Jennifer’s logic is that of a rapist.

Let’s try to head off the atheist trolls today with this:
...
Definition of Atheism
...
The belief that once there was absolutely nothing. And nothing happened to the nothing until the nothing magically exploded (for no reason), creating everything and everywhere. Then a bunch of the exploded everything rearranged itself (for no reason whatsoever), into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs. Or something.
...
And atheists mock Christian beliefs…

Thank you so much.Very true.
I have a young family member,raised Catholic, who now embraces atheism-or at least claims to.It’s troubling to have conversations with them on the subject because there can be so much hurt & anger.But we finally spoke about love, that it’s intangible, unseeable, untouchable but we still generally believe in it.And then the wannabe atheist said, “Ok, love is God, I guess I can agree on that.” That’s kind of backwards wording, but the door cracked open a bit.

“God is love.”
Riiight.  Now explain just exactly what that means!
“God is, literally, the source and essence of all that we call love.”
Riiight.
“we’re not describing what God is, we’re describing what love is—Love is God.”
You aren’t making much progress yet.
“Love is not something that can be examined under a microscope or proved in a laboratory.”
And a “god” isn’t either!  Therefore what?
“Once you realized that you could replace the word “God” with the word “Love” in almost any instance”
Hilarious.
“It’s no wonder that this worldview considers the idea of a loving God who permits suffering to be a revolting logical impossibility.”
Quite so.
“likened coming to believe in God to falling in love.”
And when “love” turns out to be a “delusion”, ...

Thanks for the article, Jennifer. Love is the key to our own conversion, and it is also the key to the conversion of nonbelievers. It is the only thing that can soften a hardened heart.

Excellent article! Thank you.

“To find love—and Love—requires emotional involvement on the part of the seeker, a willingness to investigate with the heart in addition to the coldly rational part of the mind.”

Kris, in New England posted on Thursday, Mar 7, 2013 9:31 AM (EST):
“Let’s try to head off the atheist trolls today . . . .”

I’m one of the atheist trolls you wish to head off. Actually I’m not sure there are many atheists who would disagree with Ms. Fulwiler’s column today. I think most would accept her description of her conversion as both subjectively accurate and honest. Personally I have no wish to argue with her perceptions of her own experience. I only have a grievance when the church she believes in tries to enact the conclusions drawn from those perceptions in secular law.

cowalker,
Is it only certain laws people of faith support that you disagree with?
I think that might be more pertinent.

Jennifer (I want to call you “Jen” after reading something like this that means so much to me personally),
.
Thank you!
.
This describes so well some of what I have experienced in the oh-so-small growth I have made in my faith.  And, it helps to focus - to crystalize - the efforts I now make (so awkwardly) in my blind struggle toward God today.
.
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
.
Many thanks and God bless…

Thanks you for writing this!  As a cradle Catholic I always like to hear about conversions into the church, because I never had one!  I hope you are feeling better and able to get some rest.

Kathleen posted on Thursday, Mar 7, 2013 12:40 PM (EST):
“cowalker, Is it only certain laws people of faith support that you disagree with? I think that might be more pertinent.”

I’m sure many people of faith support laws against theft, rape, violence, etc., and I also support such laws. It’s not because they are supported by people of faith that I reject some laws, such as, for example, laws prohibiting same sex marriage. I reject laws based on an idea of marriage derived from belief in a supposedly “Divine” plan for human life. For the same reason I reject laws requiring women to wear burkas based on an idea of women’s roles derived from belief in a supposedly “Divinely” inspired Koran.

What I particularly resent is the exploitation of their special tax exempt status by religious bodies who feel free to impose their personal feelings about the meaning of life on everyone else.

@ Kris:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpz8PMcRJSY
**********
Kathleen, as a moral relativist, you might like the video too.
*******
Most rapists believe their victims really want to be raped. It’s irrational and sick to worship suffering.

I love the teaching from Luke 9:5.  (“And as for those who do not welcome you, when you leave that town, shake the dust from your feet…”).
.
I used to get a little riled up by trolls at sites like these… (once in a while I still do!).  But, when I’m at my best, I see them as I see my own children, as I see myself - they, too, are just trying to find their way.  I will (and have) offered the Truth that I have found, and leave the rest to them and their God. 
.
So, in that spirit—Kris and Kathleen, great post by Jennifer, huh?!  This Lent, one of my “resolutions” was to practice Lectio Divina on a daily basis.  As Lent is rolling along here, I found that it was often difficult to mash some scriptural passage into an extended silent (and personal) meditation.  Now, I don’t doubt the worth of scripture in a well-formed spiritual life.  But, at the same time (as a recovering OCD-er, I’m finding that at least every other day, I’ve had to relax my expectations of myself in order to get to know my God better… and what i’m finding is that He is the same abundantly-loving creator that Jennifer has described here..

Thanks, Jennifer!  And may the love of Christ soften the hardness of all our hearts…believers and non-believers alike.  ICXC+NIKA

Olivia—Catholics do not worship suffering, we worship a God suffered out of love for us.  There is a big difference.

Catholics worship suffering—and keep whining about being “victimized.”
******
Anna Lisa: You’ll be interested to learn that a new study of Mother Teresa will be published in a Canadian Journal this month:
**********
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/03/05/a-new-expose-on-mother-teresa-shows-that-she-and-the-vatican-were-even-worse-than-we-thought/
********
She is the prime model of Catholic love for suffering.  In a faith that encourages chastity, sexual repression, and authoritarianism, Mother Teresa was a woman who actually wanted her charges to suffer because it brought them closer to Jesus.

I didn’t ask Jesus to suffer and die for me. He was your scapegoat, not mine.

What a beautiful image of Christ as a “scapegoat.”  I remember my parochial school teachers offering this visual after we read Genesis 15:6-17.  (Abraham cut some animals in two, God passed between them, making a covenant between himself and his people.)
.
I prefer to think of Christ as God’s answer to Genesis 22 (Abraham offering his own son as a sacrifice before God stops him).  What a brutal image - a father having to put his own son to death, having to watch as his own flesh-and-blood, product of his love, dies!  But what a beautiful God that would do this for us through the blood of his child, our Lamb.  Jesus the Nazarene *is* our sacrifice, offered to us by Christ’s own Father… for us.  I struggle sometimes to remember this.  The difficulties in my life are so much sometimes, but when I offer them to God, they are so small!  They are nothing but tools for God to show me how close he is always and how much he longs to provide for me daily…
.
I am broken.
.
I need a scapegoat.
.
Or all is lost.
.
And I descend into my own darkness.

“I didn’t ask Jesus to suffer and die for me. He was your scapegoat, not mine.”

But He suffered and died for you too, anyway. That’s the beauty of it.

scape·goat [skeyp-goht]
noun
.
a person or group made to bear the blame for others or to suffer in their place.
.
So you worship a “sinless” person who took the fall for your evil. Proof of your reverence for the suffering of innocent people. I’ll be responsible for my own wrongdoings—you can keep you bloody deity.

Jennifer is right about one thing though: Catholics hang on to their irrational faith because they fear being unloved. They have no self-esteem or self-confidence. They regard the suffering of innocents as divine so they do nothing to stop it.

It’s been interesting.  I’ve gotta run, though - got a family that’s waiting for me right now at home.  It’s been 3 1/2 years since I saw my own personal pit of hell (brought on by my own brokenness, my own “wrongdoings” that I was powerless to remove).  In those 3 1/2 years, my God has removed some of the scales from my eyes, some of the dead skin from my hands.  Now, the world is brighter and my hands are quicker to help, my heart lighter with love.
.
Sometimes I get a little embarassed sharing all of this (like I’m an overgrown, giddy schoolboy or something), but because of the confidence I have in my Father, I need not be embarassed or fear anyone!
.
Life is good, Olivia - don’t be so hard on yourself!  (You realize you’re being hard on yourself, right?  With your expectations…)  Good luck and God bless!

Life is even better without religion—it doesn’t waste my time.

Okay “Olivia”—my little troll pet.  Come here sweetie, so I can pet you! Dats my little fuzzy one!  You know I *love* it when you make me the chief Mother Teresa defender. It makes me a little giddy.
.
But why so *grumpy* this week??  You’re not always so hell bent on being a mean atheist.  What happened?

Cowalker
“I reject laws based on an idea of marriage derived from belief in a supposedly “Divine” plan for human life.”

Have you not noticed that non Christian societies have marriage only between men and women, too.  Do you have any examples from history of homosexual marriages?

It is not particularly a Christian trait to notice that men and women have sexual complementarity.  It is not a particularly religious idea that men and women are able to have a sexual relationship that is apt for and enriched by childbearing and childrearing. 

