in accomplishing is turning people off - no one wants to be treated that way, and she certainly doesn’t inspire any of us to take her seriously.”
.
Another “I’m the victim” tirade.
.
I am not attacking you personally—As MK would say, how have I harmed you? Am I killing you? Why should what I say be important to you?
.
I don’t think you take anything seriously—you leave that to your Church so you don’t have to make the effort to think for yourself.

C,

It offends me the same way the massacre in Rwanda, the “situation” in Darfur, the Holocaust, the AIDS crisis in Africa and other Catholic populations, and all the other human-made hells Catholics suffer because the Magesterium dictation either encourages violence against others or or forbids Catholics to take the scientific and humanitarian help available on pain of excommunication.

Again, I say, HUH????  Where is this happening?  Tell me?  I want to know!  Cuz I’ve never heard of Catholics going around and forcing people to a. BE Catholic b. NOT use condoms .  And what in Murphy’s name does the Catholic Church have to do with Rwanda or Darfur?  Please…show me ONE, just ONE place where the Catholic Church (NOT A CATHOLIC PERSON) but the CHURCH HERSELF is encouraging violence?  And the holocaust?  You’re blaming THAT on the Catholic Church???  Girl, you either have serious anger issues or are paranoid. 

Let’s recap…Belonging to the Catholic Church is VOLUNTARY?  Can you understand that?  VOL-UN-TAR-Y.  If people do not want to listen to her, they DO NOT HAVE TO. 

I just do. not. get. what your problem with the Church is.  What does it have to do with YOU, Christine?  Do you go to Muslim blogs and beat them up because of what they believe too?  Hindu sites?  Or is it just the Catholic Church.  Is there some secret power that the Church wields that I am unaware of? Some conspiracy?  They don’t make policy.  They are non partisan.  They don’t control any countries.  They oppress no one.  THey don’t make laws.  They don’t force their beliefs on anyone.  They feed the poor, house the homeless, heal the sick with or without insurance, take care of the elderly, the orphans, are the first to appear at disaster sites…yeah, the big, bad Catholic Church rulin’ the world. 

I know enough about “Cannon Law.” to know it is inhumane and should be struck down as any other bad law should.

You don’t know how to spell it.

Their faith is at least as important to them, as your faith is to you. How would you feel if you had excommunicated yourself, somehow.

Do you hear yourself???  First, you have NO IDEA how important or unimportant their Faith was to them.  Second, it is at the very least apparent that it wasn’t all THAT important as they chose to be excommunicated rather than adhere to Church Teaching.  THEY made that choice.  If it was important to them they would never have actively taken two lives. 

MK—you’re back!
.
“I don’t need to know.  I only know that I have to try.  Do you really not see that?  Do you not see the difference between outright killing them and taking them alive and giving them a chance?  Do you not see the MORAL difference?”
.
Yours “is not to question why?” You keep avoiding the one important fact of this issue. THE BABIES WOULD NEVER HAVE HAD THE TIME TO DEVELOP TO THE POINT TO WHERE THEY COULD SURVIVE OUTSIDE THE WOMB. NEVER, NEVER, NEVER!!! THERE WAS NO CHANCE OF TAKING THEM ALIVE AT ALL!!! ZILCH, NO WAY!! GET IT?!
.
You don’t think that doctors—Catholic or not—consider the life of fetuses at all? Of course I see the MORAL difference, but you don’t see the REALITY of the situation.
.
Maybe a class book ethical question would be helpful:
.
Suppose you were in a shipwreck and managed to get on board a life boat that soon get’s full to capacity with other survivors. There are many other passengers struggling to survive and get on the life boat, but if even one more person came aboard, the whole lifeboat would sink and you and the rest of the survivors would drown. Would you, as painful as it might be to you morally, try to prevent more people from getting on the life boat? Would you give up your place so that another passenger can survive while you drown? What would the Church’s ethical answer be?
.

MK
“Do you hear yourself???  First, you have NO IDEA how important or unimportant their Faith was to them.  Second, it is at the very least apparent that it wasn’t all THAT important as they chose to be excommunicated rather than adhere to Church Teaching.  THEY made that choice.  If it was important to them they would never have actively taken two lives.”
.
You were posting while I was typing, so see above.
.
OK, I really have no idea how important their faith is to them, but I thought it was a reasonable assumption that it was as important to them as it is to you, considering that they live in a Catholic culture and the matter has been brought to the attention of the Church.
.
So, from what you say, can I conclude that if were your daughter who was dying because of her pregnancy, you would choose to refuse consent for medical professional to help her so you won’t excommunicate yourself? Do you have any idea how quickly a woman can die under those circumstances? What if you said “No, let’s wait until 22 weeks when the baby can survive outside the womb” and she died 15 minutes later? Would you think MAYBE you made the “right choice” because your decision did not make you excommunicate yourself and you can give her and her fetus a nice funeral?

Zeke,

Sorry I was snarky. I just feel like I’ve said this umpteen times.

(ii) if the girl’s life was indeed in danger at that very time, and abortion was the only option to save her life, the Church would not allow it.

What you and Christine are not getting is that IF the girls life was in danger and the babies were not viable, you would take them ALIVE anyway, and hope for the best.  No one would be hurt by this choice.  The 9 year old would live.  And if the babies died it would be because of nature, not intent.  Abortion is the explicit intention to KILL another human being.  No one can be guilty if they didn’t do anything.  Of course we have know way of knowing if the babies would live.  But we know that if we kill them they absolutely will not live.  It is the difference between allowing a terminally ill cancer patient to die, and putting a pillow over their face.  We all die.  But we don’t all kill.

Christine,

I know that you don’t get where I am coming from (no snarkiness meant).  That from your viewpoint the only thing that matters is this life, here and now.  But we don’t see it that way. 

I would wait as long I felt I could.  What you keep missing is that there is no sin in taking the babies early, even if it meant they would die of natural causes.  You would have done all that you COULD.  But you would not have actually killed them.  You could keep them comfortable, hold them, give them any medical care available and let nature take it’s course.

I would, and would have the doctors, monitor my daughter very carefully.  If she died, I would be heartbroken.  But I believe that my actions do not only have consequences in the here and now.  They have consequences for eternity. So I might save my daughters life, but I would lose my soul. NOT just my ability to practice my faith, but my relationship with the person I love most in the entire world…my God. 

Another thing you don’t understand, is that at 4 months there is no benefit to killing the babies…taking them alive, or taking them dead will have no effect on the mother.  As long as the babies are removed from the mother, it doesn’t matter if they are alive or not.  There is simply NO REASON to abort them.  Even abortion doctors admit that there is no medical reason to kill a child to save a mother’s life past a certain point in the pregnancy.  There might be a reason to take the baby early, but there is NEVER a reason to kill it.  The abortion was unnecessary to say the least, and gravely immoral (murder) to say the worst.

Would you give up your place so that another passenger can survive while you drown? What would the Church’s ethical answer be?

It would be considered heroic, tho not required, to offer your own life.  But the church would not fault someone for failing to do so.  It would be the most ethical thing to do, but it would be asking more than was necessary.  No greater love hath a man than to lay down his life for his brother.  Saints have done this often.  I might actually have to do some eternal penance for not choosing the saintly thing, but I didn’t cause the accident.  I am not obligated to give up my seat.  What abortion is tho, is you hitting those that are drowning, over the head with the oar, so that they don’t get your seat!

Also, something you may not be aware of, is that if this woman were to truly realize that under duress, she made a bad choice and was sincerely sorry, she could confess her sin to a Bishop and enter into full communion again.  It’s not like we through her out.  Heck, she can even come to Mass.  She just can’t take part in the sacraments.  Either could a protestant or a Jew.  Not as a punishment, but because they were not if full communion with the Church.  Receiving the Eucharist is a privilege, not a right.  Excommunication does not mean she is no longer Catholic.  It means she has committed such a grave offense that without repentance she is not able to fully participate in the Church.  Excommunication is actually for her benefit.  It is a call for her to make it right with God.
It’s a clarion call.  A warning.  Danger!  Your soul is in danger! Turn Back!

Christine,

These are not hypothetical scenarios, they are actual events. The Church is cruel and unjust to deny Christ’s love to these people.

No one is denying Christ’s love to anyone.  The woman walked away from Christ’s love.  Christ does not answer to the Church.  The Church answers to Christ.  These are God’s laws, not the Churches.  Anytime the woman wants to repair her relationship with God, she can do so.

Christ’s love is forever.  He IS love.  He cannot cease to be Himself.  He cannot help but love.  His love cannot be kept from anyone.  No one has that power.  Jesus still loves that woman very, very much.  He loves her enough to discipline her and show her what she has done was wrong.  He can’t wait for her to learn that lesson and come back. Either can the Church. 

Jesus also loved those babies very, very much.

You know Christine.  There is only one sin that is unforgivable. That is the sin of refusing forgiveness.  And that lies on the shoulders of the one who refuses that forgiveness, not on the one that forgives all.  Anyone who has had an abortion has only to ask, and she will be forgiven.

MK
“Again, I say, HUH????  Where is this happening?  Tell me?  I want to know!  Cuz I’ve never heard of Catholics going around and forcing people to a. BE Catholic b. NOT use condoms .  And what in Murphy’s name does the Catholic Church have to do with Rwanda or Darfur?  Please…show me ONE, just ONE place where the Catholic Church (NOT A CATHOLIC PERSON) but the CHURCH HERSELF is encouraging violence?  And the holocaust?  You’re blaming THAT on the Catholic Church???  Girl, you either have serious anger issues or are paranoid.”
.
Tell me, are you this dense all the time, or is this a special occasion?
I did not say, that Catholics go around forcing people to be Catholic, not use condoms, etc. And while the Church itself is not a person, it is supposedly run by persons who dictate the Catholic faith. I do say that most Catholics are Catholic because they have been born an raised as Catholics and Church policy terrifies them with excommunication and twists information so they have nothing to compare their faith with any other philosophy so they can “choose” to be Catholic or not.
.
First a little history—enjoy a video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1YHkwcHf_4
.
You made the distinction between Catholic people and the Catholic Church, with is not a “person”, but an organization run by Catholic people. It’s somewhat like the distinction between a lone rapist and an organization run by rapists that encourages its followers to believe rape philosophy, while not (publicly) raping anyone themselves (or at least hiding it well).
While the Church has an excellent publicity department, it does produce Catholics who behave very badly—so either Catholic teaching is wrong, or it is ineffective against violent behavior and needs something else to justify its existence.
.
This article might interest you:
http://www.enotes.com/catholic-church-reference/catholic-church
.
A quote regarding Rwanda:
“The main allegation concerning the Church is that it switched its allegiance from the Tutsi elite to the creation of a Hutu-led revolution, thereby assisting in Habyarimana’s subsequent rise to power in a majority Hutu state. In terms of the actual genocide, critics once again hold the Church directly responsible for inciting hatred, sheltering perpetrators, and failing to protect those who sought refuge within its walls. There are also those who believe that, as the spiritual leader of the majority population in Rwanda, the Church is morally responsible for failing to take all available measures to end the killing.”
.
Girl, if you Google “Vatican Crimes” you’ll find lots of articles. But, I don’t expect you want to make that effort. The Church is an evil influence on its followers and causes them to commit awful crimes in the name of faith.
.
Also, Girl, why do you consider it a bad thing to get angry when you see people being abused? Is it better that a father beats his child rather than a total stranger?

mk,
Yes, I understand the distinction you make between aborting the babies and at least giving them the chance to live, as unlikely as that may have been in this case. But doesn’t this seem like hair-splitting here? You seem to suggest that performing a much more invasive C-section on this 9 year old would be morally superior to an abortion, even though the babies would certainly die, and this could possibly be condoned by the Church. If so, I think we would actually find ourselves in agreement on at least a portion of Church teaching on abortion, since the goal here is to save the life of the mother.
-
I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but I suspect that this is your personal opinion rather than the Church position. The Archbishop certainly didn’t hint at this in the interview, although he advocated waiting until 6 months gestation to try to save the babies. But my hypothetical question to you in my last post went unanswered, perhaps because you were responding to Christine’s similar question.

You know Christine.  There is only one sin that is unforgivable. That is the sin of refusing forgiveness.  And that lies on the shoulders of the one who refuses that forgiveness, not on the one that forgives all.  Anyone who has had an abortion has only to ask, and she will be forgiven.
.
And if they are not sorry for their decision? Do you suggest that they are responsible for their situation, made a painful decision that was the lesser of two evils (in their own thinking, not the Church’s) and “admit” they were wrong? Is that the Church’s “love,” or the Church’s demand that you submit its will or it will abandon you to the wolves?
.
The Church is an abusive lover.

Oh, what and the mainstream media is not biased? Lol. Whatever…in the end, no one has the authority to extinguish an innocent soul but God. What is ‘good’ or what is ‘bad’ is secondary to our soul’s goal of becoming a Saint. I assure you, you won’t become a Saint by exterminating a soul that has been created by God and for God. This is regardless of how you reason it within your biased and limited understanding of the world. If it’s too hard to accept from us, then I suggest you seek a direct encounter with God so you can understand him. I gave a basic outline of one way to do this in a previous post. When the time comes though, don’t say no one offered you the truth ;) Luvya guys

Oh, and I forgot to mention a very important part. You can always truly repent, and your sins will be forgiven! Yay!!! Seriously!!! Like, right now, as you read this, you can decide to repent! Common!!!

MK,
You have written so many comments on this line that suggest that you are not dealing with reality at all
.
The Church says Christ “loves” everyone, yet you’re assuming that everyone wants that love, just as a rapist can’t comprehend why any woman would not desire him to “make love” to her all the time. If she doesn’t want it, something must be wrong with her, and all she needs is a “good f**k” to make her know she really wants it. Then she’ll be begging for more.
.
Sorry if the F-word offends you, but that’s just how it sounds. You have been seriously mind-f**ked, girl.

ioannes: if you want to reduce religion to social work, USAID and Doctors Without Borders (secular organizations) do social work fairly convincingly.  A fair number of the doctors and nurses I know identify as atheist or agnostic.  I’d imagine a fair number of the doctors and nurses you see may very well identify similarly, assuming of course they’ve had some sort of education (education in biological sciences in particular).

Christine! Yes!!! You are the kind of God-refusing person I have no problem accepting. You have described exactly what eternal damnation is: The willful self refusal of God’s Love. It is souls like yours that God says… You sure? Ok! Bye-bye! Next!

Steve b… seriously? At least grow a pair like Christine and don’t hide behind lame excuses. This is for YOUR personal encounter with Christ. YOU do what YOU gotta do to fund these trips into remote areas and fulfill this ENTIRE list with humanities’ worse off. Some sell their car, others take out a mortgage, I dunno that’s your problem. Your the one who doesn’t believe not me.
1) Feed the hungry (Haiti is a good place for that)
2) Give drink to the thirsty (You can find a village that doesn’t have access to water in a place like Africa and build a well. Be careful with rampant diseases though. If you die, at least you died doing good!).
3) Welcome a stranger into your house (This is a hard one. If your family complains, then Jesus tells us that he didn’t come to bring peace but to pit Father against Son and that your enemies will be within your own household).
4) Clothe the naked ( It is hard to find a naked person, except maybe in remote areas where malnourished children roam naked).
5) care for the ill (sisters of charity in India would be a great place for that).
6) visit the prisoner (Whoah there some pretty bad prisons in the third world… Take necessary precautions).
***This is just to have a personal encounter with Jesus. If you still refuse God after personally encountering him, then that’s your own choice and you can join Christine, but at least you won’t be a baby!

What excuses am I making?  I’m simply pointing out to you that many people do the kinds of things you mention without religious motivation.  Further, other people (such as Hamas) do the same sorts of work but may have a slight disagreement with your religion.  That’s all.

My brother, please forgive my suggesting that you didn’t have a pair and were a baby. I see now that you have not understood. If you would like me to explain I will. Peace!

While the Church has an excellent publicity department, it does produce Catholics who behave very badly—so either Catholic teaching is wrong, or it is ineffective against violent behavior and needs something else to justify its existence.

Sweetie, that statement is illogical.  It’s like saying that all cats have four legs…dogs have four legs…therefore dogs are cats.

Seriously, try to follow what I am going to say.  A lot of people make the mistake you just did so I’m not going to fault you.  However, this is a learning opportunity, and it is one of the reasons I said your debating skills are lacking.  I’m not trying to be condescending, tho I could understand you taking it that way. I am honestly trying to give you a tip on logical arguments…‘kay?

The Church, first of all, does not dictate anything.  You need to hear that and internalize it, because every time you say that it does, we stop listening.  It only shows that you do not have a clear understanding of Catholicism and makes everything that follows, suspect.

The Church proposes, and proposes only, a way of looking at the world.  People are free to accept it or reject it.  Her power ends there.  She is not an institution that has a book of rules and demands that you dot all your “i’s” and cross all you “T’s” although I can see how a non-catholic might think so.  She has looked at every moral dilemma that has ever come up and had her most brilliant members discern the dilemmas and weigh in on what she THINKS the morally correct thing to do is.  What you call dictating (DO THIS OR ELSE) is actually simply enlightening (AFTER GREAT CONSIDERATION, OUR VIEWPOINT IS THIS).  Again, a person can take her advice, or not.  And she got this Wisdom from God Himself, not from any personal desire to control peoples lives.

I’m pretty sure I’ve lost you already, but I’ll try anyway.

To recap.  The Church does not dictate, she proposes.  People are free to accept or reject her advice.  Her wisdom comes from the Holy Spirit and not human opinion.

NOW, this moral viewpoint, which has been well thought out, can be read by anyone who has the desire to know what the Church teaches.

There is the Catechism, 2,000 years of writings, encyclicals, papal bulls, etc.  So it would be clear to anyone who took the time, exactly what the Church taught on any issue.

That said, there are people who call themselves Catholic, who do not take the advice of the Church and do evil things.  What makes these things evil is (and pay attention here, because your entire argument rests on this one point)...what makes these things evil, is the fact that these people are…going AGAINST what the Church Teaches.  NOT, as you say, because they are FOLLOWING what the Church Teaches.  Did you get that? 

What makes their actions EVIL, is that they are going AGAINST what the Church teaches and NOT because they are FOLLOWING what the Church teaches.

Again, I am not trying to be condescending.  I really, really, really am trying to help you make better arguments.

So, when you say that the Hutus, or Hitler, or the inquistion or anyone else, was Catholic and Evil, you have to also say, that they were evil, precisely BECAUSE, they stepped AWAY from Catholic Teaching.

Your assertion that the Catholic Church is bad, because some Catholics behave badly, is like saying the ENTIRE police department is bad because SOME police officers act badly.  But we both know that those police officers are bad, precisely BECAUSE they DIDN’T follow department rules.
NOT because the police force TOLD them to be bad, but because they BROKE AWAY from what the police for proposed.

Same thing with teachers.  Some teachers molest children.  Does this make the entire profession of teaching bad?  Or are those teachers bad precisely because they were not acting like TEACHERS???  Do you see?

The Catholic Church is not in the business of forcefully preventing violence.  She has never claimed to be.  She IS in the business of proclaiming the Gospel.  IF a person follows that Gospel then they will not act in an evil manner.  You seem to want it both ways.  You a. want the Church to back off and go out of business because she is a dictator ship that forces Her members to behave a certain way and b. you want her to go out of business because she doesn’t force her members to behave in certain ways.  Which is it?

The fact is, she doesn’t FORCE anyone to do or not do ANYTHING.  She PROPOSES.  The rest is up to the individual.

Christine,

As for your links…the video was so biased and filled with rhetoric that I won’t even bother to address it.  The second link, if you read it, confirms what I have been saying.  From the article:

Defending other claims of direct action by the Church in the instigation and promotion of discrimination that later led to genocide is much less tenable.

Insisting that the Church adopt a particular strategy of public condemnation in the face of atrocities, rather than working behind the scenes for individual victims and families, would be unfair.

It is easy to sit here, 1700 years after the fact, and judge the action of Constantine and the Church from our own 21st viewpoint.  That was a different world.  Up to that point, it was the CATHOLICS who were being persecuted, and Constantines conversion put an end to that.  It was also a time when Kings and Religion were synonymous.  Of course things don’t work that way now, but there were no democratic republics in the year 300.  There were monarchies.  The King’s religion was the states religion. 