What is more particularly Christian is the idea of monogamy and permanence, which are shown in fewer societies throughout history.

Olivia wrote “I’ll be responsible for my own wrongdoings.” Yes, you will, and thank you for your acceptance of responsibility for your wrongdoing. However, what you are unable to control or limit are the persons harmed and affected by it. Ultimately, the consequences of your wrongdoing ends up punishing and causing the innocent to suffer. The consequences of our sins are not limited to us and affect others. Like trash tossed into a pond, the ripples from it spread out and touch every shore. The innocent are that shore where the pollution of sin always accumulates and causes unjust suffering. The harshest consequences of many sins come to rest entirely on innocent children (divorce, abortion, etc.). What we don’t see clearly, or ignore, is how our sins hurt others, especially the innocent. And the more self-centered we are, the more blind we are to it.

@Skywalker:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions
********
The Church, following the teaching of St. Paul, has always considered the state of virginity or celibacy preferable in itself to the state of marriage. If women weren’t necessary for propagation, the Church would’ve declared that women had no souls—just like other “lower” species. It’s blasphemy to suggest that Jesus was married, or that Mary was not a virgin.

The Catholic’s strong objection to the Pill is not that it’s contraceptive, but that allows the freedom for women and men to have sex whenever they want—no longer under religious control. NFP is a method of contraception but, more important to the hierarchy of the Church, it is regulation of sexual behavior. The Church is obsessed with the sexual behavior of EVERYBODY. They claim they’re being victimized by same-sex marriage—but how does it “hurt” anyone?

The first time I experienced love was when I was a child and looked up into my mothers eyes, at that moment I knew I was loved. Through no merit of mine I was created, born, and loved. If love is God, I first discovered God in my mother’s eyes.

The love between mother and child is stronger than the love in any other relationship. You may note that Abraham, and not Sarah, was tested in his willingness to sacrifice his son. Mary (all of them) were devastated when Jesus was crucified—but God the Father and the Church (comprised by men designated as “fathers” hold it as a “willing” sacrifice.
*****
Bruce, it’s not surprising that you prize your mother’s love over all others.

Inalienable rights—rights that flow from conception to a rational creature of God or to human beings. All human beings have them, and they may not be altered or modified by governments. No government is necessary for a man and a woman to join together and create the bedrock foundation of all human societies—a family. The natural result of the coming together of a man and a woman joining together is for the procreation and raising of children. As history demonstrates repeatedly, when governments violate or legislate against the natural law—it may only do so by force, because it contravenes our nature and must be imposed. An enormous dilution of legal (biological) parental rights must be imposed to accommodate homosexual unions because existing laws must be changed or modified to accommodate this natural impossibility being sanctioned by government. It is physically impossible for a child to have two fathers or two mothers; however, in order to extinguish or modify the (naturally inconvenient but necessary biological) mother or father’s rights new definitions must be established to negate or diminish biological parental rights. These new definitions will affect all biological mothers and fathers—not just homosexual ones. I don’t know any healthy, well-adjusted person who would choose not to have mother or a father, yet, that is just one “harm” that married couples will suffer from homosexual unions (dilution of parental rights), and the (innocent) children born to the imposed unnatural unions.

Posted by Miguel de Santo Domingo on Thursday, Mar 7, 2013 8:32 PM (EST):
Olivia wrote “I’ll be responsible for my own wrongdoings.” Yes, you will, and thank you for your acceptance of responsibility for your wrongdoing. However, what you are unable to control or limit are the persons harmed and affected by it. Ultimately, the consequences of your wrongdoing ends up punishing and causing the innocent to suffer. The consequences of our sins are not limited to us and affect others. Like trash tossed into a pond, the ripples from it spread out and touch every shore. The innocent are that shore where the pollution of sin always accumulates and causes unjust suffering. The harshest consequences of many sins come to rest entirely on innocent children (divorce, abortion, etc.). What we don’t see clearly, or ignore, is how our sins hurt others, especially the innocent. And the more self-centered we are, the more blind we are to it.
********
<i>No s**t Sherlock Holmes! You figured out that actions have consequences! Why do you think the gravity of those consequences would encourage worship of Jesus? Should I be comforted because I believe a “sinless” man takes the consequences of my wrongdoing? Will the “confession” of your son for the murder you committed exempt you from the consequences of your wrongdoing?

Why do you think actions arising from your Catholic belief make you any less responsible for the consequences?

Yet you believe that is what Jesus is for—taking the rap.

Anna Lisa—Olivia is not your “troll-pet,” but if it makes you feel better about your miscarriage, feel free to abuse me.

Olivia—This is what the catechism says about celibacy and marriage.
2349   “People should cultivate [chastity] in the way that is suited to their state of life. Some profess virginity or consecrated celibacy which enables them to give themselves to God alone with an undivided heart in a remarkable manner. Others live in the way prescribed for all by the moral law, whether they are married or single.”136 Married people are called to live conjugal chastity; others practice chastity in continence: (1620)
There are three forms of the virtue of chastity: the first is that of spouses, the second that of widows, and the third that of virgins. We do not praise any one of them to the exclusion of the others…. This is what makes for the richness of the discipline of the Church.137

Clearly, there are two categories of atheist commenter: The trolls, and the sincere and well-spoken variety who can carry on a coherent conversation and, when disagreeing, convey a respect for the common humanity of the persons on both sides.

Any atheist who falls in the latter category should, of course, realize that he is not being considered when phrases like “Let’s try to head off the atheist trolls….”

In fairness, I should point out that the comment which began that way went on to directly criticize not trollery done by atheists, but atheism. This would give an atheist some excuse to think the remark directed against anyone who held the atheist view and thus included him under the heading “trolls.”

But that should be considered an accidental, unintended coupling. Jen Fulweiler was a person worthy of respect before she came to know Christ: Her conversion changed her views but not her value as a human being. Those of us on Jen’s side of the conversion line ought therefore to convey a message of respect to people not yet on Jen’s side of the conversion line. They are also made in the image of God, and should be treated that way.

Unless they’re trolling, that is. In which case, the usual “do not feed the trolls” admonition applies.

Catholics consider Mary the greatest non divine human being that ever lived…so how could we think that women are less than men?
It wrong to say that Jesus was married or that Mary wasn’t a virgin, because it is inaccurate.  It is not wrong to say that Mary was married because it is accurate.
Contraception, from the Latin contra (against) and conceptio (to conceive), literally means “against conception.”
It may be defined as “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” (HV 14).
All that the Church means is that we are not to alter the sex act to prevent pregnancy.  We are free, in many circumstances positively encouraged, to avoid the sex act when we have serious reasons to do so.  The Church does not discourage sexual intercourse during any imaginable circumstance where a couple is naturally not fertile.  This is NFP, you know when you are fertile and you don’t have sex at that time if you have a good reason to avoid pregnancy.  (Great article on this topic by brett salkeld at vox nova)

@SandyOlivia/“we are legion”: Whether you are in a group, or a coven, or a woman’s studies group—or all of you are in one body…you sound the same. Same diatribe.  Who else on the planet could make fun of Mother Teresa or jeer at someone for their miscarriage or mistreat someone who rushed their son to the ER?  It was fascinating to watch you try to defend an intellectual argument against the Church, and then come back with a demonic curse when I crossed you.  Do you think this gives credibility to your arguments? It actually gives the thread a vivid dimension.  It illustrates in full color that some actively live their lives at war with Christ and the Good News.  It is to the “T” what St. Paul described when he said that we are at war with demons.  Just as we as Christians know that we must be the hands of Jesus in this world, some humans choose to be the hands of the evil one.

I simply don’t understand evangelical atheism.  While there is no physical, measurable proof that God exists, one also cannot prove in such a way that He does not.  Why is it so important that we all believe in a negative?  Even a simple, rational mind can grasp that in the end, someone is going to be right.  If it is the Atheists, then no harm, no foul.  There’s no justice and it’s permanent nothingness, so it really doesn’t matter how we lived and believed.  However, if the Christians are correct, that is a pretty enormous gamble to take when you consider life continues for an eternity.  Now, this really oversimplifies the matter, but it is true.  What is most difficult for an atheist or agnostic to grasp is that it is not until you humble yourself and enter into the faith that the truth becomes revealed.  Just as it would be nearly impossible to achieve a mastery of organic chemistry if one never applied themself in the study of this subject, it is similarly impossible to understand faith until you enter in and dedicate yourself to the study and perfection of this subject, even if that means simply opening your heart to being enlightened.  This is why a debate on faith and God is frustrating on both ends.  It is like speaking to one who has the knowledge of an infant in this particular subject, while you hold a phD.  Neither of you are going to understand the other.