We have come a long way since then, both politically and theologically.  We stay out of politics.  We don’t “run” countries.  There are very few true monarchies left.  Certainly, there are no Catholic Theocracies in our day and age.  Hindsight is 20/20 and it is easy to say could have/would have/should have from the safety of a country that prides itself on Freedom.  But that is not how the world has always worked.

All this is not to say that no Pope has ever made a human error.  To be sure, in human terms, they have made many.  The Church does not claim to be perfect in all things.  The only place she is protected is in matters of Faith and Morals.  In all other things she is as subject to faulty thinking as anyone else.  There is the Divine Church, ruled by the Holy Spirit and transmitted by men, and there is the human church, full of men who make mistakes.  Some of them are even evil. 

In the case of Rwanda, any priest or nun who incited murder will have to face their maker one day.  Those would be evil actions, and wearing a collar is no guarantee that you will not go to hell. 

Christine,

Also, Girl, why do you consider it a bad thing to get angry when you see people being abused? Is it better that a father beats his child rather than a total stranger?

I hate to repeat myself, but “HUH”?

Zeke,

Thanks for not holding a grudge…again, I’m sorry I was snarky earlier…

But doesn’t this seem like hair-splitting here? You seem to suggest that performing a much more invasive C-section on this 9 year old would be morally superior to an abortion, even though the babies would certainly die, and this could possibly be condoned by the Church.

How did the “dead” babies get out of her womb?  That is an important question.  Why did they have to be dead?  They were taken from her womb somehow…why would that procedure be any less traumatic than taking them alive?

But more importantly, are you proposing that avoiding a C-section is justification for murder?  Let’s not forget that the only person here that is guilty of a crime is the man who impregnated that poor little girl.  He is to blame for the child needing a “C-section” (if she need one).  It was a horrible thing to do, and resulted in a 9 year old probably being scarred for life.  But it seems like all the anger that should be directed towards him, is being directed towards the Catholic Church for trying to do the right thing.

You are just assuming she would have to have a C-section.  Nowhere have we been told that she couldn’t deliver those babies naturally.  But let’s suppose that she couldn’t.  Isn’t the live of two human beings worth the risk of a relatively simple operation (all operations have risks, but a C-section is not open heart surgery).  If the girl had appendicitis you would accept the risk of an appendectomy to save her life.  Why wouldn’t you accept the risk of a C-section to save the lives of her two children?  Once you accept that the two unborn babies are of equal value as their mother, then you can no longer make value judgements like “Why put the mother through a C-section”.

If these twins were 2 years olds and needed a blood transfusion (I realize you couldn’t force the mother to give the her blood) would you ever say “Why should a mother go through the trauma of a blood transfusion just to save her 2 year old daughters?”...No, of course not, because you have placed a great value on a 2 year old than an unborn child.  You view the 2 year olds as equal to the mother.  BUT, in the case of the 9 year old and her unborn children, you have given greater value to the mother than her babies. 

This is because we live in a society where what we see has greater value.  What we can’t see has less value.  We don’t see those unborn babies.  They are like “idea’s” to us, not like real people.  But the Church and I do not see them like this.  We don’t discern their value by how much they resemble us, or whether or not we have an emotional response to them.  Whether they are the size of a sesame seed and look like a shrimp, or 2 years old and talking and walking, they are equally human.  Just in different stages of life.  We view them as OBJECTIVELY human, not SUBJECTIVELY human.

Viewing them subjectively allows us to value them based on whether or not they are wanted.  An unborn child of 7 months gestation that is wanted is viewed as a person while an unborn child of 7 months gestation that is NOT wanted, is viewed as dispensable.  The Church does not use subjectivity when discerning Truth.  Truth for us is objective.  Human life has an objective value that does not change based on age, location, or usefulness.  Human beings are subjects who value is objective.  They are not objects whose value is subjective.

Christine,

The Church says Christ “loves” everyone, yet you’re assuming that everyone wants that love

Now you’re just being obtuse…

Here is what I said:

“You are aware that these people CHOSE to be Catholics, right?  That no one put a gun to their heads?  That they could leave anytime the wanted to (oh, wait, they did) and that the Church was simply stating how canon law says a Catholic must behave to remain a practicing member?  No one HAS to follow Canon Law.  You certainly don’t.  Zeke certainly doesn’t.  So who does….hmmm…oh yes, those that CHOOSE to be Catholic.”

So clearly, (to most of us at least, can’t speak for you) I am aware that not everyone wants His love.  That is, after all, what CHOICE means.

What part of “anytime she wants she can return to His love” is throwing you for a loop?

Maybe if I state it differently?  At anytime she WANTS His love, it is there for her.  At anytime she does NOT want His love, she is free to refuse it.

Keep in mind that MY statement was in response to YOUR accusation that the Church was KEEPING His love from her. 

ioannes:

“It is souls like yours that God says… You sure? Ok! Bye-bye! Next!”
.
I wouldn’t object to Catholics worshiping that sort of God, but they worship the Church, which continues to insist that it knows what I really want and there is something wrong with me because I don’t want it. So, out of “love for me they will force their philosophy on me until the “ecstasy” of their “love” is revealed to me. Then I will stop protesting because the Church has revealed the TRUTH!
.
MK:
“What makes these things evil is (and pay attention here, because your entire argument rests on this one point)...what makes these things evil, is the fact that these people are…going AGAINST what the Church Teaches.  NOT, as you say, because they are FOLLOWING what the Church Teaches.  Did you get that?
“
So Catholics who work against what the Church teaches are bad according to because whatever evil they perpetuate is against the teaching of the Church. Does this include the Catholics of the Inquisition and Crusades who were urged by the Pope of the times to do their torture, raping and pillaging? The virtual mandate of the Church to eliminate all witches and heretics by burning them alive after torturing them into confession so they can justify their execution? So these clergy were not EVIL because they were following what the Church was teaching at the time, not working against it?
.
You obviously choose to ignore my rapist analogy to the Church’s attitude toward people who doubt and “act against” the Church’s teachings, even in a life-threatening emergency. Rapists tend to tell their victims that she “asked for it” and they are the “true victims” because the woman “tempted them to sin.”  The also know how to twist a situation to make them feel better about themselves. I think you’ll find that the Church does not declare rapists excommunicated (e.g. the stepfather of that 9-year-old child).
.
It seems just as easy for you, a few years after the fact, to sit back and declare that the parents and doctors “chose” to act against the Church and therefore deserve to be labeled “excommunicated” by the Church until they repent the decision to save their daughter’s life under any circumstances. You suggest that maybe their faith did not mean as much to them as yours does to you. Tell me, what is the “penalty” of excommunication for?
.
You’re very confident of you interpretation of Church history as a benevolent influence. You have used the Churches definition of good and evil and have no sense of it on your own. You gave the Church your will to think for your self and don’t even realize what it cost you. You can sit back and justify all the suffering the Church inspires it’s followers to inflict because the Church as defined EVIL as anything and anyone that offends the Church. You honestly don’t understand why we protest what the Church does to people and society.
.
Like I wrote above, Girl, you have been mindf**ked.

Zeke,

This is not my personal opinion, but the Churches Teaching.  I was wrong on one point however, and that is that you would need to wait until the child is viable before you could take it from the womb.  So, yes, in the case of the 9 year old, it would be a waiting game.  Which is why the priest chose the 6 month mark. 

If you read the article below you will note that in the case of something like an ectopic pregnancy, it would be morally acceptable to remove the “organ” that is causing the threat of life to the mother, even if said organ contained the embryo, because you would not be willing the death of the child to save the mother, but rather be removing the organ that was threatening her life which resulted in the unintended death of the child.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm

Keep in mind, as Christine refuses to do, that these are proposals to those who wish to live in the Light of Christ’s Love and not laws that are intended to be forced on those who have no desire to follow Divine Law.  For a Catholic, taking the life of an unborn child is intrinsically evil…wrong under ALL circumstances. This is because we take a much broader view of life and especially life after physical death.  To someone who does not “believe”, it would not make sense to make moral choices based on what will happen to us after we die, but IF you accept that there is life after death, and a judgment to be made on our moral actions, certain behaviors that might seem strange to you, could make perfect sense to us.

If we are wrong, and there is no God, we have not done anything more immoral than someone who has an abortion.  To kill an unborn child is no different than to kill an adult.  If there is no afterlife, then aborting or not aborting are equally moral.  While you could then not be pronounced guilty for taking an unborn child’s life to save the mother, we could not be found guilty for allowing a mother to die to save her unborn children.

It all rests on our premises. If God exists (as we understand Him) then abortion is wrong.  If he doesn’t exist then taking the mother’s life or taking the unborn babies lives are equally good or bad depending on where you fall on abortion.  Killing someone is equal to killing someone, no matter what their age.  The Church simply sides on the side of trying not to kill anyone.  But Nature exists and people die.  We accept that.  But dying from nature taking it’s course is not the same as causing said death.  Christian or not, that is still considered “murder”.

MK, I really do appreciate your posts, you explain the Church’s position so much better than I am able to.

Christine,

So Catholics who work against what the Church teaches are bad according to because whatever evil they perpetuate is against the teaching of the Church.

I don’t recall saying that anywhere.  I don’t even recall intimating it.  You may have inferred it, but I did not imply it.

Does this include the Catholics of the Inquisition and Crusades who were urged by the Pope of the times to do their torture, raping and pillaging?

Of course.  It stands for ANYONE, priest, pauper or King (including, perhaps especially,  the Pope), who acts in an evil manner).

So these clergy were not EVIL because they were following what the Church was teaching at the time, not working against it?

The Church, as a teaching Authority, was not teaching this at the time.  A Pope, (if what you are claiming is true and I am not saying that it is) according you, was encouraging this behavior.  If that is true, then that Pope was in error.  But Pope and Teaching Authority do not ALWAYS mean the same thing.  NOWHERE does the Church officially teach that torturing other human beings is “good”.  In fact, it teaches the opposite.  Clearly, anyone, Pope or otherwise, that was doing so, was going against Church Teaching.  Repeat after me.  God does not answer to the Church.  The Church answers to God.  Say it three times.  Maybe it will sink in.  If Jesus taught, and He did, that we are to love one another and to forgive our enemies, then the Church could not possible teach otherwise.  No matter what some Pope said.  Capiche?

You obviously choose to ignore my rapist analogy to the Church’s attitude toward people who doubt and “act against” the Church’s teachings, even in a life-threatening emergency.

Yes I do.  Until and if you can prove that the Catholic Church is in any way comparable to a club of Rapists, your argument is without merit. 

The Catholic Churches purpose is not to perpetuate evil.  No matter what you think.  A Club of Rapists sole purpose IS to perpetuate evil. 

Again,  your debating skills are faulty.  So yes, I am ignoring your analogy.

Now if you want to use an analogy comparing the Medical Association and ask that if certain doctors were to violate oaths that they took, or to act in medically unethical manners, would the medical community have the right to take away their license, my answer would be yes.

If a person belongs to the Catholic Church and acts in a manner that is directly opposed to Catholic Teaching, then the Church has the right to remove them from the community.

Your scenario is starting on the premise that the Catholic Churches intentions are evil, and that assertion is erroneous.

Like I wrote above, Girl, you have been mindf**ked.

That is your opinion and you are free to maintain.  But as we have seen, your reasoning skills are not exactly glowing examples of critical thinking, and so I will consider the source.

Personally, I have studied the Church for the past 20 years and have found HER reasoning, unlike yours, to be sound and reasonable.  Given the choice between following your reasoning which is so full of holes I could use it to drain noodles, and following the 2,000 year old traditions of the Church, founded on minds like Augustine, Aquinas and our present Pope, I think I’ll stick with the Church, thank you very much.

You know, another thing the evil Church teaches is humility.  The idea that maybe, just maybe, you aren’t God’s gift to the world of reason.  Perhaps, just sayin’, perhaps, you don’t know everything?

Thank you Joan.  As they say, Truth speaks for itself.  I’m sorry that you let Christine upset you so.  Her skills at dialogue are so lacking, that it is not worth raising your blood pressure.  The pity is that she seems to be fairly intelligent.  If she would only take the time to listen instead of spout off, hoping to sound clever, she might even get to the point where she had a few good arguments.  It’s one thing to be snarky when the substance of your statements is sound, another to be snarky when your arguments are at the level of a 3rd grader.  Perhaps with practice and time, she will be a formidable foe.  For now, however, I feel like I am arguing with a emotionally charged teenager.  However, I myself was once young and full of spit and vinegar and probably sounded very much like her.  Skills are acquired and honed over time and with practice.  Just think of yourself as her practice game.  You’re actually doing her a service. 

Don’t tell Christine, but she’s actually growing on me.  I certainly admire her spunk!

Hey Mk, it was nice to read your thoughts on how the Church proposes. Good Work.

Dear Christine, I think I spot something that can help this frustration that you feel towards us when we defend the Church, and that is, a proper knowledge of history. There are many books out there that I can recommend, however I know you will not read them all, so here’s one that’s quick and easy to read. You can get a used copy for like 5 bucks

http://www.textbooks.com/BooksDescription.php?BKN=694308&mcid=XCS-GoogleBase-9780761516040-M&utm_medium=shoppingengine&utm_term=9780761516040M&utm_source=googlebase&utm_campaign=mplink#mplistings

Ioannes,

Hey Mk, it was nice to read your thoughts on how the Church proposes. Good Work.

Thanks, but I gotta credit Francis Cardinal George for that…I learned it straight from his mouth at a Conference. 

Hey MK, I heard you mention Foster Ave. beach one time, and now Francis Cardinal George. You wouldn’t be in Chicago would you? I am born and raised in Chicago, but live in New Mexico now. I grew up around Cicero and Fullerton Ave.

MK, no problem with my blood pressure, either! :)

Yeah.  Chicago.  I grew up in Jefferson Park and don’t live far from there now.  I went to Res.  A loooooong time ago! lol

mk,
I read the link you provided. It indeed seems clear that removing a fetus before it is viable is considered murder:
-
“the question whether when the mother is in immediate danger of death and there is no other means of saving her life, a physician can with a safe conscience cause abortion not by destroying the child in the womb (which was explicitly condemned in the former decree), but by giving it a chance to be born alive, though not being yet viable, it would soon expire. The answer was that he cannot.”
-
Regarding ectopic pregnancies, the distinction seems to hinge on whether “the fetal life is thereby directly attacked”, which to my mind still seems like needless hair-splitting, since there is no possible other outcome than the death of the fetus by “removing the organ that was threatening her life”.
-
So in a very roundabout way, we are back to the morality of allowing a girl (in my example, my daughter or your daughter) to die unless her fetuses are destroyed. Let us agree that there are these very situations, rare as they may be, and that in this example, the fetuses are not viable. It is very clear (now) what the Church teaches, so I suppose my question is that are you so very sure that the Church is teaching what God actually wants in these situations? What lesson through suffering could a 9 year old girl learn from dying in this way? What about the fact that an abortion would result in at least the survival of one life, rather than the certain death of three? 
-
If your answer involves “it’s a mystery” or “we can’t know the ways of God”, I will be disappointed. Isn’t it just possible that the Church has got this one wrong? Would you actually bet your daughter’s life on it?

lol…no, it’s not a mystery.  But remember, our first principle is that we believe that only God can give life an only God can take life away. 

Let me throw a hypothetical scenario at you.  Forget about the nuances or details or even the possibility of it ever really happening.  Just focus on the situation. 

Say a mother and her five year old go into a Convenience store.  While there a man comes in to rob it.  The mother angers the man somehow and he shoots her.  He hits a vital organ.  She doesn’t die, the man leaves, an ambulance comes and the woman is taken to the hospital.  The doctors determine that if the organ that was hit must be replaced within 30 minutes or she will die.  There is only one person in the entire world who has an organ that will be a close enough match to insure she will live.  That organ is inside of her five year old daughter.  A choice has to be made now between allowing the woman to die, or killing her daughter so that she can live.

I know the analogy is not perfect and I haven’t thought it completely through.  I also realize that this circumstance could never actually occur.  The point however, is that I am sure you would say, that under no circumstances would it be morally right to kill the 5 year old to save the mothers life.  I propose that the reason this is so clear to us, while the case with the nine year old is not, is that we can see, touch, speak to the 5 year old, while the unborn twins are just ‘concepts”, not real people as we think of them.

But the reality, is that those twins are as alive and fully human as the five year old.  So how can we ever justify killing the child to save the mother, unless, we put a greater value on one life.  Once you start playing God and placing values on some lives that are greater than the values you place on other lives, you open up a huge can of worms.  Are disabled people less valuable than able people?  Mentally handicapped?  The elderly?  The terminally ill?  Who decides?  Where does it end?  Isn’t this what happened in the holocaust.

The bottom line is that either all live is equally valuable, or no life is safe.  Do you see that?

As for it being my daughter, I can honestly say, that while heart wrenching,  yes, I would have to decide as the Church does.  Not because the Church does, but because I believe they are right.

If that 9 year old died, you are right, she wouldn’t have learned any lesson, but she would now be in heaven and would no longer care. 

Of course, you have to accept the premise that there is a God, and a heaven to go to.  If that premise is wrong, then all of it is wrong.  But if the Church is wrong on this, she would cease to be the Church.

MK, I went to Notre Dame H.S. on Mango. They are no longer in that building I heard. After I got married we had an apartment near the Cumberland train station.

MK-I’m starting in the middle here as I have not had time to read all the comments since my last post.
“
The point however, is that I am sure you would say, that under no circumstances would it be morally right to kill the 5 year old to save the mothers life.  I propose that the reason this is so clear to us, while the case with the nine year old is not, is that we can see, touch, speak to the 5 year old, while the unborn twins are just ‘concepts”, not real people as we think of them”
.
Talk about having lousy debating skills—how many times does it have to be repeated to you?
THE MOTHER WAS A 9-YEAR-OLD CHILD.
HER UTERUS WAS TOO SMALL TO BEAR A CHILD TO TERM.
THE EMBRYOS CREATED FROM HER BEING RAPED BY HER STEPFATHER
WOULD NEVER, NEVER, NEVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE DEVELOPED
TO THE POINT WHERE THEY CAN LIVE OUTSIDE THE WOMB.
.
Stop making up straw-man arguments to support you cold-hearted choice to justify the Church’s declaring her parents excommunicated for saving their daughter’s life.
.
From my glancing over your comments, I can only say what you call “faith” I would call “Stockholm Syndrome.”
What is it about my rape analogy that bothers you? The suggestion of rape, or the implication that the Church fosters rape-like mentality in it’s followers? There are times when I certainly feel stalked by a Church that claims to “love” me, but wants me to do something I don’t want to do and that I think is immoral. As a Catholic faith defender, you keep telling me I don’t know what I want, because I don’t know the love of the Catholic Church—and it knows what I really want.
.
How would you feel if your daughter was dating an abusive man who did not want her to think for herself. What if he threatened, either verbally or by his attitude, that he would beat your child if she did something he didn’t like? Or if he though she was flirting with another man just by talking to him? Wouldn’t you interfere to get your daughter away from such a relationship, no matter how convinced she was “in love” with the creep?.
.
I find the Church to be totally creepy any your relationship to it to be totally abusive and dangerous. It also make you a dangerous person, though you wouldn’t think so. All rapists think they have good cause for what they are doing to others, and don’t understand why their “help” is rejected or resented.
.
I don’t accept your opinion that I am lousy at debate unless you give me more reason than your say so. You do tend to cherry-pick the statements you think your “Church can only love people and it is a Catholic’s own fault no matter what.” stance, which is an arrogant load of crap in my opinon. You give no evidence that you can think for your self without authority from Church doctrine. The Church does dictate to you and you don’t dare oppose its dictates for fear of excommunicating yourself.
.
Girl, if you don’t like the term “mindf**d” would you preferr “brainwashed” or “drugged,” or “lobotomized?” In any case it’s like rape because you do not have the capability to think for yourself.

she obviously does think for herself, you just can’t accept that she and the church agree.  Why are you so hell bent to think that ANY of YOUR thoughts are somehow Original.  I have not read ONE ORININAL thought that you have writtn.  Oh, never mind PRIDE!

No amount of explanation will convince especially if they are so narrow-minded and dogmatic in their own beliefs. Only an encounter with the Living God will suffice. All we can do is pray for that to happen, but since God will not impose Himself, they need to open their heart at least a little bit to allow Him to enter in. With atheists, they need to believe in God first, then we with His help can work on the rest.