And to prove Jennifer’s point: clear as day “Exhibit A” on what you see in a life *without* God (Love)... hatred, venom, and bile.
—
Re: Posted by Olivia on Thursday, Mar 7, 2013 8:45 PM (EST)—> Riiiight.  Because THAT’S a reliable, proven, unbiased source of information on Church teaching.

It’s been a long, long time since I’ve read so much by a truly hate-filled and ignorant person as Olivia.  She’s had to really work at it for many years to be who she’s become.  She needs our prayers to understand that just a little effort of love within herself can undo all those years of hate, self-hate, and misunderstanding (if not willful and dishonest ignorance) and that all is not lost; she merely needs to turn her heart.

Olivia,

“Unfortunately a person is often unable to determine the true source of his/her thoughts making it easy for demonic suggestion to enter into the soul. Only experienced monks and holy people already purified by extreme humility are able to reveal the approach of dark spirits. The souls of worldly people, enveloped by sinful darkness, often do not sense or see this, because it is hard to see what is dark in the dark”(*).

***

If the heart is empty of humility and other virtues, demons come and do whatever they want with the mind and body of the person”

Bishop Varnava (Beliaev)

***

Do you recall the childhood event that led you off the beaten track?

(*) Dr. Dmitry A. Avdeev, M.D., Ph.D

Olivia, in the words of Dr. Dmitry A. Avdeev, M.D., Ph.D, unfortunately a person is often unable to determine the true source of his/her thoughts making it easy for demonic suggestion to enter into the soul. Only experienced monks and holy people already purified by extreme humility are able to reveal the approach of dark spirits. The souls of worldly people, enveloped by sinful darkness, often do not sense or see this, because it is hard to see what is dark in the dark. “If the heart is empty of humility and other virtues, demons come and do whatever they want with the mind and body of the person” Bishop Varnava (Beliaev). Do you recall the childhood event that first led you off the beaten track?

Oliva’s quote: Life is even better without religion—it doesn’t waste my time.

Which begs the question: Why do you waste your time on religious sites arguing against religion?

I am convinced that Atheists make better Christians than me, because even *I* don’t talk about Jesus/Christianity every-day, all-day, like Atheists do.

What if every hurt or angry person who vents here was replied to in love?Responding in kind just throws fuel on the fire.
Some folk sincerely & respectfully disagree.Others come with hurt & an agenda.In either case, we may be the only Christ they see.

Olivia states that not having religion means she does not waste her time.  However, she seems to have plenty of time to waste on commenting on this blog post.  And, she is so angry. 

Sorry, Olivia, but God loves you, and there is nothing you can do about it.

Skywalker—We’ve been over the fact that NFP is a method of contraception on another post. Even Kathleen agreed, because the USCCB even lists statistics on how effective it is compared to other contraception methods.
******
Anna Lisa—what did you expect from a troll? You “know” I’m a mean girl.
******
Danielle—you are probably right. Atheists do know more about religion than most Christians (did you see the Jimmy Kimmel “Lie News Papal Edition” clip?)  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iz-LxZnPjJA
*****
I’m here because Catholics are encroaching on my civil rights, and spreading false information as “education”.

I fail to understand how your civil rights are being encroached, but you are free to spend your time however you wish.

The Church is an international institution trying to establish unjust control of the political and social sphere, and justifying it by referencing the biblical deity as if he were a proven fact, not an article of faith.
.
Believe me, I have a problem with that. Especially when I see the Church trying to tell me I have fewer rights than a cluster of three-day-old cells in my womb, or that my gay friends are intrinsically disordered, or my birth control pills make me a murderer.
.
Yet the lawyers defending a wrongful death suit against a Catholic Hospital are arguing state law protects doctors from liability concerning unborn fetuses on grounds that those (viable twin) fetuses are not persons with legal rights.
********
http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2013/01/fetuses_arent_people_lawsuit_catholic_bishops_review.php
******
Catholics will stretch the doctrine that life begins at conception. They can always “repent” later and be forgiven because your whipping boy Jesus pays for their sins. Catholic morals are relative and cannot be trusted.

NFP is not contraception because it is not an action against conception.  One refrains from having sex when one is fertile and thus does not achieve pregnancy.  Contraceptives involve doing something to make sex that is fertile not fertile.  Condoms stop sperm from reaching the egg, the pill stops a woman from ovulating.  They work against our nature, trying to make either the male or female reproductive system not function properly or to put up barriers between them.  Does NFP make the reproductive system not function properly?  It does not.  Does it put a barrier between the male and female reproductive systems?  No, again.  The sex act, if it occurs, is unaltered.
NFP and contraception can both result in not becoming pregnant, but they involve different ways of arriving at the same end. 
Stealing and working are both ways to get money, but they use different ways of arriving at the same end.
If the USCCB said that working was just as effective as stealing as a way to get money on their website, would you think they were saying that stealing and working are exactly the same kind of actions?
As for other Catholics agreeing with you, that is not an argument.  Some people don’t know what contraception means and they may mistakenly conflate it with any type of family planning such as NFP, breastfeeding, or complete abstinence.

Quoted from a commenter at WEIT:
“I think it goes back to childhood. If children are taught “It is very important that you believe this, regardless of evidence or logic, because you will be terribly punished if you don’t (or at least fail to gain a near-infinite reward)” then their attitude towards belief and knowledge is fundamentally corrupted, and believing that something is true because you wish it to be true becomes quite easy.”

“The consequences of our sins are not limited to us and affect others.”
Who gets to define “sins”?  Who gets to define what is “right” and what is “wrong”?  Our actions frequently affect others.  So what?  A life without actions that affect others is a single person alone on top of a mountain.

“truly hate-filled”
What if it’s “sorrow”, not “hate”?  Sorrow that you are wasting a lot of time and money on one of a thousand silly religions?  I can “waste” 5 minutes here (if I’m not censored).  I consider it fun to make fun of religion.  But it’s not fun that you think you have the right to impose your morality upon others.

“Inalienable rights ... they may not be altered or modified by governments.”
Who decides what are such rights?  Slavery?  The right to vote?

God, our Creator, defines sin; however, I understand that some people fail to acknowledge Him. Yet, by their very human nature they know between right and wrong. I know of no cultures where envy, laziness, cowardice, incest, theft, murder, fraud, and lying are cherished among their own people. Throughout history and throughout the world people have a base-line distinction of right and wrong. Now the baser the society (more vicious and animalistic) the fewer of these principles are kept and they are destroyed or die out, but nobler societies keep them and prosper as a result. What people often misunderstand is that we do not “hurt” God by our sin, we hurt ourselves and those around us. We are doing that for which we were not designed and is contrary to our very nature, made in His image and likeness. Germany was a legitimate sovereign and created laws that allowed them, by their own law, to kill the Jews. Killing Jews was legal in Germany; however, after the war those who perpetrated these crimes were prosecuted under natural law principles at Nuremburg for crimes against humanity. The governments of the entire world acknowledged a law higher than that of their own. At least after WWII a list of the inalienable rights were identified after dealing with the horror of the Nazi’s war crimes. Here is the link: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml. If you have ever uttered the phrase “that is not fair” you may have just identified one. With that statement you are making an appeal to human being’s innate sense of right and wrong. Another way to identify them is if you wouldn’t want it done to you or anyone you love against their will, you may have identified an inalienable right.

Skywalker—it has already been discussed and most here have reluctantly agreed that NFP is the method of contraception approved by the Pope. Look it up.
.
the goal of both methods is to enjoy sex without the worry of pregnancy. This is in direct opposition of the Church’s stance that sexual relations must be “open to life.”

A good king inspires loyalty. An evil tyrant demands blind obedience. A good king allows those who do not want to serve him leave in peace. An evil tyrant kills and tortures those who will not be slaves. This is why I could never be christian.
.
“It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.”—Arthur C. Clarke

You are such a liar.  No one agreed that NFP was a method of contraception.  NFP is open to life, and it is not in opposition with the Church’s stance.

Good article by the way, Jennifer.  Worth enduring the trollish comments.

Claire—you only want to think NFP is not contraception because you prefer to believe the POPE over plain reason. “Religion is a crutch for the weak minded.”—Jesse Ventura.
.
“It has served us well, this myth of Christ.”  Pope Leo X.
.

Skywalker explained very clearly to you the difference between NFP and contraception.  As did people on other threads (where you claim that we reluctantly agreed with you;  there’s a fantasy!).  Either the complexity is too much for you, or you’re being intentionally ignorant, or a combination of both.  Add that to the fact that you callously derived pleasure from Annalisa’s miscarriage (as you did from Jennifer’s life-threatening condition a few months ago), and your credibility sinks even further.  Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to unsubscribe from this thread too.  I’m glad I took the time to read this article, but I have no desire for lying, game-playing trolls to intrude on my weekend.

So is breastfeeding a contraceptive, too?  Is sex after menopause a contraceptive act?  Because in both of those cases your body is not ovulating and you could have sex and not get pregnant.  They work with the body, not against it, just like NFP. 

Skywalker made the false comparison of “preventing pregnancy” and making money—then put them into a false dichotomy. NFP is used mainly for preventing pregnancy—which is contraception.
.
There are many more ways to make money and there are many ways of having sex while preventing pregnancy. NFP is one. The intent is the same in all methods. That is NOT being “open to life,” as you put it.
.
OK, I got no “open agreement”-just no counter response from Kathleen about the USCCB listing the effectiveness of NFP compared to OTHER METHODS of contraception, and the general comments of people who refer to their practice as NFP as contraception—why they use other methods:
.
http://womenintheology.org/2011/03/29/women-speak-about-natural-family-planning/
.
Your moral relativism in favor of the Church over reason is keeping you ignorant of common facts. Church teaching will have to bend to evidenced-based facts.

About the “quote” from Pope Leo X
Although the quote is commonly attributed without source documentation to Pope Leo X, it is believed to have originated in a satirical piece titled “The Pageant of the Popes” by a Protestant controversialist named John Bale (1495–1563). Bale wrote: “For on a time when a Cardinall Bembus did move a question out of the Gospell, the Pope gave him a very contemptuous answer saying: ‘All ages can testifie enough howe profitable that fable of Christe hath ben to us and our companie.’”
The question of this quotes origin was answered by Michelle Arnold at Catholic Answers.

Posted by Skywalker on Saturday, Mar 9, 2013 6:03 PM (EST):
So is breastfeeding a contraceptive, too?  Is sex after menopause a contraceptive act?  Because in both of those cases your body is not ovulating and you could have sex and not get pregnant.  They work with the body, not against it, just like NFP.
*********
There are activities that have more than one purpose—breastfeeding is cited in NFP as having the additional benefit of contraception, along with its functions of feeding the baby and bonding of mother and child.
*********
Sex after menopause is all the better because there are no fears about pregnancy—one of its best perks! Certainly it is not “open to life” in the way the Church thinks it should be, because, again, both partners have timed their sex to when they are certain no pregnancy will occur. As far as I know, the Church has said nothing about it. I think it makes the definition of contraception, but I don’t know if it is mentioned in NFP classes. Perhaps Kathleen’s daughter can explain.

“Religious faith not only lacks evidence, its independence from evidence is its pride and joy, shouted from the rooftops.”—Dawkins

“That is NOT being “open to life,” as you put it.”

I did not use that phrase, because it is misleading.  It’s a Catholic catchphrase ment to convey an attitude of humility and gratitude, and it means that even unplanned children are loved and valued like everyone else.

The Catholic Church teaches that married couples ought not to tamper with the sex act to deprive it of the possibility of pregnancy.

“The Catholic Church teaches that married couples ought not to tamper with the sex act to deprive it of the possibility of pregnancy.”
********
And just how is timing sexual activity to a woman’s infertile phase of her cycle NOT tampering with the sex act to deprive it of the possibility of pregnancy?
*********
What makes you think that unplanned children of couples who use other methods of contraception will not be loved and wanted? Keep in mind that many Catholic couples use methods other than NFP, and you must have a very low opinion of people if you think they go straight to the abortion clinic when their contraception fails.

Also, you are not contradicting me. A child’s realistic ideals are better than the things your priest says to you.

The difference between using NFP to avoid pregnancy and using a contraceptive to avoid pregnancy is that NFP involves not having sex because you don’t want to get pregnant at the moment, while contraception involves using some means to strip the sexual act of fertility.
Contracepting is an action to prevent conception.  NFP is inaction(abstaining from sex) during fertility.
NFP does not cause a woman not to ovulate, it does not stop sperm from reaching the egg, because there is no egg to fertilize.
The similarity is in what they achieve, not in how they do it.

“The similarity is in what they achieve, not in how they do it.”
.
What they both achieve contraception. You just admitted that NFP and using a contraceptive have the same purpose. NFP prevents a sperm from reaching the egg because the sperm is purposely “mis-fired.”
.
I’ve read that kind of “explanation” on other Catholic sites.
.
Contrary to popular belief, the Church does not oppose artificial birth control because it’s artificial. She opposes it because it’s contraceptive. Contraception is the choice by any means to impede the procreative potential of a given act of intercourse. In other words, the contracepting couple chooses to engage in intercourse, and foreseeing that their act may result in new life, they intentionally and willfully suppress their fertility. 
http://www.dioceseofscranton.org/parish-life-and-evangelization/marriage-family-life/natural-family-planning/
.
It’s called “grasping at straws.” It is also called duplicity—deceitfulness in speech or conduct, as by speaking or acting in two different ways to different people concerning the same matter.

Well, my first reply is being checked for spam, so here’s the short version if it doesn’t pass:
.
“The similarity is in what they achieve, not how they do it.”
.
What they achieve is contraception! You just lost your argument.

You’re not taking an action against conception if all you’re doing is not engaging in sex when you’re fertile.

If NFP and contraception users have a similarity in their actions you should be able to compare them and show such similarities.
Out of curiosity, do you think that it is the sex that NFP users are having when they are infertile that is contraception, or the sex that they are not having when they are fertile that is contraception?

Earl, you’ve got a lot of courage even posting here, after the “philosophical” basis of your entire world view has been decimated time and again on these boards.  Take for instance:

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jennifer-fulwiler/4-tips-for-placing-yourself-in-the-presence-of-god/

There, you were exposed as a solipsistic nihilist who could not identify any coherent grounds for truth even existing under an atheistic world view.

Wendy, we all know you are Sandy, and we all know that your hatred has driven you insane.  No one will take you seriously until you stop insulting our intelligence with fake screen names.

Skywalker—my comment didn’t pass the spam filter, but it really does not matter. You just wrote that the achievement in NFP and other methods of contraception are the same. You lost the argument.
...
Having sexual relations when the woman is known to be infertile is not, in itself, contraception. Intentionally timing sexual relations and actively abstaining from sex when she is fertile is contraception—the intent not to conceive a child is accomplished.
...
Just because you want to believe NFP isn’t contraception does not make it so. Stop fooling yourself.

“Having sexual relations when the woman is known to be infertile is not, in itself, contraception. Intentionally timing sexual relations and actively abstaining from sex when she is fertile is contraception—the intent not to conceive a child is accomplished.”

I never looked at it that way. Good point. The Church should view that as intrinsically evil along with the other methods or lighten up on the latter.

“Why is it so important that we all believe in a negative?”
It’s not.  What is important is that you not succeed in imposing your religious morality upon others.  Do you approve of Sharia?  Why not?  In our freedom of religion and freedom from religion society, laws are made by our representatives and interpreted by our courts.  So of course you are free to vote for the representative of your choice, but you cannot expect atheists to agree with your opinions in many situations.
“if the Christians are correct, that is a pretty enormous gamble to take”
Hilarious.  You have no evidence.
“it is not until you humble yourself and enter into the faith that the truth becomes revealed.”
Hilarious.

Where did the authentic conversation on the original topic go?

“It is like speaking to one who has the knowledge of an infant in this particular subject, while you hold a PhD.”
Your pseudo-PhD is in a subject for which there is no evidence.  Therefore it is worthless.
“Neither of you are going to understand the other.”
Hilarious.
“you see in a life *without* God (Love)... hatred, venom, and bile.”
Project much?
“making it easy for demonic suggestion to enter into the soul”
Exorcism!  Exorcism!  Exorcism!  Hilarious.
“but God loves you, and there is nothing you can do about it.”
You have no evidence for that opinion.

I’ll get back to Jennifer’s article.

“When we rail against God for human pain, too often we’re picturing a distant God who sits aloof in his throne upon the clouds. But to see the crucifix is to see the God who allows suffering, but does not exempt himself from it. To ponder the crucifix is to ponder the fact that that man, naked in bleeding on the cross, is the incarnate form of the One who created all the galaxies.”

I think this paragraph typifies the way a simple event like a man who saw himself as the son of the Jewish god, Yahweh, being executed became a religion of gross hyperbole. If you take any person that you consider to be a martyr, then a hero, then the son of a god, then that god himself, it doesn’t take long before you heap one superlative after another to the point that he created the galaxies.