MK
“
The Church, as a teaching Authority, was not teaching this at the time.  A Pope, (if what you are claiming is true and I am not saying that it is) according you, was encouraging this behavior.  If that is true, then that Pope was in error.  But Pope and Teaching Authority do not ALWAYS mean the same thing.  NOWHERE does the Church officially teach that torturing other human beings is “good”.  In fact, it teaches the opposite.  Clearly, anyone, Pope or otherwise, that was doing so, was going against Church Teaching.  Repeat after me.  God does not answer to the Church.  The Church answers to God.  Say it three times.  Maybe it will sink in.  If Jesus taught, and He did, that we are to love one another and to forgive our enemies, then the Church could not possible teach otherwise.  No matter what some Pope said.  Capiche?”
.
Oh, my bad—I forgot your excuse for the Galileo business. So, the Church is totally Good, it’s teachings are totally good, and if you follow its teachings, it follows that you are totally good in the Church’s eyes. Is that what you are saying?
.
So, tell me, would you know the difference between good and evil without the Church’s teaching? Would you have been able to figure something out for yourself? Or do you just sit and take the Church’s word for it because the Church told you that its teachings were the ONE truth and what ever anybody else teaches is lies?
.
The logical argument is:
.
If the truth is what the Church teaches it is, then the truth is relative to the Church (which, as it is run by men, can change its definition of truth at any time.)
.
If the truth is an objective reality and the Church teaches it, anybody else can as well, so is the Church really better than any other entity that teaches the objective reality of truth.
Or, if mankind can figure out the objective reality of Truth and acts accordingly, why do you need a Church?
.
So, the question in another way: do you believe that the Church defines the truth (e.g. the difference between good and evil) or do you believe truth (e.g. the difference between good and evil) is an objective reality that mankind could figure out by themselves (although they don’t always try to be good)?

MK
“As for it being my daughter, I can honestly say, that while heart wrenching,  yes, I would have to decide as the Church does.  Not because the Church does, but because I believe they are right.”
.
Have you told your daughter this (assuming she is old enough to understand)? Will you tell her at her wedding—“Honey I can’t wait till you tell me that I’ll soon be a grandma, but if the pregnancy goes wrong to early I won’t consent to doctors murdering your nonviable embryo to save your life,” so that she can at least set up advance directives before she has an emergency?
.
Or will you not tell her at all and hope she never regains consciousness and learns you refused to sign the consent form?

joan…I live right near the Cumberland train station.  Used to live even closer.  It’s about 2 miles from me.

I’m going back and forth here, trying to get at all the comments I might have missed.
MK
“Sweetie, that statement is illogical.  It’s like saying that all cats have four legs…dogs have four legs…therefore dogs are cats.”
.
You have to explain why my analogy is illogical. Put another way I mean “the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree,” or “by their fruits you will know them.”
.
I don’t see how you can free the Church from the responsibility of Catholics who do evil because the Church breeds those Catholics. Whether it teaches them not to “go against the way of Christ,” it is obviously ineffective, because Catholics do evil and, except in a few cases, the Church will not excommunicate (or is the term “declare excommunicated” a Catholic that commits a crime—like raping a 9-year-old child.
.
By the way, do you believe it is correct to lie for the Church?
.
http://www.cautionchurchahead.com/2010/11/pope-continues-his-lies-o-and.html
.
https://voicelessvictim.wordpress.com/2011/04/23/top-10-catholic-lies-about-child-rape/
.
http://asiancorrespondent.com/53089/philippines-catholic-church-lies-about-reproductive-health-bill/
.
Why are such scare tactics necessary if contraception were truly evil?

Christine,

I just asked her what she would do and without batting an eye
(I never even brought up the Church btw) she replied and I quote “I’d take my chances.  If I died, so what.  I sure wouldn’t kill the baby”.

My daughter in law gave birth 2 weeks ago.  I was in the room with her when the baby was born. It’s her fourth.  She pulled me aside the night before and said “Listen.  If anything happens and a choice has to be made to save me or the baby, I’m counting on you to save the baby, because you know my mother won’t.  And I want to follow the baby wherever they take it and make sure they do everything for him”...I had not prompted this conversation.  She just knew that her mother would have chosen her over her baby.

Everything worked out fine btw, and the baby is cute as a bug.  Although the daughter I spoke of earlier say he looks a bit like a mandrake.  She is 15 btw, and perfectly capable of understanding what I asked her.

theplummer—you’re back!
“she obviously does think for herself, you just can’t accept that she and the church agree.  Why are you so hell bent to think that ANY of YOUR thoughts are somehow Original.  I have not read ONE ORININAL thought that you have writtn.  Oh, never mind PRIDE!”
.
Well, it depends if we agree on the term “think for herself”. She certainly does not think logically or perceive reality for herself. She finds every Church-written/taught authority as sources to justify her moral thought. I am impressed at how far she would (hypothetically) go—I certainly would not needlessly risk my daughter’s life for a nonviable potential grandchild—seems the same as a spontaneous abortion to me, which can’t be stopped anyway. (Does the Church excommunicate uteruses that won’t carry a defective embryo to term?)
.
I will say, we do have different moral view points, and while she aligns herself with the Catholic Church, I tend to believe her thinking like that of some one who was given Ritalin as a child and it has affected her brain so that she cannot feel good about herself without her weekly (or more often) dose.
.
You seem to think I can’t imagine what it is like to be faithful—the truth is that it is better to have loved and lost than be stuck with the psychopath for the rest of your life.

MK:
“My daughter in law gave birth 2 weeks ago.  I was in the room with her when the baby was born. It’s her fourth.  She pulled me aside the night before and said “Listen.  If anything happens and a choice has to be made to save me or the baby, I’m counting on you to save the baby, because you know my mother won’t.  And I want to follow the baby wherever they take it and make sure they do everything for him”...I had not prompted this conversation.  She just knew that her mother would have chosen her over her baby.

Everything worked out fine btw, and the baby is cute as a bug.  Although the daughter I spoke of earlier say he looks a bit like a mandrake.  She is 15 btw, and perfectly capable of understanding what I asked her.”
.
That’s a lovely story, and I’m glad it worked out. However, as an argument, it falls short. Your sister-in-law was far enough along in her pregnancy that the baby would have been born alive—in fact it was going to be born alive-that was why she was in the hospital. You have made not mention that her life was in danger—just that she gave you advance directives if anything did go wrong. That is an ideal situation. And, good for you that you did not start the conversation—it was her choice.
.
Tell me, what would you have done if she told you she wanted to live and that even if the doctors had to perform a late-term abortion, it is her choice for them to do so? Would you have tried to stop her?

MK—You didn’t have to bring up the Church in that conversation. I’m sure she know’s the Church’s “teaching” (and no other) and gave the answer you wanted.

MK again:
If that 9 year old died, you are right, she wouldn’t have learned any lesson, but she would now be in heaven and would no longer care.

Of course, you have to accept the premise that there is a God, and a heaven to go to.  If that premise is wrong, then all of it is wrong.  But if the Church is wrong on this, she would cease to be the Church.
.
Exactly, and the Church can’t be wrong about heaven, because the Church has declared it can’t be wrong, period. What scares me is that you have lost your own ability to decide for yourself whether the Church is right or wrong about anything. If anything is guilty of the sin of Pride, it is the Church itself, and it breeds Catholics who have so much pride that they dispise anyone who is not of the faith.
.
Your basic premise is that I’m wrong because I don’t follow Christ in the way the Church teaches. Am I evil? or just OK? In your opinion (or I should say the Church’s opinion, since they are one and the same) will my soul go to heaven, if I don’t take up the Catholic faith? Or is it some prize available to “members only?”

MK—one more thing:
.
Even if you don’t like the rapist analogy I made about the Church, can you understand that is how some people regard the Church? Is in inconcievable that a reasonable, intelligent person (no, I am not referring to myself) can find the Church’s relationship with it’s followers parallel to a cult? Can you give a good argument on why the Church isn’t a cult?

Actually, the above question can be directed at anyone.

Joanp62:
“No amount of explanation will convince especially if they are so narrow-minded and dogmatic in their own beliefs. Only an encounter with the Living God will suffice. All we can do is pray for that to happen, but since God will not impose Himself, they need to open their heart at least a little bit to allow Him to enter in. With atheists, they need to believe in God first, then we with His help can work on the rest.”
.
Does that statement make you the spokesperson for free thought?

Cult?  What is a Cult?  I say that any english speaking person has been indoctrinated into a cult.  Look at the facts.  A child is born to english speaking parents, those parents then “indoctrinate” their child into learning how to communicate with them, in both words and meaning.

Let’s see, that child has to be indoctrinated into being potty trained, learn how to not be selfish, learn how to read, learn math. etc.  Each one of those disciplines are “Cults”. 

Anyone whom doesn’t like what values or education parents choose for their child wants to label it a “cult”.  Case in point, the American Government is having a hissy fit about those that choose to “home school” their children.  The government is trying to make homeschool illegal.  Now who is trying to indocrtinate people into a cult? 

Now that you know what a cult is, maybe its time to perform a little introspection on your own godlike indoctrinal desires.

Christine,
If you have a problem with the church asserting the truth that we all have written deep in our hearts then take it up with Jesus, not us.
When Jesus asked them who they thought he was, it was Peter (who was named Simon before Jesus made him into the Rock upon which his Church would be built) who was the only one that had the right answer among all the others.
Jesus tells us that the Rock knew this because the Holy Spirit (3rd Person of the Devine Trinity) revealed this truth to this Rock (in an undemocratic way btw) and then Jesus then guarantees that the Holy Spirit would remain with HIS church, of which HE is Head, and which HE instituted and upon which HE will return.
When Benedict XVI solemnly proclaims something Ex Catedra as this Rock figure person, he’s just asserting stuff that has always been true. Jesus even goes so far as to give the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to this Rock, and he assured us that whatever this Rock binds on Earth will be bound in Heaven!!! This is most heavy stuff!
It is no wonder that smart intellectuals who run out of arguments end up converting to the Catholic Church, as it is the only one that can disarm their arguments. The irony is that they turn out to be Doctors of the Faith like St. Agustine lol… Perhaps we will have Christine as the 34th Doctor of the faith!!! (The last one being St. Therese of Lisseux).

Christine,

you make me tired. 

I just went over your “replies” (and I use the term loosely) and cannot fine one sincere inquiry.  Just insult after insult…or silly argument after silly argument…or repetitions of things that were already covered but which you clearly didn’t read (or more likely didn’t understand).

So until you can actually add something to the conversation or make it worth my while to spend any more time discussing this with you, I will respectfully bow out…

It’s clear to anyone reading this thread that you really, really, really like the sound of your own voice, but the truth is that most of what you say lacks substance.  I encourage you however, to keep practicing.  Some day you might actually make a good debater, especially if passion is any indicator. 

It’s not that I don’t like you or think you have potential, it’s just that your arguments are so weak and filled with vitriol that it’s wearisome getting past the nonsense to find the one little bit of something, anything that might actually be viewed as meaningful.

This might be my opinion, and you can rail all you want that I’m alone in my assessment…that is your prerogative.

Just for fun, let’s do an experiment…

ANYBODY OUT THERE THAT WANTS TO WEIGH IN, IN THE SPIRIT OF FURTHERING CHRISTINES ABILITY TO DEBATE, WOULD YOU LET HER KNOW WHAT YOU THINK OF HER SOCIAL SKILLS IN THE CONTEXT OF COMMENTING ON THIS THREAD…BE NICE, BUT BE HONEST.  I’M NOT ASKING YOU ALL TO BASH HER, BUT TO ENLIGHTEN HER AND POSSIBLY GIVE HER A FEW TIPS ON HOW SHE COULD BETTER GET HER POINTS ACROSS WITHOUT ALIENATING HER AUDIENCE…THANKS ALL.

I guess the best way to help Christine regain her composure, and to help her start a logical mental path toward defending HER version of “moral absolutes” for how a society should interact, is to plainly ask her, so I will.

Christine, is there any written document or creed of beliefs out there that you favor, either completely (as the document stands), or mostly agree with?  If so, could you point us in that direction, and clearly identify any parts of it that YOU object to, that we may understand YOUR belief structure and logic.  Because as of now, you do not appear to prescribe to any ONE path of logic, but rather appear like the resultant thought process is akin to the results of a person who has thrown darts at a dartboard while blindfolded.

theplummer:
Maybe the U.S. government want to prevent home schooling practices like this:
.
http://www.imperfectparent.com/topics/2012/06/14/children-found-bound-blindfolded-at-kansas-walmart-parking-lot/
.
Are you suggesting that The U.S. Government is a cult? Hmmmmm.

theplummer:

“Christine, is there any written document or creed of beliefs out there that you favor, either completely (as the document stands), or mostly agree with?  If so, could you point us in that direction, and clearly identify any parts of it that YOU object to, that we may understand YOUR belief structure and logic.  Because as of now, you do not appear to prescribe to any ONE path of logic, but rather appear like the resultant thought process is akin to the results of a person who has thrown darts at a dartboard while blindfolded.”
.
Yes, there are MANY documents (not creeds) that I mostly agree with, not just ONE. The universe is full of ideas that cannot be consolidated in the Catholic cult.
.
MK:
To your challenge, maybe you should Google “logical fallacies” and learn the correct format of logical thinking.
.
There are to kinds of logical thought-inductive and deductive. Inductive logic is based on experiences that lead to a general conclusion, e.g. “all the sheep I’ve ever seen are white, therefore all sheep are white.” This conclusion is disproved when I see a black sheep-and it would be wise to discard my conclusion and admit that only some sheep are white and some are black. (A third colored sheep would get me to modify my conclusion again.)
.
Deductive logic is based on two or more indisputable premises that inevitably lead to an indisputable conclusion, e.g. the classic: “All humans are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal.”
.
One of the logical fallacies you keep repeating is Circular logic: The Church teaches only the Truth because the Church has declared it is inerrant, therefore whatever the Church teaches must be the TRUTH.
.
Another is: All pregnancies result in live births without danger to the mother, therefore it is wrong to abort an embryo in any circumstance because it is impossible that the mother can die before they embryo becomes viable outside the womb.
.
Girl, of course you’re tired—you keep writing circular fallacies.

Yes, I am.  The pure nature of instiling laws, rules, code of conduct (both behavioral and mental) is a cult.  Cult’s are not necessarily bad, their necessary in society.  Belief in science is a cult, belief in math is a cult.

The struggle here is which cult is both morally correct, and fair to the majority.  There’s a concept among secularists that is schizophrenic in logic that is held to the highest standard, that is cultural relativity.  Cultural relativity dictates that whatever the majority of a society decides is moral, is moral.  The secularists in America prescribe to that fact in words, but not in action.  If cultural relativity were a doctorine that was adhered to fully by secularists, there would be no laws that protect the minority.  Things like no prayer in schools, as the majority of the population is christian.  So called “Gay Marriage”, as the majority of the population is hetrosexual.  Abortion, as there are many more people who choose to carry the child to term than there are that do not want the life to exist.  Divorce, as the majority of people whom marry outweigh by at least 2 to 1 divorce.  But there are laws that portect the “minority” always, under the guys that the minority somehow has to be “protected”. 

The church’s teachings (which are nothing more than a guide to the ultimate moral living, simply because Christ gave us the model for ultimate fairness and morality, that NO MAN can logically circumvent and prove that the morality is wrong (when viewed from the highest moral standpoint), ultimately give the highest moral guidpost for a society to exist upon. 

Remember, to be conservative is to desire less implementation of mandates and control of thoughts by allowing more freedom of thought and actions than being liberal.  Liberal views are always wanting to create “rules” that force the majority away from what would normally be “cultrually relative”.  I.E. force the majority away from their cultural beliefs in order to protect the minority, under the guys of “freedom”.

Do you see the dichotomy here.  It’s just as Christ said it would be, here on earth, what is right is ultimately wrong, and what’s wrong is ultimately right.  Mankind is so flawed (schizophrenic) in logic, that we are ultimately the catalyst to our own demise.  Ironically, Christ clearly identifies that and gives us a guide to absolute morality for us to follow, but we are so infantile that we not only cannot understand what’s good for us, but refuse to implement what’s for our ultimate good. 

This is merely a lack of maturity on our part.  To be mature is to accept what you cannot understand as truth, and choose to conduct yourself in that manner, simply because you trust it because what you do understand is truth also.

I think it was MSGR Fulton Sheen that said, When conincidence reaches to the point of absurdity, one must eventually come to accept it’s truth.  He also said that there are not 100 people in America that KNOW what the church teaches, that Hate the church. 

So, all that HATE the church are the ultimatel biggots, belief in inferiority out of IGNORANCE.

Perhaps if we used her language?
Christine, the world is indeed f*****d. But guess what? If we all thought like you Christine, the world would still be f*****d! How about that? So…. Why don’t you try and come on in to the light dear sister, and realize that what you yearn is Heaven.
As it turns out, it is only when mankind joins God that we are not…................ You have two options; continue to fight for an unattainable good of mankind by never achieving what can only be achieved with God, ooooor accept Jesus Christ as the way, the truth and the light, and fight for the True good of mankind, that, which can only be attained through Him and with Him in unity with the Holy Spirit!
Come into the light!!!

Yes, there are MANY documents (not creeds) that I mostly agree with, not just ONE. The universe is full of ideas that cannot be consolidated in the Catholic cult.

So, you gonna keep them as your little secret.  We Christians hold our creed rigth out in the open for all to see, while non-christians hide theirs from us to debate against.  That’s either by design (no one can argue something from which they are not aware of), or their is not one document that non-believing secularists can come to an agreement on, or a group of documents that do not contradict themselves.

Another fallacy of yours:

Deductive logic is based on two or more indisputable premises that inevitably lead to an indisputable conclusion, e.g. the classic: “All humans are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal.”

Deductive logic is fallable also: Example.  A duck has wings, so does an airplane, both can fly.  Therefore a airplane is a duck.

See, a logically incomplete definition.  What if socratees was a alien.  Just because you’ve never seen an alien, you cannot deduce that he is a man.  I surmise that you are making an assumption here, as you clearly admitted in the sheep exercise, by admitting that you would have to modify what you know, when you see a third colored sheep.

When it comes to Christ’s teachings, it’s us (his children) that do not understand what he teaches.  We use our uneducated minds to draw conclusions, and try to rationalize our behavior away from his teachings, only to find that WE were the one flawed in our assumptions, and as we gain knowledge, we again have to modify our understanding, all the while Christ’s teachings stand the test of time.

I will venture that at some point, scientists will discover (identify) the “soul” gene.  It’s going to be how we rationalize that information as to what we do with it.  Then once that particular gene is discovered, medical science would be prudent to examine aborted babies at different stages of life, including abortions caused from contraception, to see if that soul is in that glob of cells, whereby proving that abortion is murder.  Will you beleive then?

This statement proves your ignorance to christians beliefs:

One of the logical fallacies you keep repeating is Circular logic: The Church teaches only the Truth because the Church has declared it is inerrant, therefore whatever the Church teaches must be the TRUTH.

Please accept this as truth, you have been taught this on numerous occaisions (see above), but you continually deny the truth in what we believe.

We do not beleive that the church teaches only truth because the CHURCH declares it, but rather that GOD HIMSELF declares it.  Where do we get this information from, SACRED SCRIPTURE and TRADITION.  The church did not write one book contained within the bible.  The church did not create one tradition that was not formerly a tradition before that document was created. 

Our faith stems directly from the Hebrew faith, completely.  God came down and clarified our own understanding at that time as wrong, and taught us his real understanding.  Some chose to accept that truth, while others chose to remain ignorant to the truth, just as a child refuses to accept truths revealed to him by his parents.  That’s why you cannot understand us.  We accept his moral teachings as truths, while you remain immature and kick and scream refusing to educate yourself to the truth, and refuse to submit to truth, for truth’s sake.

Our belief in scripture is not circular, but rather spiral, which is logical logic.  You don’t believe me.  Look at the US constitution.  Spiral logic in action.  The document dictates a code of societal conduct, but gives authority of interpretation to a governing body of men (us supreme court). 

Scripture does the same thing.  Timothy 3:15 Gives the CHURCH the authority of interpretation.  Who is the leader of the church, The Papacy.  Just once, I’d like you to gain a little maturity and accept at least this truth instead of being immature and telling us what we beleive, so you can continue with your illogical arguements.

If so, could you point us in that direction, and clearly identify any parts of it that YOU object to, that we may understand YOUR belief structure and logic.

Yes, there are MANY documents (not creeds) that I mostly agree with, not just ONE. The universe is full of ideas that cannot be consolidated in the Catholic cult.