He was a man who preached love, challenged the religious authorities and proclaimed the coming of a new kind of kingdom much to the dismay of all men in power. It’s no surprise that his reputation grew in greatness every time his story was told to the point that he rose from the dead, ascended into and on a cloud and will descend to earth at the end of the world.

God is love. Love is God. Fine. But spare me the exaggerated stories.

Kathleen—yes, the conversation got off on a tangent, but I do appreciate that Skywalker stayed and read my comments instead blasting me with ad hominen attacks and leaving.
.
As to the original topic, “God” and “love” are both intangible terms. Jennifer get the same feeling when she thinks of both. Good for meditation and mental self-gratification, but not relevant to secular concerns.

I’ve been reading Ginzberg’s Legends of the Jews (downloaded from Project Gutenberg) and it is mostly a glorification of the destruction of cities and the genocide of populations who don’t worship the god of Israel. It’s no wonder because the god of Israel is, in essence, a jealous storm god who will even wipe out his own creation if its people don’t give enough respect.
.
This of the God of all Judeo-Christians—and we’ve been killing each other ever since Cain killed Abel.

Blasting with ad hominem…this coming from someone who started off this thread by equating Jennifer’s mentality to that of a rapist, found enjoyment in Annalisa’s miscarriage, and called into question my concern for my child during a medical emergency.  That would be why I “left” rather than letting my email inbox fill up with hypocritical, dishonest comments.  I would rather come back and wade through those comments (to get to the good ones) when I have the time.

What they achieve is contraception! You just lost your argument.
What makes something contraception is in how it works.  It must try to stop a potentially fertile act from being fertile.
Contraception is not an end, it is a means; a way to avoid pregnancy.
It is not the only way to avoid pregnancy.
If abstainance is contraception then every fertile man and woman on the planet is contracepting with each other every time they don’t have sex.
You want to be able to classify things as the same type of things if they have the same result or end.
Just like stealing and working are both ways of getting money.
Contraception and abstainance are both ways of not getting pregnant.
The difference is in how they work.
NFP does not cause potentially fertile acts not to be fertile.  It identifies infertile times.

Skywalker—You’re like the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
.
Give it up already!

I think this paragraph typifies the way a simple event like a man who saw himself as the son of the Jewish god, Yahweh, being executed became a religion of gross hyperbole. If you take any person that you consider to be a martyr, then a hero, then the son of a god, then that god himself, it doesn’t take long before you heap one superlative after another to the point that he created the galaxies.
He was a man who preached love, challenged the religious authorities and proclaimed the coming of a new kind of kingdom much to the dismay of all men in power. It’s no surprise that his reputation grew in greatness every time his story was told to the point that he rose from the dead, ascended into and on a cloud and will descend to earth at the end of the world.

This begs the question If he was only a good man with a good message that was later exaggerated, why did the early Christians die proclaiming that this man was God?

“This begs the question If he was only a good man with a good message that was later exaggerated, why did the early Christians die proclaiming that this man was God?”

If you are going to claim that a man is God, you need a lot more evidence than reports that his first followers died proclaiming it.  You have no way of knowing who died when and for what reason.

” If he was only a good man with a good message that was later exaggerated, why did the early Christians die proclaiming that this man was God?”
.
For the same reasons Steve Jobs resorted to alternative treatments like acupuncture, dietary supplements and juices instead of potentially life-saving, evidence-based cancer treatment. By the time he realized the alternative “treatments” didn’t work, it was too late for the standard treatments (although there was no guarantee about their effectiveness). Martyrs just happened to die before they had time to change their minds.
.
For the same reasons you believe in your God without any evidence to support his/its existence. They knew they were going to die and needed to believe that there was “life beyond death.”
.
It’s the reason Cain killed Abel, Jacob and Esau were enemies, Joseph was thrown into the well by his brothers.
.
A great number of religious people wanted to believe that Christopher Hitchens would renounce his atheism on his deathbed. He did not. Darwin’s ultra-religious sister claimed that Darwin repented on his deathbed. He did not.
.
Fear can make people irrational, as can deterioration of the brain in illness will cause memory loss, disturbed emotions or total loss of former identity whatsoever.
.
Besides, most Christian martyr stories are fiction as well.

“If he was only a good man with a good message that was later exaggerated, why did the early Christians die proclaiming that this man was God?”
Why do religious people fly planes into buildings?
Why do religious people volunteer to become suicide bombers?
Why do religious people burn heretics and witches?
Why does the Quran command followers to kill apostates?
Those who are convinced that there is some alternate reality that is so much better than actual reality are capable of almost anything.
Weinberg:  “With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”

Why do religious people fly planes into buildings?
Why do religious people volunteer to become suicide bombers?
Why do religious people burn heretics and witches?
Why does the Quran command followers to kill apostates?
...
Interesting that of the 4 items you list above, 3 of them have only been done by one religion in the world; here’s a hint - it’s not Christianity in general or the Catholic Church specifically. And in fact that faith has made many statements against all other religions in the world - wishing death on all Jews, for example.
...
As to the other, the last heretic or witch burned by the Catholic Church was in, roughly, the early 18th century. Nearly 300 years ago…don’t you think it’s time to let go of that particular scandal?
...
And before you say anything about Christians in general, please note that the name of this website is National CATHOLIC Register.

Kris,

Although I should let Earl respond to your comment himself, I can’t resist putting in my own two cents. The examples were given to answer the question of why the early Christians would have suffered persecution and death for their faith if it wasn’t the truth. In their religious zeal, like in the examples, they could have embraced martyrdom just based on their belief in the afterlife that awaited them. They could have simply believed in the Resurrection from second hand accounts. The first mention of the Resurrection in the Gospels was in Mark, which served as the reference for Matthew, Luke and John. Before it was enhanced by later scribes it just ends with an empty tomb and not with any appearances which were added to it later. This could have been enough to start the Resurrection story for which believers were only to willing to be martyred.

“As to the other, the last heretic or witch burned by the Catholic Church was in, roughly, the early 18th century. Nearly 300 years ago…don’t you think it’s time to let go of that particular scandal?”
*******
A radical Jew was crucified around 37 CE - around 2000 years or so. Don’t you think it’s time you got over it?

Well, congratulations on your New Pope Francis I. Let’s see if he can do anything to clean the mess Bene left behind!

Why do Catholics think that contraception is bad?
Why do Catholics think that in-vitro-fertilization is bad?
Why does anyone think that making abortion illegal would make this world a better place?
Why do religious people think that the evolution of humans required an intervention by a supernatural power after the universe was 13.7 billion years old and the Earth was 4.5 billion years old?
Why does anyone believe in the supernatural when there’s no evidence?

I’d be really interested in the responses to Earl’s questions. I’ve often had the same questions.

What evidence do you have that early Christians martyrs were going to die anyway even if they renounced their faith?
Don’t you think there’s a difference in the witness between getting tortured to death for your faith and killing yourself and a bunch of others?
What about all of the apostles dying for their faith?  If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, they would be the ones to know it, and therefore know that Christianity is false.  What did they get out of Christianity if it isn’t the truth?
Don’t you think that someone would have to be very convinced in the validity of Jesus’ claims to die for them?

“Don’t you think that someone would have to be very convinced in the validity of Jesus’ claims to die for them?”

Oh they were convinced alright. Doesn’t mean that I am. People die for false causes all the time.

Posted by Bill S on Thursday, Mar 14, 2013 6:36 AM (EDT):I’d be really interested in the responses to Earl’s questions. I’ve often had the same questions.

Earl’s questions have been answered dozens of times on this website. He has proven time and again that coherent discussion with him is impossible. This is reflected in his questions themselves; for example, instead of asking “what is the evidence for the supernatural,” his question presupposes that there is none and asks, why do we believe in spite of Earl’s presupposition? If anyone attempts to answer his gibberish, his typical response is “hilarious, define ‘X’,” followed up by a long cut-and-paste from an atheist message board about something only tangentially relevant, at best, to the original question.

The short answer is we believe in the supernatural because there is evidence. Everything else flows from there. Divine revelation is of no consequence if you start from the premise that God cannot exist.  However, once you acknowledge the reality of a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and intelligent creator of all that is (something a real understanding of philosophy makes it hard to deny; I encourage anyone who doubts this to invest $1 on this: www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00BFCTQ7U ), the Catholic Church’s supposedly “irrational” and “fundamentalist” support for the value of human life becomes much more credible.

Earl side-steps this issue by either re-defining the word “evidence,” or creating arbitrary rules of admissibility (i.e., what evidence he will or will not consider).

It should be noted that because evidence is a legal term, it would make sense to consider the legal definition of evidence before declaring that there is none.  “[E]vidence is defined as ‘all the means by which any alleged matter of fact, the truth of which is submitted to investigation, is established or disproved.’”  Forshey v. Principi, 284 F.3d 1335, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2002).  “[E]vidence includes all the means by which any   alleged matter of fact is established or disproved, and is further defined as any species of proof legally presented at trial through the medium of witnesses, records, documents, exhibits, concrete objects, etc., for the purpose of inducing belief in the minds of the court or jury.” People v. Victors, 353 Ill. App. 3d 801, 811-812; 819 N.E.2d 311 (2004).

Notice the use of the terms “any” and “all” in these definitions.  A whole lot of things count as “evidence.”  Testimony is included within the definition of evidence, although it is “not synonymous with evidence” because evidence “is a more comprehensive term.” People v. Victors, supra at 811-812.  In other words, personal religious experiences, COUNT AS EVIDENCE as that term has been legally defined, something Earl and other atheists find hard to accept. This also means that the Gospels, for example - as “records, documents” - fall within the definition of “evidence” as well. Earl and his ilk may say that they are not reliable evidence, but to say there is NO evidence is simply false.

Also, the philosophical evidence for God’s existence, alluded to above, might not strictly meet the definition of evidence, but it does - coupled with the existence of the universe and consciousness itself - give rise to a “presumption.” A “presumption” comes about when the “finding of a basic fact gives rise to existence of presumed fact, until [the] presumption is rebutted.”  Wilner v. United States, 24 F.3d 1397, 1411 (Fed. Cir. 1994).  “Although not evidence, a presumption can be a substitute for evidence if it is not rebutted.”  Id.  Most atheists will freely admit that they have no evidence disproving God - they usually fall back on the fact that it is not their burden.  However, if there is a presumption of God’s existence (and at least 4 1/2 billion people would say there is), then atheists do in fact carry the burden of rebuttal.

Earl and his ilk confuse “evidence” with “conclusive evidence,” sometimes termed “conclusive proof,” which is defined as “evidence so strong as to overbear any other evidence to the contrary.” Black’s Law Dictionary 636 (9th ed. 2009). It is also defined as “[e]vidence that so preponderates as to oblige a fact-finder to come to a certain conclusion.” Id. There may not be, in Earl’s view, evidence that “obliges” him to accept God’s existence.  But this does not mean there is no evidence at all, only that he has not seen what he considers to be “conclusive evidence.”  Also, note again the first part of Black’s definition - “evidence so strong as to overbear any other evidence to the contrary.” Atheists admittedly have no “evidence to the contrary,” so ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL(i.e., personal religious experience) becomes “conclusive proof” by courtroom standards.

Skywalker—
Maybe I’m wrong (sarcasm) but I think after getting your eye plucked out, your breasts ripped off, back broken,flayed, etc. will make any renunciation of faith a moot point.
.
Besides—Catholics needed more stories of sadistic, pornographic torture to keep the attention of the masses. The Passion of the Christ can get boring by itself.
http://www.romeartlover.it/Torture.html

“Testimony is included within the definition of evidence, although it is “not synonymous with evidence” because evidence “is a more comprehensive term.” People v. Victors, supra at 811-812.  In other words, personal religious experiences, COUNT AS EVIDENCE as that term has been legally defined, something Earl and other atheists find hard to accept. This also means that the Gospels, for example - as “records, documents” - fall within the definition of “evidence” as well. Earl and his ilk may say that they are not reliable evidence, but to say there is NO evidence is simply false.”
.
Mike—you are deliberately confusing Anecdotal evidence objective evidence defined by scientific method.
.
Anecdotal evidence is often unscientific or pseudoscientific because various forms of cognitive bias may affect the collection or presentation of evidence.
.
By contrast, in science and logic, the “relative strength of an explanation” is based upon its ability to be tested, proven to be due to the stated cause, and verified under neutral conditions in a manner that other researchers will agree has been performed competently, and can check for themselves.
.
In other words, just because a large number of people “believe” God has “revealed” himself to them, is simply a mass delusion. Their “testimony” does not prove anything. Anecdotes are useless precisely because they may point to idiosyncratic responses.
.
Also, you keep putting the burden of proof on a negative when it’s up to you to show proof of the positive statement: “There is a God,” and, more specifically, “There is only the god of the Bible and no other God.”
.
Catholic Apologists are notorious for equivocation and double speak.

The plural of anecdote is not evidence.
.
Anecdotal evidence is essentially a story told by individuals. It often comes in the form of “I know a person who . . .,” but it can take many guises. In advertising, it’s often called a product testimonial. For example, someone takes a dietary supplement and claims to have lost a lot of weight. Or anecdotal evidence can be more personal, such as this classic example: someone doubts smoking is hazardous because they have a relative who smoked for decades and lived to a ripe old age.
.
Regardless of the form, you can’t trust anecdotal evidence!
.
http://blog.minitab.com/blog/adventures-in-statistics/why-anecdotal-evidence-is-unreliable

Wendy - it is you who is intentionally trying to sow confusion.  My original post said nothing that blurs the line between anecdotal evidence and other kinds of evidence.  When I am talking about personal religious experience, that is testimony based on personal knowledge (i.e., testimony about that I saw vs. what I heard somebody say they saw).  Testimony based on personal knowledge is widely considered the most reliable form of evidence known in the law. One person’s testimony that they saw a murder is enough to put someone to death.  This is true even if 1000 other people testify that they see no evidence that the defendant was the murdered.  Testimony that I saw the defendant NOT murder the victim would be irrelevant and, in turn, inadmissible.  (Keep that in mind when the atheist announces “I see no evidence of any gods.” Did the defense call all 5 million Los Angelinos who DID NOT see O.J. Simpson
kill his ex-wife and her friend?)

Also in your response, you did exactly the same thing I criticized Earl for doing - inserting your own artibrary definition of “evidence” and then announcing that the believers evidence doesn’t make the cut.  This time, you have tried to give it an air of credibility by attaching the term “scientific” to the term “evidence,” but you have not attempted to offer an alternative definition other than your subjective beliefs.

When I talked about 4 1/2 billion believers, I was not citing that as evidence but rather, mentioning the fact that they would agree the basic nature of man and the universe raises a presumption of an intelligent creator.

Wendy, nothing you say can be taken seriously until you (1) admit that you are Sandy, and (2) explain the absolutely psychotic and delusional conduct you demonstrated on this thread:  http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jennifer-fulwiler/the-atheists-pope/ 
There you indulged in repeated ad hominem attacks and, at one point, you appear to have hallucinated or made up some kind of off-site exchange with several board members, none of whom had any idea what you were talking about.

Why does anyone think that making abortion illegal would make this world a better place?

Because any form of legal murder encourages disrespect for human life.  Many people who have had abortions would not have done so if it meant breaking the law.  We know that some people would break the law against abortion, if such a law existed.  People break the law against murder of those already born regularly.  The law teaches our people what we value, and right now it teaches people that you have no value except that which your mother allows you until you are born.

Why not deny Christ before you get to the point of being tortured if the whole miracles/rising from the dead bit is a fraud?

If you believe that Christians started making up bits and pieces of the story of Jesus at a later date, where is your evidence that led you to this belief?  There should be some evidence of a pre-miracle Christianity.

Why do Catholics think in vitro fertilization is wrong?
Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization). . . dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that “entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children.” (CCC 2377)

It’s not hard to see how stories that make sense according to the ancients’ rules are impossible according to our rules. And when they’re impossible to us, we call them supernatural. Miracles. But for the ancients what we call miracles—that was just how the world worked.
.
When Orpheus’ head got cut off but continued to speak—even kept making accurate prophecies—that was a miracle. Pagan “mythology” (really Pagan religion) recorded thousands of miracles.
.
The next time you’re in Church ask yourself:“What about what I’m hearing was new and unique with Christianity, and what was already part of other religions?”

When they get to the part about Jesus doing miracles, remember Orpheus’ chatty head and the hundreds of other pre- Christian Pagan miracles.
.
You’ll know you’re hearing about stuff that predated Christianity by hundreds of years—in a culture where over and over people built new religions out of old parts.

The Church doesn’t allow contraception for couples who don’t want (more) children or in vitro fertilization for infertile couples who desperately want children.
.
Another means of making people suffer for Christ.