I rest my case…lol

All,

I meant constructive criticism and ways that she could debate better.  Point out things that she does that show why her
“method/style” of debate is ineffectual.

Also, you are not debating us, you are debating the spirit against God. You have a precious opportunity to win this discussion against him by coming into the light.
I assure you, we will al congratulate you for winning over the enemy that seeks to turn us away from God, won’t we guys? All you have to do is say: “okay let’s suppose I want to try this God thing for a moment. Where do I start?”
Win the argument Christine! You can do it!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by ioannes on Tuesday, Jun 19, 2012 8:33 AM (EST):Also, you are not debating us, you are debating the spirit against God. You have a precious opportunity to win this discussion against him by coming into the light.
I assure you, we will al congratulate you for winning over the enemy that seeks to turn us away from God, won’t we guys? All you have to do is say: “okay let’s suppose I want to try this God thing for a moment. Where do I start?”
Win the argument Christine! You can do it!!!!!!!!!!

******
*AMEN!*
******
Please, Christine allow someone to love(agape) you.  As Christ loves you, we (other christians) will try to emulate that love to you as best as we can in our own infant capacity.

Christine,
I realize that we are on the same “side” here, but hyperbolic rhetoric is not always helpful, and I’m afraid it serves to reinforce some negative stereotypes about atheists.
-
mk,
I truly appreciate your candor here, when as you must know, most of those who call themselves Catholic would not allow their daughter to die in this situation. I base this statement on the fact that a majority of Catholic women use (or have used) hormonal birth control pills, which the Church considers abortifacients. It is fair to say that you have more faith than most, and believe that the Church has an absolute bead on the truth. Faith is the correct word here since it acknowledges that the truth is not knowable.
-
As to your analogy to the 5 year old that must die in order to save the mother, yes it is imperfect and could never actually occur, but I think it fails for other reasons. Agreed, if we condone the destruction of fetuses, no matter how old, then we must answer the logical question of why not condone killing them outside the womb at 1 day, 6 months, or 5 years if it would save the mother’s life? We can all agree that this is wrong and should be treated as murder. Who decides? The answer is that we do. Our secular laws, which allot punishments for behavior that we agree are detrimental to our society, determine whether we condone certain acts. That secular laws have sometimes been implemented with tragic consequences for people (the holocaust) does not mean the Bible is true, or even a better source of morality.
-
Although Biblical and secular laws share some common morality, our secular laws are far more moral than the Bible. We can’t read the Bible to determine the answers to situations like the one we are discussing, without cherry-picking the good bits and disregarded what we can all agree are certainly not divinely-mandated morality. Indeed, as others smarter than me have observed, half the kings and prophets of Israel would be taken to The Hague and prosecuted for crimes against humanity for their God-sanctioned atrocities. We can have ethical and spiritual lives without pretending to be certain about things we clearly cannot be certain about.
-
Atheists are often accused of having no moral compass. Yet I doubt you could find a single atheist that would let their daughter die this way, even if they disagreed with abortion. Your claim that “all live is equally valuable, or no life is safe” is fine by me, as long as we continue to define life as we currently do – after the baby is born. Among the problems I have with the Church is that, if it had its way and banned abortion, my daughter’s life would not be safe.

MK, I’ll try.  I never took debate in school, but using vulgarity I believe is a sign of a poor debater. Knee-jerk reactions to what is said, not really listening/reading thoroughly what the other person says, and just responding without giving it much thought. Assuming you know what the person intends, instead of maybe asking, “Please correct me if I’m wrong, but by saying this do you mean that?”
How about just being respectful, civil and charitable? Christine must be under 30, hopefully under 25 because it sure would explain alot. Not that all people under 25 are so highly reactive and immature.

This is unrelated to your question, but I’ve been thinking about when Jesus said, “I came for sinners, not the righteous.” I don’t think he meant that he did not come for good people, but for those who consider themselves righteous in their own estimation, the self-righteous. It seems to me that Atheists don’t just disbelieve in God because they think there is lack of evidence, they also consider themselves quite righteous, moral, and therefore see no need in a God. Believers OTOH, know that they are imperfect, that we have made a mess of the world by the things we do to ourselves and others, and that knowing that all humans are imperfect to varying degrees, know that ultimately, we can not rely completely on other humans, we have to rely on something greater than ourselves.

Zeke,

I know all too well that I am in a minority within the Church.  I don’t fault those whose Faith is not strong…there are so many reasons that this could be so, and I cannot judge them.  I can only say that I believe and am willing to stand by my convictions.  To do less would render my Faith meaningless, to me, and in general.

That secular laws have sometimes been implemented with tragic consequences for people (the holocaust) does not mean the Bible is true, or even a better source of morality.

But see, morality does not come from the Church.  It comes from God.  But one doesn’t have to know or accept that, to know moral truth.

Atheists can be very moral people.  My own brother in law is one of the most moral people I know and he is an adamant atheist.  “Atheists for Life” is proof that you can come to know truth without being a believer.  Of course, I would say that you cannot come to know Truth without knowing God, but that is because God IS Truth…not God is truthFUL, but IS Truth.  To know Truth, to know Love, IS to know God.  But you don’t have to know that you know…see?

As I said earlier, you can admire a piece of artwork or a musical composition, without knowing who the author is.

Earlier, to Helen, (where did she go, anyway?  She was delightful!) I recommended the book “The Abolition of Man” (not to the topic of this thread) by C.S.Lewis.  This book is brilliant and illustrates beautifully what I am saying here.

The premise is that there are three ways to view Moral Truth.  1. That it is objective and comes from outside of us (God)  2. That it is objective and comes from within us (wired in our collective consciousnesses/evolutionary path/genes) and 3. That there are no Moral Absolutes and all morality is relative (like your scenario that societies dictate morality, sometimes getting it right/sometimes getting it wrong).  Part of his argument is that even making a statement like the one you made (that sometimes it’s right/sometimes it’s wrong) shows that there is an innate, objective understanding of right and wrong.  You’re example of the holocaust for example, shows that objectively speaking, even if the society declared the killing of Jews as good, they were “wrong”. 

His point is that if we accept that either of the first two scenarios is correct…that God is the author and authority of Objective Moral Truth, or that there is Objective Moral Truth but we can’t know from whence it comes, that a society will flourish.  If however, as has happened in our culture today, we believe that all truth is subjective, the society will implode.  Hence the title, “The Abolition of Man”.

He presents wonderful arguments (as he always does) and I cannot recommend this book enough.

This is the one area where atheists and believers can actually come together.  Our world is in a world of hurt and if can agree that the only thing that can save us is an adherence to an Objective Morality, then there is hope.  Both for the world, and for peace among people of both persuasions. 

So to take the example of the 5 year old and her mother…If abortion is wrong, why is it wrong.  If it is wrong to kill the 5 year old to save the mothers life, why is it wrong.  If it is wrong to kill the 5 year old, why isn’t it wrong to kill the child still in the womb.  Is it ever okay to kill the 5 year old?  These questions CAN be answered by both Atheists and Catholics (or any Faith based people) if and only if, we are open to the possibility that there IS such a thing as objective right and wrong.  And if there is, are we willing to deny ourselves some pleasures, conveniences or desires to achieve it?  Is it worth fighting for?

Joan,

I think it always goes back to Objectivity.  A four year old, who has no “real” concept of God CAN have a real concept of right and wrong.  Truth speaks for itself.  We might not be able to show that there is a God, but I think we can make a pretty good argument that there is Absolute Moral Truth.  And since we know that God and Truth are one and the same, it’s a step in the right direction.  Truth will take care of the rest, as it speaks for itself.

Our enemy is not atheism.  Our enemy is moral relativism.  I suspect that not all atheists are moral relativists.  And that is the bridge where the two can come together.

I just asked a friend why she “debates” on these sites.  Her response was that she was seeking “good adult conversation”.  I was kind of surprised.  I don’t come to these sites to simply “chat”.  My goal is to share a different way of looking at things and to come to a clearer understanding of what others think.  I hope to enlighten, and be enlightened.  My goal is always to unite and never to divide.  I don’t view the others (no matter what their views) as enemies.  I view them as fellow travelers and I love to hear what they have seen on their journeys thus far, and hear what they have learned.  If I can leave one of these “sessions” knowing something I didn’t before, or helping someone else to see their world a little differently, then I believe I have been successful.  Teaching and learning…exchanging and forming relationships…that’s what it’s all about for me.

Excellent advice to Christine by both Zeke and Joan.  Thanks!

I want to add that on these threads, only so many comments are allowed and then it automatically closes down.  We once asked Matthew Warner to extend the comments and he graciously did.  It seems that once he changed it, it stayed that way and now it shuts down after 750 comments.  Other authors however, shut down after 500 comments.  I don’t know what happens on Jennifers threads, but I suspect the limit is 500.  If we get cutoff in mid sentence, I just want you to leave knowing that I have enjoyed this immensely.  The Catholics on this thread have shown great Charity and clarity and the Zeke, Helen and all…you were truly a pleasure to spend time with.  Thank you for your courtesy and respect.
Christine, I hope you take the advice that you have been given and try to remain respectful, stay on point and remember to attack the idea, not the person.  Think before you hit the send button.  Ask yourself…is this how I want others to see me?  I have the feeling if you keep practicing, in four or five years you will be a formidable foe!  I look forward to dialoguing with you at that time.  Peace, “girl”... ;)

Okay, back to the topic(s) at hand…

Whoops… looks like Zeke has made a god of himself… Only the powerful grace of God would be able to cut through all the bull in that head :s… We shall pray!

Darn, I’m sorry for my last post. God Bless you MK for being a cool roman and engaging in debate. These same debates have forged Catholicism’s awesomeness for centuries. I guess Zeke just reminds me of the old ex hippie pro-aborts I encounter in front of the mills that think they have such a solid grasp on intellectuality and reason and fail to see what happens before their very eyes. They think they’re so novel when people like them brought on the reign of terror in france centuries ago…
As a young person, I see that Christine has got a hint of knowing that present day society won’t satisfy her and if only she could see that the only place where she will find what she yearns is in the unparalleled deepness of the faith she would be in peace at last… Win the debate Christine!

ioannes,

Really?  I don’t get that from him at all…I sense that he actually ponders these things and seeks Truth as Helen claimed to do.  lol…Now I have an image of him, long hair in a pony tail, corduroy jacket with patches on the sleeves and smokin’ a pipe (not sayin’ what is in said pipe)with copy of Catcher in the Rye in his hands.  Yikes!

theplummer—
Deductive logic is based on two or more indisputable premises that inevitably lead to an indisputable conclusion, e.g. the classic: “All humans are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal.”

Deductive logic is fallable also: Example.  A duck has wings, so does an airplane, both can fly.  Therefore a airplane is a duck.

See, a logically incomplete definition.  What if socratees was a alien.  Just because you’ve never seen an alien, you cannot deduce that he is a
man.  I surmise that you are making an assumption here, as you clearly admitted in the sheep exercise, by admitting that you would have to modify what you know, when you see a third colored sheep.
.
Once again, you Just don’t get it.
First, the rulis of logic I wrote about are UNIVERSAL STANDARDS OF LOGIC.
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument
.
Second, you have not comprehended the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning:
The “Socretes is mortal” argument stands, while the “Duck is an Airplane” argument does not, is because the Socretes argument is DEDUCTIVE LOGIC. One of the variables—the definition of “mortal” can be either true or not true. Being mortal means you will, by definition, die at some point in your lifetime. The premise “All humans are mortal” is inductive, because it is remotely possible that there may or may not be a MAN that is immortal—i.e. has an infinate life span. However, the inference (or “theory”) that all men are mortal has not been disproven because we have no evidence of a human who is not mortal.
.
Therefore, we can indisputably conclude Socretes is mortal, at least until we get an example of a human who is not mortal.
.
The terms “duck” and “airplane” each have more than one variable: while both have wings, a duck is obviously different from an airplane, because a duck is a living creature, has feathers, lays, eggs, and other identifying characteristics that a plane does not share. Therefore, the conclusion that “a duck is an airplane” can be disproved because ALL the characteristics of a duck are NOT all the characteristics of a plane.

.
All that can LOGICALLY be concluded from the statement “Ducks have wings and airplanes have wings” is that ducks and airplanes have the common characteristic of having wings.

It’s like saying “Hitler was short and had a mustasch, therefore all men who are short and have a mustasch are Hitler.” Do you know any man who is short and has a mustasch? Is he Hitler?
.
“I will venture that at some point, scientists will discover (identify) the “soul” gene.  It’s going to be how we rationalize that information as to what we do with it.  Then once that particular gene is discovered, medical science would be prudent to examine aborted babies at different stages of life, including abortions caused from contraception, to see if that soul is in that glob of cells, whereby proving that abortion is murder.  Will you beleive then?”
.
Yes, once a particular gene is descovered to be the “soul” gene, I and science would have to discard the current theory and drawn another conclusion (not necessarily that God exists) to explain that previously undiscovered fact. Medical ethicicists will also have new, evidence-based information and will have to debate what is the medically ethical decision that should be made such pregnancy crises. That is how science works. You also have to have a common standard on the meaning of what is a “soul,” which is an ambigous term as is “God.”
.
“One of the logical fallacies you keep repeating is Circular logic: The Church teaches only the Truth because the Church has declared it is inerrant, therefore whatever the Church teaches must be the TRUTH.

Please accept this as truth, you have been taught this on numerous occaisions (see above), but you continually deny the truth in what we believe.”
.
Another circular fallacy—am I to believe because you say it’s the truth, and you base your certainty it is the truth on the circular logic of the Church?  Suppose I told you that my aunt Sally is always right, because she told me so, and she also told me that 2+2=5. Why don’t you accept that 2+2=5?—Aunt Sally taught me so and she is ALLWAYS RIGHT so I refuse to accept any one telling me that 2+2=4.
.
“We do not beleive that the church teaches only truth because the CHURCH declares it, but rather that GOD HIMSELF declares it.  Where do we get this information from, SACRED SCRIPTURE and TRADITION.  The church did not write one book contained within the bible.  The church did not create one tradition that was not formerly a tradition before that document was created.”
.
If you bother to Google “logical fallacies” you will find there is also a fallacy named “The Appeal to Tradition Fallacy.” Just because sacred scripter and tradition have believed what the Church has been teaching as TRUTH, does not support your argument.
.
We often rely on traditional explanations for events because we simply do not have time to investigate everything ourselves, and, most of the time the pronouncements and findings of experts do not filter down to the general populace. The result is a mixture of messy mass beliefs battling against the top-down conclusions of proper investigations. Status-quo bias and other social factors frequently cause resistance against the conclusions of scientists. For this reason, even such major theories as evolution were sometimes discovered by scientists (in this case, in around the 4th century BCE), and then rejected by society and forgotten until they were re-discovered in a world where society was more ready to accept it.
.
Skeptical and rational thinking is pitted, socially, against the subconscious, sub-literate and sub-intellectual world of mass belief.

Posted by Theplummer on Tuesday, Jun 19, 2012 8:52 AM (EST):

Posted by ioannes on Tuesday, Jun 19, 2012 8:33 AM (EST):Also, you are not debating us, you are debating the spirit against God. You have a precious opportunity to win this discussion against him by coming into the light.
I assure you, we will al congratulate you for winning over the enemy that seeks to turn us away from God, won’t we guys? All you have to do is say: “okay let’s suppose I want to try this God thing for a moment. Where do I start?”
Win the argument Christine! You can do it!!!!!!!!!!

******
*AMEN!*
******
Please, Christine allow someone to love(agape) you.  As Christ loves you, we (other christians) will try to emulate that love to you as best as we can in our own infant capacity.
.
I don’t want to be loved in an infant capacity—I got that from my parents when I was an infant. I don’t need things to be “bottle-fed” by others.
.
Can’t any of you get it through your thick heads that “CHRIST’S LOVE” IS A MEANINGLESS PHRASE TO ME. It is undefined, and even you cannot define it in a way that I can understand. If there is a God, why shouldn’t he/she/it make itself known to me without your interference? If it dosen’t what difference would it make?
.

Posted by ioannes on Tuesday, Jun 19, 2012 8:18 AM (EST):

Perhaps if we used her language?
Christine, the world is indeed f*****d. But guess what? If we all thought like you Christine, the world would still be f*****d! How about that? So…. Why don’t you try and come on in to the light dear sister, and realize that what you yearn is Heaven.
As it turns out, it is only when mankind joins God that we are not…................ You have two options; continue to fight for an unattainable good of mankind by never achieving what can only be achieved with God, ooooor accept Jesus Christ as the way, the truth and the light, and fight for the True good of mankind, that, which can only be attained through Him and with Him in unity with the Holy Spirit!
Come into the light!!!
.

ioannes, the world is indeed f*****d. But guess what? If we all thought like you ioannes, the world would still be f*****d! How about that? So…. Why don’t you try and come on out of your cave dear (which ever sex you are), and realize that what you only get is good orgasm from the Chuch. It makes you feel good, but keeps you from thinking about anything else.
As it turns out, it is only when you stop reasoning that we are not the Church seems like the one Truth to you.…. You have two options; continue to think for yourself or accept the illogical premise that Jesus Christ as the way, the truth and the light, or realize that any good for mankind, which that is probable in reality will be achieved with the exchange of ideas WITHOUT RELIGIOUS INTERFERENCE</i>.
Come out of your cave!!!
.
You obivously missed the beginning of the exchange between me, Joanp62, and Helen—look back on how Helen and I regard religion.
.

One simple response.  If you can’t beat them with logic, baffle them with BS.

Talk about circles, that was the most illogical summation I’ve ever read.  Everything you claim that is facicious in my beliefs are at least as facicious as your arguements. 

Your constant willingness to re-evaluate said truths, only proves that you cannot find ABSOLUTE TRUTH on your own.  Read carefully, God’s teachings are ABSOLUTE TRUTH, never been disproven.  The only error is mankinds interpretation of his teachings.

So, when you finally do come to understand that you have been wrong (either in this lifetime or after your last heartbeat), are you going to have the capacity to ask for forgiveness for all the evil you’ve promulgated, Oh, wait, that’ll be too late.

Zeke—
You correctly rebuke for using hyperbolic language in my arguments, but sometimes I feel I have to shake them. I guess I’m guilty of spreading Shaken Manchild Syndrome:
.
http://kotaku.com/5785080/the-onion-exposes-shaken-manchild-syndrome
.

theplummer—
Why do you think I’m “looking for the absolute truth?” That’s not why I came to this forum. I came here to try to get you to understand that the Church is not the ONLY SOURCE of truth.
.
You only think so because you get an intense, orgasmic pleasure from believing you are loved because you are Catholic. You honestly feel you wouldn’t be loved if you weren’t Catholic. You also can’t seem to grasp that we are all alone in this secular world together. Fantasizing about a divine lover and perfect teacher is not going to save you from reality.
.
Personally, when I want a break from reality for a while, I have a cocktail.

Personally, when I want a break from reality for a while, I have a cocktail.

Ahhhhh…now I get it.  lol.  That explains everything.  Don’t you know you’re not supposed to drink and debate?  BADD!  Bloggers against drunks debating.

theplummer:
“Talk about circles, that was the most illogical summation I’ve ever read.  Everything you claim that is facicious in my beliefs are at least as facicious as your arguements. ”
.
Will you explain how my logic is circular? Did you learn anything from my informal lesson on some logical principles?
.
“Your constant willingness to re-evaluate said truths, only proves that you cannot find ABSOLUTE TRUTH on your own.  Read carefully, God’s teachings are ABSOLUTE TRUTH, never been disproven.  The only error is mankinds interpretation of his teachings.”
.
That’s what scientific method is—doofus! Constantly re-evaluating what we think is truth because—this may shock you—there may be a discovery that disproves our inductive conclusion(s)! THAT IS THE POINT OF A LOGICAL ARGUMENT.
.
You, on the other hand, can not concieve of being wrong about your conviction that the teachings of the Chruch are the ABSOLUTE, ONE AND ONLY TRUTH. Therefore, I’m giving up on this exchange because it is a waste of my time, because it has become obvious to me that you are incapable of logical debate.
.

Christine,

You have apparently been on a loooooong break.  Put the cocktail down and come back to reality.  And stop taking logic lessons from Wiki.  This is exactly why you are so poor at debate.  Did someone teach you that if you can be the most obnoxious,  you’ll win the debate?  Cuz that just isn’t how it works.  Do you understand that everyone reading your comments views you the same way?  As incoherent, in-cohesive and inarticulate?  Here is one of the first rules of debate.  People will not remember what you say. They will remember how you make them feel.  When you fill your posts with unending assaults, what little content you actually put in them gets lost.  Can you understand what I am saying?

For instance if you want to say that orange juice tastes good you simply say “I believe that orange juice tastes good”....You haven’t put anyone on the defensive, you’ve clearly stated your case and you have gotten your point across.  If instead you write “You guys are so stupid and ignorant that your tiny little moronic brains cannot even wrap themselves around the simple concept that orange juice tastes good.  Your heads are so far up your asses that you actually think apple juice tastes better.  It just goes to show you what a bunch of illiterate fools you are.  You’ve been totally brainwashed and can’t even think for yourselves.  I’m so glad I’m not you cuz then I’d have to puke or kill myself, you stupid pieces of crap”

Hmmmm…I wonder if maybe more people would listen to the first one and take you more seriously, instead of laughing at you behind your back.  Just sayin’...

...ooooor…perhaps you’re possessed and it’s not really you we’re speaking with…?  ;)

ioannes,
So there I was, offering an olive branch of sorts, and you went and poked yourself in the eye with it. You began to apologize in your next post but couldn’t quite manage to refrain from adding that people like me brought on the reign of terror in France centuries ago. Well, I tried, and thanks for defending me mk, I only wish I had enough hair for a ponytail these days :)
-
mk,
You have stated more than once that you agree with the Church on abortion, not simply because it says so but “because I believe they are right”, and “if the Church is wrong on this, she would cease to be the Church”. But then you say in your last post “but see, morality does not come from the Church.  It comes from God”.  I’m confused. You continue to maintain that morality comes from God, yet fail to acknowledge that His inerrant word, the Bible, is probably the worst source of morality outside of the Koran. Human sacrifice, genocide, slaveholding, and misogyny are consistently celebrated. Of course, God’s counsel to parents is refreshingly straightforward: whenever children get out of line, we should beat them with a rod (Proverbs 13:24, 20:30, and 23:13–14). If they are shameless enough to talk back to us, we should kill them (Exodus 21:15, Leviticus 20:9, Deuteronomy 21:18–21, Mark 7:9–13, and Matthew 15:4–7). We must also stone people to death for heresy, adultery, homosexuality, working on the Sabbath, worshiping graven images, practicing sorcery, and a wide variety of other imaginary crimes.
-
Christians attempt to dismiss this by imagining that Jesus did away with all this barbarism.  Anyone who believes that Jesus only taught the Golden Rule and love of one’s neighbor should go back and read the New Testament.  They should pay particular attention to the morality that will be on display if Jesus ever returns to earth trailing clouds of glory (2 Thessalonians 1:7–9, 2:8; Hebrews 10:28–29; 2 Peter 3:7; and all of Revelation). It is not an accident that St. Thomas Aquinas thought heretics should be killed and that St. Augustine thought they should be tortured.  Do you think that these icons of the Church hadn’t read the New Testament closely enough to discover the error of their ways?
-
So much for so-called objective morality.  WE decided what is good in the Good Book, and what should rightly be discarded. We read the Golden Rule and judge it to be a brilliant distillation of many of our ethical impulses. We read that a woman found not to be a virgin on her wedding night should be stoned to death, and we decide that this is the most vile lunacy imaginable. Our own subjective ethical intuitions are, therefore, primary.  This does not mean to say that we couldn’t agree on objective morals for society, but they certainly would not be immune to change, lest we live with 21st century technology (such as the ability to abort the fetuses of a raped 9 year old who would otherwise die) confined by first century thinking. I assume that you would be outraged at the parents of a Jehovah’s Witness child who would allow their child to die for sake of a blood transfusion that the Bible (their bizarre interpretation at least) prohibits, or zealots that prescribe prayer rather than antibiotics for their dying children and are utterly surprised when it fails. Perhaps you wouldn’t, because you find religious belief rational, but I think you should be aghast and such parents tried for murder.
-
I’ve not read “The Abolition of Man”, but I’m not surprised that a Christian writer would the advance the common (Christian) claim of the doom of society with subjective morality. Since I brought up the holocaust initially, and we all agree on the moral barbarity of it, this also must be said. The hatred of Jews in Germany expressed itself in predominantly secular ways, but let us not forget the anti-Semitism that built the Nazi crematoria brick by brick was a direct inheritance from medieval Christianity. For centuries, Christian Europeans had viewed the Jews as the worst species of heretics and attributed every societal ill to their continued presence among the faithful. The Vatican itself perpetuated the blood libel in its newspapers as late as 1914. But I digress. If the premise of Lewis’ book is correct, we should expect to find some support for his conclusions by comparing the more atheistic societies with the more religious ones around the globe. According to the United Nations’ Human Development Report (2005), the most atheistic societies (countries like Norway, Iceland, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark, and the United Kingdom) are actually the healthiest, as indicated by measures of life expectancy, adult literacy, per-capita income, educational attainment, gender equality, homicide rate, and infant mortality. Conversely, the fifty nations now ranked lowest by the UN in terms of human development are unwaveringly religious. Leaving aside the issue of cause and effect, these facts prove that atheism is perfectly compatible with the basic aspirations of a civil society; they also prove, conclusively, that religious faith does nothing to ensure a society’s health.
-
Finally you ask, ”if abortion is wrong, why is it wrong?  If it is wrong to kill the 5 year old to save the mother’s life, why is it wrong.  If it is wrong to kill the 5 year old, why isn’t it wrong to kill the child still in the womb.  Is it ever okay to kill the 5 year old?  These questions CAN be answered by both Atheists and Catholics (or any Faith based people) if and only if, we are open to the possibility that there IS such a thing as objective right and wrong.  And if there is, are we willing to deny ourselves some pleasures, conveniences or desires to achieve it?  Is it worth fighting for?
-
mk, I’m afraid I can’t give you a satisfying answer. Even though I’m atheist, I suspect we agree on 99% of the Big Moral Questions, and our list of objective morals would look quite similar. It’s probably because I was raised as a Catholic (would it really surprise you if I told you I still occasionally take my kids, who attend Catholic school, to Church?) and grew up in a largely Christian society. I suppose though that we merely disagree on why; you because you believe in the objective morality of the Church and/or God, me because I believe that our innate ethical impulses are valid, though not supernaturally given. Yes, there is such a thing as objective right and wrong, evolved through the eons of our shared humanity, and of course we are willing to inconvenience ourselves for the good of society and deny our narcissistic urges. It’s objectively wrong to kill a child, despite that the Bible allows for it. Abortion makes me squeamish, but it’s objectively wrong and immoral to permit a child to die just because the Church tells us that the lives of minute fetuses inside her have souls and God loves them just as much. There is absolutely no compelling evidence for this, which is why our society allows it.
-
Sorry, that was a long one, I’m confident that everyone except you and I are bored beyond belief. Lest I be accused of plagiarism, I must admit that some of this borrowed liberally from the atheist and neuroscientist Sam Harris, whose book “Letter to A Christian Nation” is fascinating.

MK you crack me up! I loved your post at 6:47 last night. You did a good job imitating Christine!

Zeke: So there I was, offering an olive branch of sorts, and you went and poked yourself in the eye with it.

Even though I’m Ioannes’ “side”, that was funny. I’ll have to remember that one.

Hi Zeke, I know you were writing to MK, but I just wanted to comment on a few things you posted.

It does seem that the more affluent we are and things go our way that we tend to drift from God. And when things are really bad we tend to turn to God, or a god, because we don’t know where else to turn (atheists in foxholes, maybe?). I know that even from personal experience as a Christian, even though I have my regular prayer schedule, when things are not going so well, I tend to pray even more. So it appears that the most well adjusted,healthy and prosperous countries are atheist and the poor, oppressed nations are religious. But does that prove that Atheism breeds health, well-being and affluence while religion breeds poverty and oppression? Or could it be that because of the poverty and oppression there tends to be more religion, and where everything is going pretty peachy, the citizens no longer think they need God?

Zeke,

You’re right, I am not bored, and everyone else probably is.
You’re also right that that was long, but since I’m the queen of long comments, it poses no problem.  My answer however, will probably be equally long…

I’m happy to hear you are a former Catholic because it saves me from having to explain a lot of what Catholics believe in order to make some points.  When I say that Truth doesn’t come from the Church, it comes from God, I am not misstating.  It is not a contradiction to then say I stand with the Church because they are right.  They are right, because they are repeating what God has revealed to them.  God revealed the Truth and gave Peter and the Church the responsibility of guarding and propagating that Truth.  To accept the Churches teaching on Truth, IS to accept God’s teaching on Truth.  Again, and you should know this, the Church is only “right” in matter of Faith and Morals.

There is a Divine Church, the one that protects (infallibly) God’s Truth, and a human church filled with men and women who can are often wrong about all sorts of things, including exhibiting immoral behavior.  Yes, some priests molested young boys.  They represent the human church and do it very poorly.  Their personal behavior was despicable.  But they also represent the Divine Church.  They act as mediators between God and us, so despite their filthy actions, they are still priests and can still change bread and wine into body and blood.

They can, and probably will, spend eternity in a very undesirable place, and they should. 

So….members of the church are as prone to sin as the rest of us.  But nowhere does the Church “TEACH” that molesting boys is good.  If it did, I’d leave.  Many a parent has told their child not to smoke all the while puffin’ away on a Newport.  I know.  I’m one of them.

You know, I assume, that the Church was promised that the gates of hell would not prevail over her, and that she would be protected from error.  But nowhere is it said that her members would be given the same Grace.

Next, your comparison to Jehovah Witnesses and blood transfusions…Yeah, I think their nuts.  BUT, they are not killing one person to save another.  I think they are wrong, however.  I do not think that just because one invokes God’s name that they are “right” in doing whatever they do.  We have no reason to accept Jehovah’s witnesses interpretation of the bible.  We have no reason to accept anyone’s interpretation of the bible, except the Catholic Churches because those are the directives we were left with by the man we believe is God.

Now you can say that we have no proof he was God, or that there even IS a God, but we do have an historical record that a man named Jesus walked the earth, claiming to be God, performing miracles and rising from the dead.  You don’t have to believe it, but we do have evidence that it was witnessed and testified to, and that it followed a 4,000 year tradition of the same sort of witnessing.  That many, not just one or two, people had direct experience with the same God that Jesus claimed to be.

In the case of Jehovah witnesses, Mormons, Christian Scientists, etc, we have one man, no witnesses and a claim that cannot be substantiated by anyone but the person making the claim. It gives it less weight.  Do they have the right to practice what they believe?  Absolutely.  Do I think they’re wrong?  You betcha.  But the difference between the plethora of witnesses to Jesus’ life and teachings, and the single witness in these other faiths, is alone, enough reason to run from the room;

And now I am confused because you dismiss C.S.Lewis’ argument out of hand, saying that of course he’d believe in objective truth, he’s a Christian, (even tho I never stated that being Christian had anything to do with objective truth…Lewis and I were both very careful to not identify what the “outside” source of Truth was.  In his book, he chooses to refer to it as the “Tao” precisely to AVOID the prejudice of defining any particular God.  He doesn’t even say it is GOD, just that it is something “outside” of us.  What confused me, is that later you say that you too adhere to the idea of objective Truth. 

Next, the reason Jesus’ proposed way of living was so earth shattering is not because He reiterated the Golden Rule (that had been around as long as man had been around) but because He proposed something new.  It was not enough that you love your friends and family…no, He called us to love our ENEMY.

Was the law of the land to stone an adulteress.  Yes.  And how did Jesus handle this?  What was his take?  Did He promote killing sinners?  Or did He call us to forgive?  Even and especially those who did not DESERVE forgiveness?

The New Testament passages you cite are actually saying exactly what you are saying.  That upholding the letter of the law without compassion and mercy is to misunderstand the law.  The law was never meant to be used as a way to hurt people….it was meant not as a list of what should be done to sinners, but what those sinners should do themselves.  Jesus is saying that all of this head bashing and stoning is a complete load of crap.  What was meant to be a call to a higher standard of living, was turned into an excuse to judge OTHERS behavior when it was meant to enjoin them to judge their own behavior.

You always have to ask “when was this written?”, “to whom was the author speaking”?...and you have to understand that the books of the bible were not dictate to men by God as the Koran is purported to be.  When we say that it is inerrant we do not mean historically accurate, or a dictation from God’s mouth to our ears.  It is men, writing as themselves, what God inspired them to write.  But who they were and the times that they lived are all going to be reflected in that writing.

On another thread there was actually an argument as to whether or not God put the fig leafs on Adam and Eve or whether they put them there themselves.

The passages about stoning an adulteress were not meant to condone stoning, but to set parameters for said stonings in a setting where stoning was what you did.  They were not meant to say “Stoning is good”, they were meant to address the fact that stoning was the accepted punishment for adultery and that given this fact, a and b had to be present before a stoning could take place.

For instance, in today’s society, we have laws that say you must put a man to death using humane means.  Lethal injection as opposed to hanging.  Someone two thousand years from now could take that to mean we were making a moral statement about the rightness of putting men to death.  But we aren’t.  The people who made the laws about humane means of putting someone to death, probably think that putting them to death at all is bad.  BUT, given that the law of the land says we do put them to death, we must at the very least, do it in the most humane way possible.  Do you see the difference?

So let’s look at “He who spares his rod hates his son, but he who loves him takes care to chastise him.”...given that the way, AT THE TIME, that you disciplined a child was to give him whack with a rod, and that no one knew any other way..that is just the way it was done…the authors used the example that people knew.  What is really being said is not “It is good to beat your child”, but “A parent who does not discipline his child and teach him right from wrong, does not really love his child”.  Can you see that?  Today we would say “The man who does not put his child in time out, does not love his child”.  This says nothing about whether time out is the right way to discipline and everything about the importance of disciplining.

Or how about:    “Therefore, he who has any of the following defects may not come forward: he who is blind, or lame, or who has any disfigurement or malformation,
or a crippled foot or hand,
or who is hump-backed or weakly or walleyed, or who is afflicted with eczema, ringworm or hernia.”

At the time this was written, physical ailments meant that you were being punished for some sin that you committed.  You were unworthy, because disease and worth were inexplicably connected.  Now we know today that this is crazy talk (and Jesus Himself shows this when He touches a leper and cures the very people that were assumed to be evil given their physical ailments).  So if you were sick, then you were unclean/guilty, and therefore could not be a priest and stand on the altar of God.  This is a reflection of the times, and not a medical statement.  Jesus Himself, is the one that pointed out why they had only gotten it half right.

We do the same stupid stuff today.  The Westboro Church still thinks like the men of the OT.  They misinterpret what the meaning behind these passages was.  They didn’t seem to get the memo that the emphasis in these passages was NOT on the punishment, but on the behavior that caused the punishment.  God was trying to say “such and such a behavior is not good”.  He was not trying to say “Grab your pitchforks and storm the castle”.  Adultery is bad….not KILL THE ADULTERS! 

okay, gotta drive the daughter to school…I’ll be back.

Joan, that is a very good point and you have saved me the trouble of making it.  Whew…cuz I would have used A LOT more words!  ;)

And yes, I too laughed out loud at the “Olive Branch” line.

Hi again Zeke. In Matthew and Mark, Jesus is rebuking the Pharisees, repeating the law of Moses and calling them hypocrites. I won’t go into an explanation. If you reread those verses, and the ones before and after you will see that. Context is everything.

I don’t know why you reject the fact that the old laws of the Old Testament were just that - old. These laws were for the Jews who lived 3000 years ago in a time and place where things were different. I posted this before, maybe on a different article, but Jesus fulfilled the Old Covenant and started a New Covenant with the Jews and the rest of humanity (gentiles).

With regard to the rest of your New Testament quotes - God is just, meaning fair, unlike us who judge others without really knowing full well what is in their hearts. Maybe you assume that because you are an Atheist, you take these verses personally- but be assured that God sees the big picture and we do not. He knows what is in each person’s heart. While some people may assume that ALL atheists are doomed, that is very wrong to think that-we would be judging the state of someone’s heart and soul unfairly. God would not. That being said, God sees the past, present and future. He knows what horrible, evil things have been in some mens’ hearts. There are and have been some who maybe really do deserve a cosmic kick in the pants. It may be what is needed to get some of the real ‘meanies’ to wake up. And some of those real, bad, meanies are people who have claimed to believe in God. The joke may be on us. So that is where I take comfort in knowing that God is God and thank Him that we humans are not. The bible also quotes in the Old Testament that God does not take delight in the death of the wicked, rather He would rather they repent, turn to Him and live. There are many, many other verses showing God’s deep, deep love for humanity. Why doesn’t Sam Harris, et al, mention those? They choose to pick and choose those parts that suit their own agenda. But it works both ways, we need to take all of it, not just parts. That’s why, even though we are in the New Covenant, Catholics included the Hebrew scriptures in the Bible also.
Finally, like I said, God is God and we are not and He sees the Big Picture. Ultimately He wants us to be with Him forever in an Eternity without pain, sorrow or suffering or hatred, etc. And He may do whatever it takes to get us there.

Oh and Zeke,

Before I go, I want to clarify something…we used to use the argument of ensoulment…back in the days of Augustine…but we no longer use that.  It doesn’t matter when the person is ensouled.  That doesn’t alter the fact that it is a human being.  This is a human rights issue, not a religious one. 

You also make the statement “that the lives of minute fetuses…”  This is the bottom line question, and something I alluded to in the “9 year old rape victim” scenario.  Do we judge a person’s worth by their size?  Their cognitive abilities?  Their age?  Their location?  How much they are wanted? 

Are all men created equal?  Or are some men more worthy than others?

What do you think should happen to the man who raped that little girl?

MK and I were writing at the same time. Oh well. Just thought I’d help out. <smile>

If the premise of Lewis’ book is correct, we should expect to find some support for his conclusions by comparing the more atheistic societies with the more religious ones around the globe.

Not really.  First, because those countries are adhering to much of Objective Moral Law and second because the countries where we find detestable behavior, it is usually because one group is being oppressed by another.  Not BECAUSE they are Christian, but because they are Christian in a country that is hostile to Christianity.  A better example would be to look at say, Malta.  Or Poland.  Poland when Christianity was oppressed, and Poland today, when they can openly practice their Faith. 

As I said, atheists and the Faithful can come to the same conclusions. So it isn’t a matter of “Do they believe in God”, but “Do they follow Objective Moral Standards”.  Malta and Sweden.  Both are free to do “good” without being punished.  THAT is what makes them work. If you are not free to be moral, then you have countries that, while “Christian”, are not in a good place.

Just yesterday, 3 dozen Catholics were murdered with bombs, in their Churches, by militant Muslims.  Does this mean that Catholicism breeds bad behavior?  Or does it mean that suppression of the right to free expression of conscience breeds bad behavior?  In Orissa,yesterday, a dozen Christians were massacred by Hindus.  Does this mean that countries where people are Christian are bound to fail, or that countries where Christians are murdered for their beliefs, are morally bereft?  See?

Very good points, MK. Thanks.

St. Augustine thought they should be tortured.  Do you think that these icons of the Church hadn’t read the New Testament closely enough to discover the error of their ways?

First, I would need to see the source of these accusations, and put them in context, and second, you do realize that right before the time of Augustine, being a heretic didn’t just mean disagreeing?  It meant that a person could get killed for defending the Truth.  So the idea that someone was going around messing with the very Truth that people were dying for was a little more serious than you and I having a disagreement on the NCR Blog.  If you were going to get fed to lions, you should probably get the “reason” right.  This was the early Church and they were still trying to figure out what everything meant.  Heresy was a pretty intense crime from the Churches viewpoint.

Also, MK, on the seriousness with which they regarded Heresy back then, heretics were leading the faithful away from the Truth, and their very souls would have been at stake, so because they were dealing with their salvation, they weren’t ‘playing around.’ Is that correct?
Of course today, it is just as serious, but we just don’t advocate killing heretics, instead, IMO, the Church doesn’t do enough, though.  Like with Pelosi, and her ilk. Why she isn’t publicly rebuked or excommunicated by her bishop is beyond me. Her soul/salvation is important along with the other Catholics who may be misled by her false statements.

Joan,

According to Canon Law of 1918 (Cardinal George addressed this very issue)they don’t meet the criteria of excommunication.  I’m not a Canon Lawyer so don’t ask me any details.  They haven’t misrepresented Catholic Teaching (claiming to speak for the Church), they haven’t publicly announced that they have had an abortion or use birth control (tho I suspect that they have)...