“Testimony based on personal knowledge is widely considered the most reliable form of evidence known in the law. One person’s testimony that they saw a murder is enough to put someone to death.  This is true even if 1000 other people testify that they see no evidence that the defendant was the murdered.”
.
That is not true. The “testimony” of the person needs supportive evidence. The person giving the testimony may hate the person s/he is accusing of murder. There may be another person who testifies that the accused person was somewhere else (has an alibi).
.
The only kind of testimony that can put someone to death is someone who incites mob violence. I can just as easily say I saw you kill someone. Is that enough evidence to convict you?

“Did the defense call all 5 million Los Angelinos who DID NOT see O.J. Simpson kill his ex-wife and her friend?”
.
No, because in our legal system, O.J. Simpson was presumed innocent and it was the burden of the prosecution to present enough evidence that he did.
.
You are the one who has the burden to show me objective evidence that your god is real. You have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Personal experience doesn’t prove anything.

Wendy, no one ever said the burden was ‘beyond a reasonable doubt.’  That is another example of the atheist’s word play that is at the center of their faith. You also snuck in the term ‘objective evidence’ which is a meaningless phrase in a legal setting - all testimony is objectiive evidence in the sense that we present the witness, subject them to cross examination, and let the fact finder objectively decide to believe them.  this is how it works whether the witness claims to have seen a murder, a car accident, or God.  You seem to imply that a jury would have to ‘objectively’ experience an event in order to determine that it happended, which is nonsense. By the way, in civil litigation the standard is preponderance of the evidence.  You have arbitrarily chosen the criminal standard. Because you hear it on tv more?  Under either standard one person’s testimony based on personal knowledge carries the burden if not rebutted.  In other words you have simply made up your own rules. Personal experience means everything. If I personally experienced a rape, would any judge say my testimony about it ‘doesn’t prove anything.’  A simple application of basic legal principles proves that your world view is incoherent. I am also still waiting for you to address the fact that you are Sandy.

If I had a friend who went on a diet and lost weight, I would think that the diet had evidence that it worked.  Suppose I had fifty such friends who all lost weight on the same diet; I would be even more convinced of its efficacy.  Suppose I did the same and lost weight too, that would probably squelch any remaining doubts.
This is what draws many people to Christianity.  They can see a beneficial change in those who have chosen to follow Christ.  They see the same change in themselves when they follow him.  It is not easy, but it is good.
Which one of the Apostles didn’t die a martyr? (Other than John). Why do you think they were willing to do this for a lie?  Does this seem consistent with what you know of human nature?

Wendy/Sandy, you’re totally (intentionally?) missing the point and its clear you just don’t know what you’re talking about.
—That is not true. The “testimony” of the person needs supportive evidence.—
Where did you get that “rule” from? I quite strongly believe that you made it up.  A jury is free to convict on the basis of a single witness testifying on the basis of personal knowledge.  The whole point is you put the witness on the stand and the jury either believes or they don’t. It is still “evidence” either way in the sense that a judge has no basis for keeping it out. 
—The person giving the testimony may hate the person s/he is accusing of murder.—
That is what cross-examination is for. The original point is that this single witness is still “evidence.” It may be bad evidence if bias is revelated on cross-examination, but it is evidence nonetheless and if not rebutted, can be enough to convict.
—There may be another person who testifies that the accused person was somewhere else (has an alibi).—
Mike’s point appears to be that a single witness IF NOT REBUTTED can be enough for a jury to convict.  I think he was also implying that the atheist has no such witness; there is no one who can say they have witnessed God’s nonexistence.  So the atheistic rejection of religion for lacking in “evidence” is illogical - there is plenty of “evidence” as that term is defined under state and federal law.

Steve/Mike—Your “testimony” is being rebutted all the time!
.
It’s not a matter of the jury believing a witness’s statement. After all, you believe the statements of someone who wears gold-embroidered robes and a funny hat. There are people who testify to their experience of encountering extraterrestrials—that aliens from space kidnapped them, probed them, raped them and harvested eggs/sperm. They honestly believe it happened. Would you believe them?
.
Or, to use Sam Harris’s example, if a total stranger told you that your spouse was unfaithful—that they actually saw your spouse kissing someone else—would you believe it without checking further?
.
What if the rebuttal is false—the person who alibis the accused was mistaken, or a friend of the accused, or was bribed? How to know which to believe without further investigation?
.
You need more than verbal testimony to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. Your “testimony” is not enough.

Also, DNA is proving useful in rebutting the testimony of witnesses that have led to convictions. Those testimonies were wrong.

Sanal Edamaruku got into trouble after he visited the church of Our Lady of Velankanni in Mumbai, where a statue of Jesus Christ had been leaking water. Worshippers and clergy, who perceived the flowing water as tears, declared the phenomenon a miracle.
.
Edamaruku, who is known for explaining away religious myths, spoiled the religious excitement by declaring the water was coming from a leaky pipe in the wall behind the statue.
.
Edamaruku also pointed out that there is a health issue involved: Worshippers, who have been drinking Jesus’s “tears” in the belief that it will heal them, are in fact consuming sewage water that can cause disease. It may be the first case of “skeptic against septic.”
.
http://www.allgov.com/news/unusual-news/india-indicts-man-who-discovers-that-crying-jesus-miracle-was-caused-by-a-leaky-pipe-121129?news=846337

Tacitus account of the persecutions of early Christians:
“Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind”.

“his question presupposes that there is none”
Wrong.  But the proffered “evidence” would have to be pretty “strong”.  Since you have no “reliable” evidence at all, ...
“we believe in the supernatural because there is evidence”
Why is your “evidence” not accepted by “science”?  Because it is all anecdotal?  Because the proper study of your holy book has found that it is all mythological?
“creator of all that is”
That did it 13.7 billion years ago and then forgot about his entry in the Science Fair and let it run unsupervised?
“for the purpose of inducing belief”
And lawyers routinely introduce “evidence” in their attempt to mislead said belief.
“may say that they are not reliable evidence”
Yes.  And since you have no reliable evidence, I might as well say you have no evidence.
“atheists do in fact carry the burden of rebuttal.”
Even Dawkins admits that there is no way to prove that no gods exist.  So what?  Therefore one or two gods probably do exist?  Absurd.

“they would agree the basic nature of man and the universe raises a presumption of an intelligent creator.”
They would then be quite wrong.  So what?
“Because any form of legal murder encourages disrespect for human life.”
Define “legal murder”.  Row vs. Wade was 40 years ago.  Why did the Court decide that it was not “legal murder”?  It would seem that your religion conflicts with that decision.  Why do you get to claim that you are right and the Court was wrong?
“right now it teaches people that you have no value except that which your mother allows you until you are born.”
You say this as though it was a bad thing.  It would seem that there are those who would disagree.
“contrary to the dignity and equality”
Hilarious religious nonsense.

Earl I’ve seen a lot of your crap on these boards and this is typical move by you: you make a statement (there is no evidence), you are proven wrong (by Western legal standards there is an abundance of evidence), then you start talking about something else (whether you subjectively find the evidence to be compelling), all the while ignoring the fact that your original statement was demonstrably false.  In other words nothing you say is coherent because you simply keep stacking false statements upon false statements. But then again, that should not be surprising since, on atheism, there is no foundation for even believing that objective truth exists at all. 

Wendy/sandy I’m not sure what your point is about the crying Jesus I’m Mumbai. I’ve never heard of it so if it was ‘debunked’ it certainly did not shake my faith. But as a person of ‘reason’ and ‘logic’ you have to see the problem of a self-styled professional debunker coming in and, shockingly, finding a way to strip the event of any supernatural implications. When your only tool is a hammer, everything needs a nail. This guy started out with a conclusion so he was going to find grounds for ‘debunking’ regardless of whether they existed. Not exactly how science is supposed to work.

You don’t have to know why I posted the story—you response shows the double standards you hold as regards to what you mean by “truth.” Your moral relativism is obvious to me.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpz8PMcRJSY

From a letter of Pliny the younger to emperor Trajan around 112 AD
“Soon accusations spread, as usually happens, because of the proceedings going on, and several incidents occurred. An anonymous document was published containing the names of many persons. Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ—none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do—these I thought should be discharged.”

He continues…
I therefore postponed the investigation and hastened to consult you. For the matter seemed to me to warrant consulting you, especially because of the number involved. For many persons of every age, every rank, and also of both sexes are and will be endangered.

The above is from Pliny the elder to emperor Trajan writing around 112 AD.  This part of the text comes before
“Meanwhile, in the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed.”