And here is the thing.  If Pelosi is called out for her take on abortion, then Santorum would have to be called out for his stance on immigration.  And the list goes on.  I agree that something should be done, and Cardinal George said we a quickly passing the point where something must be done, but just what is tricky.  Someone asked why they can still receive communion and he said that Sebelius was already asked NOT to receive.  But the Church, as I have said, proposes.  She isn’t a police force.  She can’t be expected to run around policing the behavior of self proclaimed Catholics.  She is also concerned with the Eucharist being turned into a political pawn.  He did however acknowledge that this was serious business and that much discussion among the Bishops has taken place.  If we truly believe that we are trying to achieve the greatest good, then it is understandable, if not frustrating, why the Church has been reluctant to take this to the public square.  I agree tho, that the time is coming when something must be done. 

AS you say, 2012 is not the year 300 and we handle things differently in this day and age.  We don’t go around killing heretics.  Heck, we don’t even go around killing the rapists of their 9 year old daughters.  (where was the mother when her daughter was being systematically raped by her father, anyway?)  Sebelius, Pelosi and Biden will have to answer to a far greater authority than the Bishops one day…and who knows, maybe the Bishops will have to answer to that same authority for their silence on the matter.

Mk, I will take what you said as correct, since I know less. But isn’t Santorum against illegal immigration? Isn’t that more of an arguable situation where abortion is always an intrinsic evil? I know we are to welcome the stranger, feed the hungry, etc., which I do personally. But does Church teaching claim that any country must accept all people who want to come into a country, even illegally? Isn’t each countries first priority to be for the good of its citizens? And as far as I know, I can’t just come into Mexico or any country in Europe and expect to be given all the rights that their citizens get. They have their immigration laws to. Mexico may have their problems, but I don’t think the people there are fleeing from the country because their lives are in mortal danger, such as with genocide, war, etc.

Hahahahahaha Zeke that was so funny about the olive branch… I’m sorry I just didn’t read much of all the stuff you put as I wasn’t in the debate. I just want your soul to be saved dude. I can’t help it even if it makes me look “dumb” to society. I have seen the risen Lord, I have seen the truth, I can’t help but trying to go around and trying to save souls! It’s so frustrating to have witnessed the truth and people still stuck in their human excusing. While atheists work on an assumption that there is no God, we who have encountered Christ KNOW what the truth is and there is nothing you can do to convince those of us who have seen. There are those who believe blindly, that I accept, but I have seeeeeeeeennnn the Lord almighty!!! What if you said the quick prayer appealing to the Devine Mercy of Jesus (you can download it to your phone under the iRosary app) it takes 5 minutes to say around 3:00pm even if its just for the sake of that crazy dude who poked himself in the eye. You offer an olive branch, but I offer eternal salvation!

Ioannes,
I personally love to hear that you have seen the lord.  I have also, but I find it difficult to explain to ANYONE (even faithful believers) that I have seen the lord, much less non-believers.

I have found that I have to “temper” my experiences in my personal revelations with the lord, as most cannot accept that he has personally revealed himself to me, without even beleivers being at the very least “patronizing” to my expressions. 

I have had only one person (faithful Baptist) whom admitted to me that my revelations were hard for her to understand, as she had never been shown a revelation from the holy spirit.  I suspect that she and all others HAVE been shown, but may not be still enough to hear the small voice.  In fact most protastants believe that the seven deutrocanonical books in the OT were merely the 400 silent years before the arrival of Christ.  I know how frustrating it is to share what you know to be true, only to be met with resistance and non-belief among most others, especially from those that profess belief.

All I can say is that we have an enourmous hurdle in our current world to overcome the evil one that is permeating our fallen nature.

My comment here is to acknowledge your personal experience and congratulate you on recognizing your experiences and offer affirmation, if you need it.

God bless you.

Just wondering if comments has been closed.

MK
“Just yesterday, 3 dozen Catholics were murdered with bombs, in their Churches, by militant Muslims.  Does this mean that Catholicism breeds bad behavior?  Or does it mean that suppression of the right to free expression of conscience breeds bad behavior?  In Orissa,yesterday, a dozen Christians were massacred by Hindus.  Does this mean that countries where people are Christian are bound to fail, or that countries where Christians are murdered for their beliefs, are morally bereft?  See?”
.
Perhaps the Muslims and Hindus were not practicing the teachings of their religions—just as Catholics who do evil are not practicing the teachings of the Church.
.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/13/AR2006121301948.html
.
They just haven’t come up with the gimmick of excommunication.

theplummer

“I have found that I have to “temper” my experiences in my personal revelations with the lord, as most cannot accept that he has personally revealed himself to me, without even beleivers being at the very least “patronizing” to my expressions.”
.
That’s because you push your religion on unbelievers like a drug pushers pushes crack cocaine to kids.

Joan:
In responding to mk’s premise (shared and advanced by countless Christian apologists) that a society that operates according to subjective truths is doomed to implode, you should note that I refrained from making any link between cause and effect. You concede that the more atheist nations are indeed healthier, more well-adjusted and prosperous than the religious ones. Perhaps you’re right that “they no longer think they need God”, but I’m not suggesting for a minute that atheism deserves credit for this. My only point, contrary to Lewis’ premise, is we have objective proof that a society can be successful without God or pretending that the Bible and the Church is the final word on morality.
-
mk,
You also draw unfounded conclusions from this simple observation. That atheist societies (and virtually all atheists) indeed adhere to many of the moral laws that you attribute to God is besides the point. Contrary to the sort of theocracy you endorse, these societies have chosen to discard any laws they deem outdated or incompatible with civil society. There is nothing to prevent existing laws from being similarly modified or discarded.
-
You further speculate that poorer indications of societal health in religious countries are the result of one group oppressing another, specifically in countries hostile to Christianity. I agree that this is probably true, and that “detestable” behavior exists to a greater extent in societies that murder each other over disagreements about whose magic book is correct. Does Catholicism breed bad behavior? Certainly not, and never suggested that either. Does suppression of the rights to free expression and conscience breed bad behavior? Absolutely, we have countless examples. But again that’s not my point, mk, was it? Which is that we can get along fine without religion, and seem to be better off without it.
-
But to follow your reasoning a little further, let’s examine our own country which is by any fair definition, Christian, and religious persecution is largely absent. The United States is unique among wealthy democracies in its level of religious fundamentalism and opposition to evolutionary theory. We are also unique because of the high homicide rates, abortions, teenage pregnancies, AIDS cases and infant mortality. The same comparison is true within our own borders; Southern States and the Midwest, characterized by higher levels of religious superstition and hostility to evolutionary theory, are particularly plagued by these indicators of social dysfunction, while not as prevalent in the relatively secular states in the Northeast. We should expect to find the opposite if Lewis’ (and your) premise is worthy of consideration.
-
Behavior can only be objectively wrong, you argue, if there is a God who says so. Otherwise, right and wrong are mere matters of social construction, and a secular society could decide that raping and killing children is actually a wholesome form of family fun. The premise that failing to follow God’s Objective Moral Laws leads to chaos, which you obviously share, is merely an opinion advanced by Christians. And Muslims. And every other religion seeking to spread its influence. But it’s an opinion that is not supported by any evidence.
-
That’s some fancy footwork to note that Lewis was careful not to insist that the source of Objective Morality is the Christian God, but you do, repeatedly and clearly. Otherwise why would you (or Lewis) be Christian? You’re not denying that you personally believe this to be true, are you?
-
I’ll spare you the tedium of me citing St. Augustine writings supporting the torture of heretics. It is remarkable easy to verify, and in doing so you will discover that despite his initial moral qualms and fears that torture was incompatible with Christianity, he embraced it wholeheartedly. What led this great scholar of the New Testament to this revelation? By studying the Bible more closely to realize that Jesus himself was able to convert the heretic Saul (aka Paul the Apostle) by forcefully dashing him to the earth and blinding him. Building on this reasoning centuries later, the Inquisition (now rebranded as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) were able to find ample support in the New Testament for torturing heretics in the most sick and perverse ways.  Did the Objective Moral Law change? By definition it cannot, which leads us to the inescapable conclusion that the infallible Church simply got this wrong. But our human history is packed with the horrific consequences of following through on illogical beliefs typified by those like ioannes, who boasts “I have seen the risen Lord, I have seen the truth, I can’t help but trying to go around and trying to save souls!”
-
You and I both acknowledge that Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Scientists, etc. are utterly in error. Of course I also agree that they have the right to practice what they believe, same as me and you. What I find astonishing is that you are able to dismiss these religions as nonsense without calling yours into question. None of these religions deny the divinity of Jesus, and except for some tacked on weirdness, agree that the Bible is the word of God. Do you doubt that were you born to Mormon parents in a Mormon community in Utah that you would now be making similar defenses of your Mormon faith? Or defending Islam if you were born in a Muslim society, and insisting that Mohammed flew to heaven on a winged horse? People claimed to have witnessed that as well. Do you really believe that through sheer accident of birth that you were fortunate enough to know the One True Faith? Isn’t it infinitely more likely that you subscribe to your flavor of Christianity because of social pressure, emotional consolation, and attachment to tradition?
-
This stuff about contextual understandings of the Old Testament and that the truly barbaric teachings were just fine for the times is absurd. Christians claim on one hand that God inspired these writings, yet excuse them for reflecting the times in which they lived. The claim that God inspired the authors of the OT to endorse a host of atrocious behavior in His name can only be interpreted in a few ways. They completely misunderstood His intentions as a benevolent and loving Creator, in which case they are worthless to society, then and now. Or that God really is one nasty SOB that commands strict allegiance to the cream of His creation under penalty of death. Or that the Bible is merely a collection of creation myths and fables assembled by semi-literate men, unable to imagine anything beyond what they knew. Why reiterate the common belief that beating your children to discipline them is fine by Him, and further add that if this isn’t effective we should kill them, when even a modicum of “inspiration” should have resulted in a statement closer to “do your very best to teach them right from wrong”? These are atheist talking points, they should not be yours.
-
In the 21st century, we provide care for the sick, the mentally infirm, the crippled, and other unfortunates because we have human compassion. People were unaware of germ theory or genetics, and were reasoned to have sinned against God and were being punished, and suffered considerably. God presumably knew this, yet watched dry-eyed for eons. He could have easily inspired the Biblical authors to mention this without blowing their bronze-age minds, could He not? Men are indeed created equal, that is to say, they should enjoy the same rights to live in society under its laws. What should happen to the rapist of the 9 year old girl? Simple. He should face our civil laws, and the Church agrees with this. But don’t you find the Church’s version of justice somewhat twisted, that the Church would cut itself off from a mother who would allow an abortion to save her raped child from death, yet would welcome the repentant rapist back to the flock? Such are the dangers of believing in an immutable, God-given objective morality.

Some corrections on abortion:

The Church views abortion as murder when done for any other reason than saving the mother from imminent death, AND that the child is not yet capable of independent life.

If the mother’s life is under imminent threat, the child is not yet capable of independent life, the abortion is performed solely for the reason of saving the mother’s life, and to a medical certainty all of these facts are true, then no sin has occurred.

“How can God allow Evil to Occur?”

Short answer: free will.

Longer answer: “God created us with free will.  If he acts directly to prevent evil, then he must act to prevent all evil.  To prevent all evil is to remove our free will.  Thus, God would be acting against himself.”

God is perfect.  He does not contradict himself.

Biblical Contradictions:  There are none.

The basis for seeming contradictions is the failure to understand basic semiotics.  It is learning this, and truly understanding it, that we find the falsification of the Lutheran Sola Scriptura.

Semiotics crash course: “Signs (words) have no meaning.  Meaning is what we bring TO signs, not what we take from them.”

This is self-evident to anyone who has taught a child to read, or watched it being done.  This fact is also why the Bible is one part of Tradition within the Church, and why the Magisterium, its teaching authority, and Apostolic Tradition are so important.  It is incumbent on the Church to teach us the proper meanings to bring to the words of the Bible.

What, then, is the purpose of the Bible?  As much as possible, it acts to prevent “informational mutation”, also called “semiotic adaption.”  An example of semiotic adaption can be found in the asinine “Roe V. Wade” decision.

In fact, any Supreme Court Case is an opportunity to change the meaning we bring to the words of the US Constitution.

“Atheists Acting Morally”

There are two assertions underlying all these arguments that are fallacious.

The other is quite simple:  Salvation has always been a gift that God has extended to man.  By faith and reason, a person may come to Christ even in the absence of the Church, even prior to Christ’s incorporation.

An atheist does not need to have exactly the same view of God as does a Catholic, but they do need to have 1) Faith in him 2) A sincere desire to act morally 3) The will to constantly seek to learn and understand what God’s plans and teaching are.  As all the good Catholics reading this know, only two sacraments are truly required for salvation, and both are available to the individual.

Of course, this would make them an anonymous Catholic.  The fact that an Atheist who truly does this but continues to claim to be an Atheist is just one of the many irrationalities of being an Atheist.  But God does not require perfection of us, so we should be loving and tolerant of those who suffer this neurotic deviation, but who truly love and seek God.

But this fact is also why Atheists are, outside of a Christian context, horribly vicious and in the main mass murders.

Which is the other thing that Atheists can’t understand: They aren’t acting morally because they don’t need God to act morally, they are acting morally precisely because God exists, has been accepted by their peers, and their peers have encoded some of God’s laws into the legal, social and cultural matrix in which said Atheist lives.  Their “moral” actions are just early indoctrination, followed by conformance to the legal and cultural norms of a Christian, or once Christian society.  Sadly, moral behavior out of simple fear of punishment is not sufficient for salvation.

Where these important cultural matrices have been destroyed, and Atheism was allowed to run the show, we got the greatest mass murders in the last 120 years.

“Pure Reason”

There is no such animal for human beings.  All reasoning sits on a foundation of faith.

In mathematics, these statements of faith are called “axioms.”  For an Objective Atheist, their statements of faith are labeled as “settled science”.  For a Christian, these are the core dogmas of the Church.

For human beings, all reason must be founded in statements of faith because we are finite beings.  We cannot know all, prove all, understand all, so all of our reasoning must be founded on faith.  Only God can exercise pure reason.

The Atheist who claims to believe in science did not, could not prove all that he believes himself, he must have faith in the scientists who did the work he did not, or could not do.

Philosophically, all reasoned arguments are those that start with assertions taken as “true” for the sake of the argument, and these are of course unprovable.  It can be no other way for human beings, because fundamentally we must have faith.  We must have faith in our senses; that what they tell us is true.  Man is the animal that believes.

Which is one piece of evidence that the Catholic Church is the true faith; God’s church.  Catholicism is a religion of both faith and reason in proper measure.

Well then John, either you or Archbishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho are mistaken about Church teaching, according to his interview:
-
Q: Would your Excellency have reacted differently if the little girl had really been in danger of dying?
A: No, not at all. We know that even when there is danger of death abortion is never permitted. That is God’s law, as the Church proclaims it.
-
Which is it?

Zeke, I said that it appears that the more atheist/secular countries are healthier, richer, etc. I don’t know if that is concession. Either way, I still stand by my point, that it seems that in many cases, the more affluent we get, the farther away from God we go, but as soon as disaster strikes or we are in the middle of a terrifying situation, we turn to God. The poor in general do appear to have more faith in God, and He himself expressed in the Gospels that it is easier for a camel to go thru the eye of the needle…I think you know the rest. He was not saying that the fact of being rich made one hell-bound and that all poor people are saints, but that the more we have, the harder it is to “deny ourselves, take up our cross daily, and follow Him.”

I don’t know why you consider the Bible a ‘magic’ book. There are no spells, or incantations. Only heartfelt prayers to Our Creator.

Regarding how Atheists can be moral without God, I think John may have a point in his post “Atheists Acting Moral”. Maybe you are a much better person than I am, Zeke, or maybe deep inside you do have some inkling of a Supreme Being that you unconsciously want to follow, but it seems to me that if this life was all we had with nothing after, with no purpose for our lives, I would probably either be on drugs, alcohol, in jail for robbery or prostitution,or looking for every possible way to find pleasure,wealth, etc., as many people in the world do. Not saying those who do these things are Atheists, but for some reason or other they sure have lost hope. And no hope means a loss of faith in God, even if they won’t admit it. Where do Atheists get their hope from? They must have it to survive in this world? You may say that you have hope in humankind, that they will find that cure for cancer, Aids, hunger, etc. But really? Given our history, do you think we can ever come up with a Utopia of any sorts? Most certainly not in your lifetime, then you’re dead and know nothing anymore. A better world for your children and grandchildren? Very noble, but again, they will live, then die and be no more, nada. And all of this is for what? Future generations who will also live short lives and then disappear? Modern man has been along for 10 or 20 thousand years and we still can’t get it right very often. As a Christian, I want the world to be better, I wish we all could really learn to love our enemies and do good to those who hurt us, but there will always be those who won’t follow those rules and make life miserable for the rest of us. And even the best of us don’t always follow the Golden Rule. But God knows we can’t become the persons we were meant to be and the world cannot become what He created to be without His help. Believing, knowing? that God is ultimately in control of things in this life, that He loves us beyond our imagination, and has a perfect place waiting for us after this life, makes life worth living even when that life does not seem worth it in the world’s view. I always remind myself that this universe is a created reality, but God is the real Reality, because He has always been.

joan: “it seems to me that if this life was all we had with nothing after, with no purpose for our lives, I would probably either be on drugs, alcohol, in jail for robbery or prostitution,or looking for every possible way to find pleasure,wealth, etc”

Why do you think putting this assertion out there helps your case?  Atheists and skeptics view all the bad the religions have done over the years, and they continue to hold back progress now, and here you come telling us the only reason you don’t go completely off the chain is because of your belief in the afterlife?  A belief, I might add, we have no substantive evidence for (kinda like there’s no substantive evidence for God)? I’d keep this to myself if I were you.  It makes you sound bananas.

Speaking of bananas, it makes you sound like these guys: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BO7l_ax6NM

Wow Steve. Well, that’s your opinion. There is plenty of substantive evidence for God’s existence, just not concrete enough for you. Your argument about the bad things religions have done and holding back progress is just plainly ill informed. It is the Catholic church that started hospitals and universities. Many Catholic priests were and are today doctors and scientists. The Jesuits are one order specifically known for their work in universities and in science. There have been and are very intelligent,educated people who were Catholic. I will post names if you need me to. Our own Popes have been highly educated, intelligent, multilingual, prolific authors.  Why atheists keep bringing up the supposed bad things done, when you have most of the 20th century that is considered the bloodiest of all centuries because of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, etc. You all keep repeating the same tired, old, arguments that have been refuted by more articulate people than myself.

We are accused of being stupid, or bananas by atheists, but do you really spend anytime thinking about anything? You think you are so enlightened and so educated, but is that wisdom? Do you ever really contemplate life, existence, meaning, purpose, or do you just keep busy so you don’t have to get that deep? Do you have any understanding of human nature? What do you value in life and why? What do you think the purpose of all this is, or do you think there is no purpose? If not, what is the point, seriously, really, what is the point of all that we make, and do, and have, and love if we are nothing but an accident of chance and no matter what good we have done, or what we have made, it will not last forever and the people we love will soon not exist? Just so that we can have this short span of life is that what makes it worth it? What about those who are born into hellish circumstances, or live only a couple of years, what about people who have seen so much injustice done to them and then die with no recompense? What about their miserable lives here on this earth? Doesn’t justice matter? Many people get away with terrible crimes and are never brought to justice. What about their victims? What is the point, really, if no matter what good comes of anything, it is all so temporary and fleeting?
Even secular scientists know that the amount of time that life has been possible in this universe will be but a blink compared the entire lifetime of the universe itself and eventually that too will be gone. But life on this planet or any other will have been over long before the universe ceases to exist. So not only are our own lives miniscule blips on the radar, for the majority of the universe’s existence no life has been possible, and a time will come as the universe expands that life will again be impossible, but the universe will continue for billions more years until it ends. Life in any form is really a small mark on the timeline of this universe. And you never cared why we are? Not just how we evolved-really in a relatively short time, again considering where we came into the lifespan of the universe, but why? To me, NOT asking WHY is bananas.

Christing,

Perhaps the Muslims and Hindus were not practicing the teachings of their religions—just as Catholics who do evil are not practicing the teachings of the Church.

I neither said this nor intimated that they were.  Of course they are not following what their faith teaches.  That has nothing to do with why I posted my comment.  The point was that Catholic Countries that aren’t doing well might be failing because their right to BE Catholic is being suppressed.

I agree with your final suggestion to use prayer, because that way you are not actually bothering them with lame apologetics. Just talking to yourself.

joan: If I call insufficient any of the substantive data you say there is for God (which, by the by, you haven’t presented yet), that’s a failure on your part, because the burden of proof is in your court.  I’m not demanding anything more or anything less than you would if a believer if some other faith came on the board saying his (or her) faith was the right way, and Catholicism is BS.  With regard to answering the “big questions” if christianity works for you, fine, but it doesn’t work for me.  I do in fact question why life is what it is and whether God is out there, but I don’t think the petty tribal God of the Bible does our universe an ounce of justice (if there was a God behind the universe, and that needs demonstrated in itself).

Steve, first, your view of God is petty and immature. The Catholic/Christian faith does not believe in a petty, tribal God, but a God of immense love, mercy, kindness, generosity, and yes justice. I can’t remember if it was to you, or someone else on another combox here,could have sworn his name was Steve, but I have mentioned various miraculous images like the Tilma of Juan Diego with the Image of OUr Lady of Guadalupe, the Shroud of Turin, and Eucharistic miracles where the host turned into flesh and was tested to be heart muscle with blood that was type AB in all instances. There are also over 60 or so verifiable miraculous cures documented at Lourdes, France. The Church is very wary to pronounce anything a miracle, and only does so after careful medical, scientific and theological study. The person I responded to with these “proofs” of course dismissed them so if it was you, I don’t know why you continue to ask me the same question.

We also have the witness of the Saints, many of whom were highly intelligent, educated and sane, down-to-earth people. I’m sure you’ve heard of them- Thomas Aquinas, Thomas More, Catherine of Sienna, Edith Stein, Teresa of Avila, the various other Doctors of the Church. Copernicus was Catholic and may have been a priest(acc. to Wiki it is uncertain whether he was just a deacon, or other minor minister).

I do not claim to have all the details to write in a post, but the info. is out there. Try not to only go to atheist sites, and even secular sites may not give you the whole story, but I thought this was an excellent program from the History Channel,which has never shown any favoritism toward Catholicism, about the Shroud made in 2010 or 2011.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvAJRp4CXdU

If you want concrete, absolute evidence, then you misunderstand why it is called Faith.

Joan:
Sorry, I misunderstood your statement “so it appears that the most well adjusted, healthy and prosperous countries are atheist…” and took it for agreement. I don’t know what it is you disagree with though, the statistics are real, and should be compelling to anyone regardless of their convictions.
-
While I once again repeat that I’m not stating a causal link between atheism and healthier society, I suppose that is the logical next question – are secular societies healthier than religious ones because of their beliefs? Or does it have more to do with, as you noted, that poorer countries embrace religion because of societal dysfunction? I don’t know. It is certainly true that a pleasant side-effect of religion is that it can compel people to behave better than they otherwise would, and there examples of atheist atrocities that could have been prevented with a little more religion. On the other hand, we know that belief in God has compelled people to do some very bad things, for reasons that would never occur to any atheist. I suppose this is all beside the point anyways. Even if it were somehow proven that living in a completely secular society guaranteed better outcomes for its members, this would in no way suggest that there is no God, and probably do very little to shake the faithful of their beliefs.
-
Hey, look at us, partially agreeing on things. Which makes me feel bad about pointing out that the Bible has a great deal of magic in it, or at least magical thinking. There are indeed spells and incantations (prayers being answered, the Eucharist) and numerous claims of supernatural miracles (parting the Red Sea, raising the dead, walking on water). It’s a lot more than heartfelt prayers to our Creator.
-
Regarding “atheists acting moral”, I suggest that you pay less attention to John telling you what atheists believe (that we have a neurotic deviation, that we are horribly vicious and in the main mass murderers, etc), and more on what I’m telling you most atheists believe. Have you even met an atheist fitting this description? I sincerely doubt that I’m a better person that you Joan, and I would bet if we knew each other social and never discussed religion, you would have no indication of my atheism. But I see no reason, and have no urge, to live any differently than you do, despite believing that there is nothing in store for me after death. We probably enjoy the same things that enrich our lives, give us purpose, and reward us spiritually like raising moral children, doing good for others in our community, cherishing time with friends and family. That our lives can be a constant struggle and full of suffering, and the world often appears to be a tragic sh*thole, and my life is but a blink of an eye in the grand scheme of things is despairing, to be sure, but that doesn’t suggest to me that there’s reason for it.
-
If it was revealed to you somehow that there is no God, or that there is a Creator of the universe but He has no personal interest in you or even cares, would you really stop acting in ways that would have made Jesus proud? Joan, I don’t know you but I truly doubt it. I doubt you would conclude that this gives you good reasons to stop behaving this way, which is admirable from a societal perspective, begin treating others poorly, turn to drugs and alcohol, rob people, prostitute yourself, and end up in prison. Wouldn’t merely following our civil laws to keep yourself out of prison motivate you to behave better?
-
If belief in the afterlife is all that motivates you to resist behaving like a right lunatic, then yes, I suppose I would say that I’m a better person than you. But I think you were simply advancing a tired and unproven Christian canard, that without God-given meaning to our life there are no possible reasons to act morally. If there was even a shred of truth to this, we would expect to find our prison population to be overwhelmingly atheist. Yet the Federal Bureau of Prison statistics (1997) show exactly the opposite. Only 0.2% of our prison population is atheist, with Christians being the overwhelming majority. This, if nothing else, should give you pause when other Christians make unfounded assumptions about people like me.

Hey the plummer thx…

Atheists; check out this master of atheistic defense, and his story. I promise it’s a good read!

http://www.scifiwright.com/2012/06/interview-with-infocatolica/

Zeke, I really appreciate your candor and respectful tone. It is almost<smile> a pleasure to converse with you. As to what is behind more affluent countries being secular/atheist and undeveloped ones being more faithfilled, we may not be able to determine that for sure so we have to agree to disagree. You may be right, but I hope not, of course.

About the majority of Christians in prison vs. atheists. I wonder how many of them “found” or returned to God after their incarceration. Prisons are well known for having Bible ministries, etc. I have also heard of a large conversion to Islam by the incarcerated. If that’s true, I wonder what that means? Either way, Christianity teaches us to do the exact opposite of what causes most people to go to jail, murder, stealing, coveting/greed, etc. So any ‘christian’ doing those things is doing it for other reasons, not because their faith tells them to.

You insist there is magic in the bible, then call them supernatural miracles. Which is it? The bible speaks out against divination, necromancy, casting spells. The miracles are supernatural, done by God, not by Moses etc., and I have yet to find any ‘spells’ in the Bible. All prayers to God. You do know the difference between a spell and a prayer, don’t you?

Belief in an afterlife is not the only thing about Christianity that motivates me to do good and “behave” myself. Fear of hell does not motivate me much either because I would not choose hell and God honors our choices, although fear of prison would. I do good out of love for God and others, also because I do care that others treat me the way I want to be treated, so therefore, I try to help people because there is a need and I would hope that if I was in need, someone would help me too. I believe we would act morally just for the sake of trying to keep some semblance of order in society and to avoid prison, and thus try to lead happier lives. Of course that is possible without God, however, how long does that really last? If things are going pretty well for you, it may last awhile. But what about for those whose lives really suck, especially due to the accident of where and when they were born? I’m not going to repeat what I posted earlier, but every time I try to put myself in an Atheist’s position, and try to think it all through to the end, I always come up with, “what’s the point?” if there is nothing else after this.

You admit that that is despairing, yet you just leave it at that? Again, the question of WHY doesn’t come to you? To me it would be a natural question to ask. Wonder is one of the things that make us different from other animals.

Joan: I answered your previous claim about the eucharistiic miracle in the other thread by asking how you knew it wasn’t some dark-age phony relic that had somehow got taken up into circulation (again no pun intended) and got no response.  If you’re referring to the miracle of Lanciano, and the paper examining it, I’ve read the paper in question.  It is at best a cursory chemical analysis; there are no gas chromatographs, mass spec, infrared spectrometry, NMR, or X-ray diffraction analyses (all techniques known at the time, IR spectrometers were available since the 50s, NMR was known, and XRD was used to elucidate the structure of some stuff we call DNA).  And no, none of these techniques will destroy a sample unless you have a really fumble-fingered grad student doing the tests.  All that aside, there’s nothing in the paper that this artifact was a host trasmuted into heart tissue, or that this is anything other than a well-preserved (but still decaying) piece of ordinary heart tissue.  It wasn’t even analyzed by the full breadth of chemical techniques that were known in the day, let alone in the 21st century.  Moreover, one paper is not the be-all end-all in science.  If it were, Wakefield’s Lancet paper on vaccines and autism would’ve ended the vaccine industry.  More inquiry is always needed, we don’t go on one slipshod paper and the church’s word for it. (I’m aware there are some alleged follow ups by the so-called Higher Council of the World Health Organization.  I’ll be interested in seeing them; the only places I see them mentioned are on Catholic websites). 

I am obliged to you though Joan, for prompting me to take some time to review some chemical journals from back then.  I was fascinated to see what chemists were doing even in the 70s.  But unless you have something more for me, I’ll consider the matter closed.

Steve, there are more than one:

http://www.scifiwright.com/2012/06/interview-with-infocatolica/

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/a3.html

Here’s an interesting interview with an Atheist turned Catholic. Read some of the comments afterward, too.

http://www.scifiwright.com/2012/06/interview-with-infocatolica/

This last one talks about God as a Tyrant. I liked it because he says pretty much what I think:

http://www.shblog.org/2012/01/god-tyrant.html

Lastly Steve, it is not my job to try to convert you. That is a matter between you and God. I can only tell you the Truth to the best of my ability. You can take it or leave it. You choose to leave it, then God Bless you.

P.S. on the atheist conversion page, read the comments regarding wanting or demanding absolute proof such as the author experienced, and what he says about it. In spite of having had numerous visions of Jesus and the Blessed Mother, he states that we can still talk ourselves out just about anything if we want to. He could dismiss them as anything but what he knows they were if he really wanted to. Reminds me of when our Lord said that even if Moses or the prophets were to come back from the dead and speak with them, they would not believe.

Joan,
Thanks for your respect as well, and hopefully our civility will encourage others to do the same. Here in these comboxes and in real life too.
-
I also don’t know what to make of these jailhouse conversions either, which probably aren’t rare. My guess is that it’s related to the phenomenon you mentioned earlier, that people often turn to religion when disaster strikes or find themselves in terrifying situations. I think it’s probably part of human nature to do so. The thing that bothers me about these conversions or revelations in times of great stress, are the inevitable claims of those who somehow get through these dark periods is that God did it. Since we live in a Christian country, we hear numerous stories about God raising someone from poverty, recover from alcoholism, cure them of disease, yet neglect to notice that Jews, Muslims, and Hindus have the exact same stories. I don’t dispute that a belief in God was instrumental in their lives, but this is a totally different thing than claiming that God was instrumental in their lives. Know what I mean? Believing in God can surely lead to positive outcomes, but that doesn’t offer any proof that God exists.
-
OK, magic was a bit disrespectful, but I really just intended to mean that there is no explanation for Biblical miracles using natural laws. I understand that you believe in them, and are probably not surprised that I do not. I should just stop right there and acknowledge that I didn’t mean to be offensive, but I’m sitting outside with the laptop and it’s a beautiful day and I also find it’s a pleasure chatting with you this way, so I’ll drone on :)
-
Here’s the thing about prayer that I find annoying. We’re taught that we can speak to God through prayer, and every Christian has a story about certain prayers that were answered. Millions of faithful pray daily for relief from suffering by disease, poverty, abuse, etc, or are being prayed for by others. A few are “answered” while the vast majority are not. Medical studies have shown that intercessory prayer has no statistically significant effect. I have prayed myself for the relief of suffering to others in my Catholic days, to no effect. We should also note that the variety of prayers that get answered always seem to be self-limiting, in that there are natural explanations for what happened. How can the Church (and you) insist that this is true?
-
As for miracles, God could blow my mind and induce me to proclaim His power to the best of my abilities for the rest of my life quite easily, in any number of clear ways. You could prove to the satisfaction of every single scientist on the planet that God exists by conducting a simple experiment. Have a billion Christians pray for a specific event that could not happen naturally, like the well-known atheist example of growing back the missing limb of an amputee. This happens with salamanders daily, presumably without prayer. Why dispense dozens of miracles 2000 years ago when he would obviously know that we wouldn’t find accounts of them very compelling in the 21st century? Why would he make evidence of Himself unapparent to 93% of the National Academy of Scientists, some of the brightest minds on the planet? I guess I am a very doubting Thomas.
-
To your last point, sure, I wonder why we’re here. I have no idea how our universe came into existence, but often wonder about it. But in reflecting on how vast it is, unimaginable really, and that there must exist billions or more other planets like ours where life could evolve. I believe we are a cosmic accident, mere animals that developed a consciousness different than all others. I think it’s natural to speculate that something created us, and these thoughts have been with us since we became a species millennia ago. It would not surprise me at all though, to learn that there is a supernatural force behind the universe, but I just have no ability to believe that it is a God that knows or cares about me and offers conditional salvation and everlasting life. If God loves this world, he has a terribly noncommittal way of showing it. You disbelieve in the hundreds of other religions and Gods that have ever existed, which also claimed to have created this world. I just disbelieve in one more than you do. I’m amazed just to be part of it.

Hi Zeke, again, thanks for your sincere, respectful questions. I will try to address them to the best of my ability. Before that, I want to say that many atheists, I’m not saying that you are saying this, seem to assume that only they have really thought this all out and if theists would only think it through and look at the data, they would come to the same conclusions. Don’t they realize that we, I know I have, have had the same questions and ‘concerns’ and just came up with a different conclusion?

Prayer: The Catholic Church has some beautiful teachings on suffering and prayer. We don’t consider God to be our personal genie who is here to answer our every desire no matter how good it is. First off, we are not to pray to God just because we want something, even for the end to someone’s suffering or other such good. Our prayers consist of prayers of thanksgiving, repentance, adoration, and petition. Some people ignore God for years, and then when a loved one gets cancer, suddenly they are praying to God. I’m not saying God will ignore them (we need to be careful NOT go attribute our human failings to God), but come on, really! Now if that situation got that person praying to God on a regular basis, great.
Suffering: You probably know the Catholic teaching of redemptive suffering. God uses our suffering to affect our own spiritual growth, the conversion of others, etc. Why is it that way? I don’t know, but we do know that Jesus suffered while on earth. Not just during his Passion which was brutal (read scientific accounts about what the scourging and crucifixion entailed and the damage done to the human body).He also suffered the rejection, taunts, ridicule, hatred of the very people who were His Chosen. He was not born into wealth, and literally was born in a barn or cave. I think of it in today’s images as being born in a dirty gas station bathroom or something. Yuk. And this is our God! How humble! If our Lord had a hard life and suffering, should we expect not to? And God didn’t give Jesus the suffering, people did.
Anyway, God is ultimately concerned with our salvation, that we turn our lives around, turn to Him and eventually be with Him for eternity. So, while He hates our suffering, He doesn’t cause it, and He will permit it because He sees the BIG picture. The Bible also says that God will bring good out of evil. An analogy given is we may not like the treatment the doctor gives us for getting well, like chemo treatment for cancer, but when it works, we are grateful for it.

Miracles: I’m not going to be trite and say “miracles happen every day”. But miracles of the kind you speak of do still happen. In my post to Steve above, I give some links. You also have Fatima and the Miracle of the Sun which was witnessed by 70,000 people in 1917 Portugal and reported by the local papers. It was pouring rain, and the people came out to see if this foretold miracle would take place, many were doubters and scoffers,the sky cleared, they saw the sun dance around in the sky (now the sun did not really move around AFAIK, and only people within a 50 mile radius or so saw it, but all these people saw something, and afterward, even though they were all standing in the mud and rain, their clothes were completely dry! You also have Lourdes healings, beginning in 1858 which I think I also mentioned to Steve.
Today I still read reports of miracle healings and other scientifically, unexplainable occurrences.  Usually they are on small, local news sites or more obscure, sure- but do you really think the media gives a crap about it? I mean really? It goes against their world view. The only time they report on something is when it is ridiculous like someone seeing Jesus in a piece of toast. They eat that stuff up (pun intended) because they want to ridicule Christians and Christianity and sometimes we just help them do it.
After Christ, there are reports of the Saints throughout the past 2000 years healing and performing other miracles. Of course those happened before our lifetimes. But even in this day when we have the internet and all, things happen all over the world that we don’t know about. When Jesus healed people and brought some back from the dead, do you think Rome heard about it? Probably did and just dismissed it as coming from a bunch of hicks from a dirty, backwater town of Judea of all places!

There is no way I have the time or space to just tell you what I have seen and read and learned,anyway, you need to do your own investigating as I have done- I think we all learn best when we find stuff out for ourselves than when someone else tells us things.

That 93% of scientists don’t believe? Doesn’t impress me at all. They are trained to view the world analytically and in spite of their intelligence and knowledge, I believe many have blinders on and our so focused on what they are studying, they also miss the big picture. Also, I believe it is quite possible that many of those 93% would not admit that they see design for fear of ridicule.

I just love watching the Science channel because they present science in a way that us regular folks can understand. I especially love the ones about the Universe. These are entirely secular programs with not even the hint of any religious bias, yet so far, what I have seen, only increases my belief in an Intelligent Creator. I find it especially intersting when they speak of Evolution as if it had intelligence when I hear “Evolution decided….Evolution chose….Evolution in her wisdom….” when I heard that type of talk coming from a show on the Science channel I was floored! I want to say that the program was called The Universe, but I watch Discovery and H2 also, so I may be mixed up.

Zeke, I really do think that perhaps, you may be closer to the Kingdom of God than you think, closer than I am, and perhaps He will reveal Himself to you soon, just not in the obvious way you want. But when you experience it, you will not have any doubt, and you will be frustrated because you can’t get others to believe it. I have seen video of persons who have had unexplainable occurrences-if that person seems to be normal, reasonable, intelligent- they seem pretty convincing. And I am not one of those who is over credulous. For a person with Faith, I can also be rather cynical and I am often amazed at what people will readily accept, but I tend to be more like Thomas.

Hell, Torture and Judgement:

Of the seven deadly sins, Pride may be the most common when dealing with Atheists.  This pride shows itself in various ways, from the implicit judgement of God, to setting man, or themselves up AS God.

It is the implicit that is most troubling, as too often it can be difficult to detect the invalid premise that underlies the implication.

The concept of Hell as a “torture chamber” is one that I’ve seen bandied about on this and other discussion threads.  If one succumbs to the sin of pride, one starts by judging God and God’s actions, and can thus end up placing oneself over God.

Let’s pick apart the implication.  Firstly, that God “tortures” anyone.  Torture is unnecessary pain, unjustly applied, and often times in excess of the amount of pain necessary to achieve a stated goal.

In a time of analgesics, general anethesia and over the counter remedies for just about any kind of pain you can imagine, it is tempting to view pain as a thing to be avoided at almost any cost.  It can be so tempting that those who don’t use their reason can even be tempted to think of pain as simply evil.

Which immediately begs the question: “Is pain evil?”  Obviously not, as pain is a part of the learning process, pain is inseparable from many beneficial or desirable activities, and people who experience no physical pain at all (congenital insensitivity to pain) are rightfully viewed as suffering from a severe disability.

Lepers who lost sensation in their extremities before being diagnosed, then treated with drugs that arrested the progress of the disease had to be taught a special technique called VSE (visual Examination of Extremities) to avoid undetected, and thereby possibly fatal damage.

So pain is not evil, and in the light of its relationship to teaching and motivating people to make change in their lives, it can be a pure good.  Catholics recognize this by talking about the gift of pain; that there are times when God can give us no greater gift than pain.

So what of Hell?  Is hell a place of pain, or torture?  One could reasonably describe the pain of Hell as the worst torture that it is possible for a human being to experience.  Since Hell is eternal, one can’t ascribe to that pain the benefits of teaching, because what you learn can have no impact on your ability to choose, nor on what your future holds.

At first blush, it would appear to be a valid charge: That God keeps a torture chamber into which he places human beings.  The mistake is in ascribing to God the responsibility, for it is not God who places man in Hell. It is man.  Hell is the supernatural consequence of choosing to separate oneself from God.  The second mistake is in asserting that God’s judgement is arbitrary, or capricious.  God’s part in our judgement is to weigh and measure the sincerity of our desire to be forever separated from him, and as only God has the ability to act based on pure reason, God’s judgement is both reasonable, and perfectly reasonable.

The nature of the torture of Hell is to be completely and forever separated from God.  This torture was not designed by God for his amusement, nor is it scoped or calculated by him to be of a given type or intensity.  The torture of hell is an inescapable and fixed consequence of the nature of the place, and the nature of Hell is that it conforms to man’s desires.  Thus it is man who places man in Hell and man who chooses the nature of hell, not God.

So in judging God to be a torturer, the sin of pride encourages us to make three mistakes: Judging God, judging the validity of God’s actions, and failing to use our reason.

John,
I notice you failed to answer the simple question about Church teaching and abortion. But the tone and context of your posts suggests you are not interested in discussion. Absolute certainty that one’s holy books are reasonable true, unleavened by doubt, leads directly to Church-sanctioned torture as displayed by the Inquisition, and hijackers flying planes into buildings to kill infidels. You are the epitome of Christians that we should fear. Thanks for the lecture.

Hi Joan,
Well, I suppose we’ve taken this about as far as it can go. No atheists have been converted; no Christians have left the Church. Yes, I probably do assume that people remain Christian (or Mormon, or Jewish, or Muslim) because they haven’t thought this through, or are satisfied with answers that fail to get to the heart of the matter. I suppose that’s because that I, like a great many atheists, were raised in households that embraced religion. For social reasons, atheism was not an option. I’m sure you know what I mean. Surveys show that Americans despise atheists, and would have their child marry or vote for a Muslim rather than an atheist. It’s easier to come out as gay these days than to come out as an atheist. The social alienation factor is a large part of the reason I still send my children to Catholic school, and debate with Catholics in forums like these instead of personally.
-
So please refrain from playing the victim card when suggesting a media bias towards Christians, as if there is any reason to believe that Christians are underrepresented in this profession in our almost entirely Christian nation. Christians are far more interested in reports of Jesus appearing in a piece of toast than the media is. That many claim to be convinced that this is divine intervention is as worthy of reporting as Elvis sightings. We are right to ridicule them, though sadly these are not rare.
-
Does the contingency of your faith not give you pause? As I wrote to mk earlier (hey, where did she go?) do you have any doubt that had you been born and raised in a Muslim society that you would be making similar arguments for the validity of the Koran and that Mohammed flew to heaven on a winged horse? What do you make of this?
-
Prayer and suffering: I understand completely your points, which can be paraphrased as “it’s a mystery”. Every other religion has first-person testimonies of how God answered their prayers - are they all delusional? What could possibly be learned through the suffering of a faithful cancer patient who is certain to die? Or the hypothetical case of our 9-year old girl, whom as the Church teaches, should be allowed to die an agonizing death for sake of an abortion which could at least save her life? These are some of the “why” questions that you say you have thought through and led you to draw different conclusions than me.
-
Miracles: I read the links in your earlier posts. With all respect, they fall into the category of unremarkable or failing to impress anyone that wouldn’t attribute it to God anyways. Do you even think for a moment that there are not numerous people that recover from heart attacks, and have revelations and even conversations with a completely different God? On this basis alone can we discard miracles of this variety. What do you make of the fact that people 50 miles away didn’t report the sun dancing over Fatima that day? Or that this point in our history would seem extremely timely to astound us with a Eucharistic miracle. You seem to have no trouble accepting all else that scientists teach us, yet doubt that they are right on matters of the existence of God. Yet descriptions of 8th century miracles in a superstitious and backwards society should be compelling to us? 
-
Thank you for saying that I am close to the Kingdom of God, since I know that you mean that as a compliment. I will again state that I can easily imagine scenarios where God is revealed to me and I would be a believer, although this would require precious little change in my behavior I dare say. But please answer this if you will – if it was revealed to you that there was no God, or that you have grossly misinterpreted His nature, could you accept it? Or would social pressures, friends, family, Church associations, and the consolation of your faith prevent it?

Well Zeke this may be the last comment if 500 is the limit. Not sure. I need to keep this short anyway. I’m not playing victim, it is a fact that the media is secular/atheist in their approach, Obama would differ with you about this being a ‘Christian’ nation, and while still more Americans may profess a belief in God, the majority live secular lives. You mention other gods, but the attributes of alot of these differ from what Christians consider divinity to mean. Actually I have given a great deal of thought about what if I had been born in a Muslim country to Muslims. My conclusion is I don’t know. I wonder if I somehow, as a Muslim, had access to a bible and Christians, would I convert to Christianity? Would I be living somewhere where the bible and Christianity was banned? The conclusion is I honestly don’t know. The point is, non-Christians can be saved, even if they are outside the Church Jesus founded. They are still saved through the merits of Jesus Christ, and if a non-Christian was still following God’s Will, even if they didn’t realize it or had a different idea of who that God was, they could still be saved. That is what the Catholic Church teaches, some other denominations may not, sadly. Again, thankfully we do not judge these people’s hearts and souls, God does, and He sees what we cannot.
Just so you understand- when the Church says outside the Church there is no Salvation- she means that no other religion can save, only Jesus Christ,and through the Church He founded saves us. So, when a Muslim or whatever is saved, it was not through the beliefs and teachings of Islam, but Jesus’ death on the Cross and the merits of His Church (ie, the many masses said throughout the world).

I would not oversimplify the Church’s teaching on suffering as ‘it’s a mystery’. I believe it explains it pretty clearly, we know the whys and the whats of it, we just don’t know HOW God will use that suffering.

Joan, here goes comment 501, let’s see if this works. Whether or not you would convert to Christianity from Islam if you were born in a Muslim setting (or that I would be able to deny the truth about Allah without fear of violent repercussions) is impossible to know. I can only say what we know with absolute certainty, which is that your beliefs about Allah and the Koran would be largely immune to change due to social pressures, the risk of alienation from friends and family, and in some cases legal pressures. That is my only point. Even with access to the Bible and Christians, you would have been indoctrinated since birth that the Bible is false, Christians are infidels and worthy of scorn, and that it must be wrong since it says it right there in the Koran.
-
You may have done the same thing with Muslims you know. Are their beliefs even remotely convincing to you? Are you even inclined to spend time to read the Koran before dismissing it as a load of garbage? Yet here is Islam with over a billion adherents, and on pace to displace Christianity as the world’s largest religion at some point. You are utterly sure that they are wrong, and they feel the same way about you for the exact same reasons. What does this tell you about the nature of your beliefs?

Zeke, I stated plainly that I would not know if I was born in a Muslin country if I would today be Muslim or Christian. What I wrote does not contradict or disagree with your first paragraph. The difference between Muslim and more “Christian” countries, is that we are not living in a spiritual bubble, we have access to other religious books and beliefs, so our choice can be free whereas many Muslims aren’t really given a choice.

I have read many sections of the Koran. With the internet it is easy to access. Please don’t assume that I haven’t read it, and where did you get that I dismiss the Koran as a load of garbage??

In reading what I have of the Koran,  I find it not to be very reader friendly - the way it comes across just rubs me the wrong way. I don’t know how else to put it. That said, parts may be compatible or similar to Christian teaching, but it also has some pretty weird, almost childish sounding parts. I remember reading where it said, Jews will try to hide behind trees and rocks, but the trees will call out to you and say, “Here is a Jew, behind me, kill him”. and more like that. The hatred for the Jews and what is called for in the Koran is appalling and don’t even try to compare it with the Old Testament of the Bible. The old testament tells the story of Jewish history and what happened in the past, it does not tell it’s believers to kill people who do not agree with them today.

Why else would I not listen to the Koran or Islam?? Mohammed was only human, and not a very nice person from what I read. Jesus, who began The Way that we call Christianity was God and totally sinless and full of love for all humankind.

I sense an angry tone in your last couple of posts. Don’t know where that is coming from.

Hi Joan, Zeke,
I thought I would bring up an anecdote from the Jewish writings concerning “being close to the Kingdom of heaven” being skeptical.
Have you ever wondered reading only the Genesis account just what it was that caused God to speak to Abraham, “out of the blue” so to speak?
According to the writings Abram took notice of the polytheism where he lived, and investigated each “religion”, he determined the moon worshipers were in error, because the moon couldn’t be God since it fled away from the sun. So the sun worshipers were also in error because the sun, as powerful as it seemed, went away(maybe to rest?) every day. He became known around town as a skeptic. One day Abram considered the special room full of his fathers gods. He went out and killed the fatted calf, and cooked up juicy steaks and placed the plates in front of all these gods, a double portion for the big god at the far end of the room. Abram returned later to discover flies all over the untouched steaks, he grabbed an axe and chopped up all the lesser gods, and put the axe in the arms of the “big” god. Later Abrams father discovered this, and said to himself “Abram did this”, he called Abram demanding an explanation. Abram responded “looks like the big god got jealous, and chopped the smaller gods up”, His father said “Impossible, it’s just wood”, and Abram replied “then why do you worship it?”. It is said that after this God spoke to him.
How’s that? Abraham was the 1st skeptical Atheist with integrity! If you really look, knock, investigate, it will be opened to you.

Ha Ha, never heard that one!

Hi Joan,
Yeah those posts did sound angry, sorry about that. I’m not. All I can say is that when I wrote it was “impossible to know” I meant that I agree with your statement that you simply didn’t know. But it doesn’t come across like that at all. Also, I wasn’t implying that you feel the Koran is a load of garbage; that was just my colorful way of saying that you don’t feel that it’s true. My words, not yours. Sorry, I would hate to leave this off on a sour note.
-
It’s inevitable in these back and forth posts that certain questions go unanswered. I was trying to get at the issue of the cultural pressures that tend to keep Christians Christian, Muslims Muslim, and Mormons Mormon. I’m amazed that any thinking person could read the Book of Mormon and conclude that it sounds reasonable, yet this hasn’t prevented the growth of this religion to more than 14 million people. I speculate that the more involved one is in their church, and the more one defines their life by their religious beliefs, the more unlikely it becomes that they could ever doubt their faith without life-shattering personal and emotional consequences. If you still feel like writing, I would be very interested in your take on that, and if you personally could imagine disentangling yourself from the Church if you ever ceased to believe.

Hi Zeke! I’m sorry I misunderstood your tone. I agree that the more we are immersed in our religion, cultural pressures, etc., the harder it is to consider any other option without major consequences. I like reading conversion stories of people who went from one faith to Catholicism and what they went through. I need to check out the Book of Mormon- I know the Koran does not sound reasonable, but maybe it’s the Arabic to English translation - nah, it can’t be defended in my opinion. And the Bible has parts that don’t sound reasonable either.
-
Where and when we are born and to what religion if any has a major impact. I was born and raised Catholic, so it’s easier to remain Catholic, I admit, however, until about 14 years ago, I wasn’t really living my faith, going to Mass and that was about it, and not really knowing for sure why I was there. It was a conversion/wake up call that really, finally got me to think and question my so-called faith and if there was a God, and what about other faiths. And when I thought that perhaps, the Catholic Church was wrong, it was scary for me. But every time I began to have serious doubts, without me even trying to get them cleared up, something would happen to explain or answer a doubt, or further convince me that God did exist and Catholic Christianity had the fullness of the truth. And no one helped me with this. It wasn’t as though someone gave me a convincing argument to satisfy me, it was more like I would question something in my mind, and then, some time later I would come across something that explained it just out of the blue, and it seemed that it was God, the Holy Spirit, guiding me. Usually these questions or doubts would not be about God’s existence, but about which faith was True.

For me, I know most about Catholicism and less about other religions, but what I do know does not impress me the way Christianity does. It’s either Catholic or Atheist for me. All or nothing, in my opinion. I choose all. Other religions are more localized, like Buddhism, or Hinduism. Sure we have people around the world in those faiths, but not to the degree that we have Christianity all around the world. Islam is large or larger in number of adherents, I think, but come on, unlike Christianity, like you said Muslims are mainly insulated against other faiths, forced to convert under penalty of death, or being ostracized. I know there are Muslims here in the U.S. and elsewhere in the West, and I guess they are ‘freer’ to leave their faith in these countries, but most don’t. But they place fatwah’s on people who leave or disagree, I mean people’s lives are in danger around the world if they speak out against Mohammed or Islam or leave the faith -Salman Rushdie, Ayan Kirsi Ali, Theo Van Gogh. You don’t get that with Christianity. We are free to choose to the extent at least that our families don’t give us a hard time, but even then we don’t have to fear death for leaving the Church. My brother left the Church for 20 years, my mom was saddened, we all were, but we didn’t ostracize him, or even give him a hard time about it. To me, other religions are just ‘small potatoes’. They don’t make the claims that Christianity does- their gods seem very small and in many ways impotent and very limited.
—
So its Catholic or Atheist for me. I have considered many times what if God did not exist. I have had doubts as most people have, for sure. But the Atheist arguments I do not find convincing at all. Science so far has not made me doubt and sometimes only confirms my faith. Some of the scientific arguments are so far over my head, I mean, they say, “blah, blah, blah, so see, it’s not likely there could be a creator”. And I can only think-well if you say so, I guess I have to have faith that the scientists know what they are talking about because I will never understand physics, quantum this or that. I mean, think about it, the average person doesn’t understand the deeper sciences or math, so when we are told that Science says this or that, we have to take it on faith that they are right. I can’t investigate some of this stuff for myself, I don’t have the mind for it.  The only science I can be sure of is what I can understand and see for myself.

So for me, since I find the arguments for God more compelling than the arguments against God, I choose faith. I also think Science is really a way to learn about God, how He creates, they are compatible because if God does exist and created the Universe,then the Science is His. However, Theologians should not necessarily stick their noses into science, and Scientists should keep their noses out of religion because neither one is an expert on the other. I also believe it is impossible for Science to prove that God doesn’t exist, and who knows, it may prove He does. So I find the better part is to believe in God than to not. Atheism just does not seem to be a reasonable path, for me at least.

WITHIN AND BEYOND by Fr. Gabriel Calvo - This is a great book I would recommend anyone to read: an encounter with self and with God, to be downloaded for free from http://www.fires.hu/download.php   Also Hand in Hand has proved to be very useful for engaged couples, whether they are Christian or not.

For the Rational Libertarian- God, unlike Man, isn’t limited to 24 hours a day.  If there is a God, and I believe there is, the main reason he created intelligent species is likely to generate prayers *just like that one*.

I would like to suggest a way to bridge the gap between Christians and atheists. While there are extremists on both sides who won’t listen to anything challenging their position, most people who are Christians and atheists take spiritual issues seriously and respect the search for spiritual fulfilment that most of us undertake. Atheists are not anti-spiritual usually, just anti-dogma. So are many Christians, in fact. Part of the problem is that we confuse belief with faith (this is an old theological quandary, by the way). The terms are often used as synonyms but there is a useful distinction: belief requires adherence to something as true, as immutable fact; faith on the other hand is simply trust that something is true.  The trouble arises when belief becomes rigid. Faith, by definition is always open. This is because there is a humility to faith that doesn’t allow blind insistence that something is true when the evidence is against it. Faith accepts the possibility of specific acts being wrong without negating the object of faith, be it God or something else. As an atheist I not only respect faith, I have faith, but my vocabulary is not traditional. I have written a book,, “The Words That Created God.” It is about the substance of the Ten Commandments and how those rules are so critical to the creation of a stable human society and to being able to conceive of faith and even God Himself. I would love feedback on this. There is a free download of much of it on amazon.com. The idea behind the book is that faith in each other is essential to human existence and that this faith is essential for accepting a single Goad, as opposed to many different gods. But I also say that rigid belief (as opposed to open faith) is the equivalent of regressing to a state where God is merely tribal, not universal.

I would love to get people’s comments on this important issue: the role of faith in the lives of everyone, atheists included.

Faith vs. Belief:  Is There a Difference?

Yes, but only in that faith is a contextually specialized form of the word belief (it is simply short hand for “religious belief”), and that is meaningful only if you subscribe to the notion that all religions are independent, human constructed systems.

The statements by a Catholic, of “I have faith in the existence of God” and “I believe in the existence of God” are, however, exactly equal.

The attempt to separate these two nearly synonymous words lies in a failure to understand Catholicism.  Catholicism is a religion of faith and reason, and equally importantly, Catholicism is NOT AN INDEPENDENT, HUMAN CONSTRUCTED SYSTEM.  Just as the principles of gravity can be discovered, because gravity exists outside of the mind of man, so does the Catholic faith.  There is a reason that Jesus told us he is the Truth, the life, and the way.  Emphasis on the word truth.  The Truth can be discovered by reason, in as much and just so far as reason applies.
It is important to note that the majority of Catholic moral teaching can be reasoned out for oneself.

Everything that Catholics believe in (note the use of the word here, as well as the use of “believe” in the Nicene Creed) has evidential support, though whether or not any evidence ever constitutes “proof” of anything is a statement of faith.

IOW: the mistake that all Atheists, almost all non-Catholics, and a lot of cradle Catholics make is in starting with the premise that all religion is nothing more than blind faith, and that reasoning is a valid process only in the context of Natural Philosophy.  As stated above, and in other postings here, these premises are flawed, thus any arguments made will likely be flawed, and will arrive at an invalid conclusion.

This important point also addresses the assertion that the religion you believe in is entirely a matter of your birth place and nuture.

Other religions are based on blind faith in a single human revelation based on a claim of divine revelation.  Their view of God does not require him to act reasonably, nor can his nature, works or acts be addressed using reason, and we must have faith in a MAN, not God.  Islam is a case in point.  Unlike Islam, however, a Catholic believes in a rational God whose acts, nature, works and goals can be reasoned about to the extent that such things can be comprehended by the human intellect, and more importantly, that our faith in not blind, but based in the divine revealing himself to an entire nation.  No other religion was founded by God himself, through the process of simultanous revelation to a huge number of people, followed by repeating the process, but this time by incarnation in human form.

The evidence of the existence of God is overwhelming.  It is only irrational, blind faith that prevents someone from accepting this evidence as proof.

Ref: Comment on “The Words That Created God”—Faith vs belief; Is there a difference?

I see you agree with me on a very crucial point (though perhaps without meaning to). You acknowledge that after all the evidence is gathered, the last step toward a final decision requires faith. You mention belief in the existence of God as a place where faith and belief are the same, but what you are apparently not aware of is that this small step is a prerequisite to belief and it was very difficult for man to achieve. I have a chapter in my book called “The moment that creates God” that discusses it.
You see, historically, acceptance of a single god (the God most of us mean when we use the term) was not easy at all. Everything in fact was stacked against it. Polytheism was the rule even in Judea until at least the third century BCE, probably even later. Despite “evidence” that you may feel is obvious, in reality it took many centuries and a lot of little leaps of faith of human beings toward other human beings to build to the point where people could accept one god.
My book is about what it took to get to that moment.

No, not a “final decision”.  Judgement.  The difference between evidence and proof is where judgement takes place.

Lacking perfect knowledge and reason, human beings must create criteria for completeness, then weight the evidence presented to them to see if it satisfies this criteria for completeness.  Human judgement, however, is not final.  Evidence may be incomplete, may be false, or the criteria may be in error, and so the process of judging must not be final.

Thus, we do not agree.

I would disagree with several other of your points, as well.  Faith is not difficult for human beings.  In fact, human beings are the animal that believes.

Your reply contains what appears to be two logical fallacies, as well. Perhaps I misunderstood it.

“What makes you think that that statement is correct?  If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it seems pretty likely that it really is a duck.”

So, a video recording of a duck . . . is a duck?  How about a wind-up toy that looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck?  How about a robotic duck?

The rest of your reply has the same level of intellectual rigor (near zero), combined with ignorance.  Your total lack of any knowledge what so ever of the subject is not my responsibility to correct, it is yours.

You can’t even meaningfully discuss the difference between perception, category and substance!  Your reply provides yet another example of -

“Atheism is the most irrational and ignorant of religions.”

But, here’s one link to test the seriousness of your demands for “evidence”, “proof” and support for my “assertions”:

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/

Read that, paying special attention to the proofs of the existence of God (the five ways) before you respond again.

@earl, your personal irrational skepticism does not define either reality or evidence.  Empirical evidence has convinced me that contraception is just poisoning women to make them more available for abuse and rape, and that IVF is the result of a woman being so abused by the poison of contraception that she cannot have children on her own.

But keep lying, you are quite the entertaining fool.