The above is from Pliny the elder to Emperor Trajan writing around 112 AD.
Trajan responds:
“You observed proper procedure, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those who had been denounced to you as Christians. For it is not possible to lay down any general rule to serve as a kind of fixed standard. They are not to be sought out; if they are denounced and proved guilty, they are to be punished, with this reservation, that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it—that is, by worshiping our gods—even though he was under suspicion in the past, shall obtain pardon through repentance.”

Tacitus writes about persecutions of Christians under Nero.  His account was probably between 110-120 AD.
“Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus…”

The story of Christian persecution is one of the most successful pieces of propaganda ever. Art and literature have reproduced these tales and depictions many times. Even Hollywood movies like Quo Vadis have chillingly portrayed the mass martyrdoms. Everybody knows that innocent Christians were systematically and savagely persecuted by the wicked pagan Roman Empire.
......
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0062104527/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0062104527&linkCode=as2&tag=wwwdebunkingc-20
.——-
It is quite hard for any rational person to listen to Christians whining about being persecuted. Now that the Christian faith no longer has a total strangle-hold on society it seems to think that it can play the victim card.  In reality it is no more a victim (and indeed much less a victim) than any other faith.

Wendy/Sandy, are you also Earl? Your thought processes are equally schizophrenic.

Suetonius writes around the same time as Tacitus
“Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition.”

What non Christian bits of history do you believe in?  Do you use the same standards for belief?  Your position sounds remarkably like “All evidence of the truth of Christianity is inadmissable, therefore Christianity is false.”

A quote from the book you site “The Myth of Persecution”
There is no doubt that Christians did die, and they were horrifically tortured and executed in ways that would appall people today, however uninterested they are in human rights.

The author also admits all of the quotes I am using, she references them in her book.  However, despite admitting that Romans tortured and murdered Christians, she claims it wasn’t really that bad.  After all, it could have been worse, because not every roman governor was out hunting for Christians all of the time.

More quotes from your recommended book
“There is almost no evidence from the period before Constantine, traditionally called the Age of Martyrs, to support the idea that Christians were continuously persecuted. That idea was cultivated by church historians like Eusebius and Sozomen and by the anonymous hagiographers who edited, reworked, and replicated stories about martyrs. The vast majority of those stories, however, were written during periods of peace, long after the events they purported to describe. Even those that are roughly contemporaneous with the events have been significantly embellished.”
  No evidence that Christians were continuously persecuted.  (I know of no sources that claim that there was persecution from every governor at all times between Nero and Constantine.  Does this mean they weren’t viciously persecuted at many times?)  IThe accouts have been embellished.  (How does she prove this?)  Many were written later. ( It could not be true if it were written later?)  So all of the Christian sources are inadmissible.  (Is that what Historians do, only look at one side and ignore evidence from the other?)

For those interested in a more in depth discussion about this book, check out Darwin Catholic’s post:

http://darwincatholic.blogspot.com/2013/03/bad-history-was-persecution-of.html

A Christian, Tertullian, writes in his Apologia, that Domitian was not as cruel as Nero.  So where does she get her idea that all Christians claim equal persecution from each Roman emperor?
“A long time after, Domitian, a limb of this bloody Nero, makes some like attempts against the Christians; but being not all Nero, or cruelty in perfection, the remains of struggling humanity stopped the enterprise, and made him recall the Christians he banished.”

Jesus explicitly warned his followers that they would be persecuted, and further that this is something they should embrace. From the sermon on the mount:
.
Blessed are those who’re persecuted for righteousness sake for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when others revile you, and persecute you, and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets before you.
.
After nearly two thousand years of cultural and political dominion, Christians are now the victim of oppression. The forces of oppression against Christianity are atheism, Islam, homosexuals, erotica, proponents of reproductive choice and proponents of scientific fact. According to Christians, any social or political theory or action that does not support Christian dogma is “oppressive” and intended to disenfranchise Christians of their social, legal and political standing. Nonetheless, Christians are still a dominant force in the West, with over 70% of all Americans claiming to be Christian, and many Christian zealots in political, financial and social positions of power. It remains a mystery how the majority can be oppressed; this is only further proof that anyone can play the Victim card.
.
Underlying the defense of religious beliefs, I often find the concept of respect. Unearned respect. The kind of respect that should automatically be paid to religion. It’s like a bad habit, and it’s unjustified.

“What non Christian bits of history do you believe in?  Do you use the same standards for belief?  Your position sounds remarkably like “All evidence of the truth of Christianity is inadmissable, therefore Christianity is false.”

NCR has reinstated me. I think that you have to take Church history with a grain of salt. Writers like Eusebius were not held accountable and are known to have made things up. I placed a hold on “The Myth of Persecution” at my library. Looks like interesting reading.

They keep blocking my posts, so I must change again!
.
Do you suspect that somebody you know has a victim complex? Here’s a checklist to find out the truth. If the person’s behavior satisfies most of the criteria, you know what to do.
.
Attributes most or all of his/her failures to events beyond their control
.
Believes that the world, or a large group of people, are actively working to oppress them
.
Is disliked by numerous people, all of whom allegedly ‘misunderstand’ the person in question
.
Considers any challenge to their worldview a personal attack
.
Attributes any sort of (perceived) negative action against him/her to prejudice
.
Unable to accept criticism
.
Centers his/her identity around a cause (e.g. Catholic Church)
.
Crumbles under any form of pressure and is co-dependent as a result
.
Driven by attention and uses activism to draw attention to themselves
.
Emotionally manipulative and convinces others that they’ve been born into oppression.
*********
From the sermon on the mount:

Blessed are those who’re persecuted for righteousness sake for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when others revile you, and persecute you, and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets before you.
********
Skywalker—you get too much masochist pleasure from the fixation on Catholic persecution. I won’t try to take it from you.

http://www.wikihow.com/Overcome-Martyr-Syndrome

Mike—Do you believe this “testimony?”
.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-prosecutors-indiana-pastor-told-girl-jesus-sanctioned-relationship-20130314,0,4717729.story
.

“on atheism, there is no foundation for even believing that objective truth exists at all.”
Hilarious.  Science is the closest we can come to “provisional truth” and religion is fundamentally anti-science.
“finding a way to strip the event of any supernatural implications.”
Hilarious.  There is no “supernatural”.  You have no evidence.

Earl wrote: —“on atheism, there is no foundation for even believing that objective truth exists at all.”  Hilarious.  Science is the closest we can come to “provisional truth” and religion is fundamentally anti-science.—

Please do some reading on the Argument from Reason and get back to me.  Also, the science that you so worship grew as a direct and proximate result of Christianity. See:
http://www.pearceyreport.com/archives/2005/09/post_4.php
By the way, you seem to suggest that only scientific knowledge is relevant. Which one of Aguinas’ Five Ways to you find insufficent philosophical proof for the existence of God? 

Earl wrote:—“finding a way to strip the event of any supernatural implications.” Hilarious.  There is no “supernatural”.  You have no evidence.—
The existence of a wide range of ‘evidence,’ as that term has long been defined in the American legal system, was set forth above.  As predicted, you dodged the issue by attempting to redefine the term, by attempting to create arbitrary rules for the “admissiblity” of the evidence, and/or by tacitly assuming that all evidence must be “conclusive evidence,” which is simply nonsensical. Its really this simple:  your entire world view was predicated on the statement “there is no evidence of God.” We have proven that there is “evidence.” It may not be “conclusive evidnece,” and you might arbitrarily label it as unreliable, but it falls squarely within the definition the “evidence.” Thus, your entire wolrd view flows from a faulty major premise.  Every that you say is therefore built upon a fault major premise and is therefore incoherent.

Bethany/Alexis/Wendy/Sandy - step away from the keyboard for a while and get yourself some mental help. Right now.

Pot, meet Kettle.
.
I testify that you are a closet homosexual. I that testimony enough to make you stop taking communion?

Bethany/Alexis/Wendy/Sandy - your statement “I testify that you are a closet homosexual” reflects a complete ignorance of the fact that testimony by definition must be based on personal knowledge. Otherwise it is not testimony. Unless you are saying you saw me engage in a homosexual act, the statement is a completely meaningless ad hominem attack. I thought all you reason and logic folks were above that? But I guess I should not be surprised since you apparently have no interest in learning what the term evidence means, while at the same time announcing that there is no evidence of God’s existence.
If you say there is no x, and you have no idea what x is, your statement is completely incoherent and not deserving of attention.

Unless you are saying you saw me engage in a homosexual act, the statement is a completely meaningless ad hominem attack.
.
Oh, but I KNOW PERSONALLY that you are homosexual! I’ve had a revelation! An epiphany!! You are a repressed homosexual—I know it in my heart! The same way you know Jesus!
.
Yet you want to convince me you’ve “seen” god/Jesus. (BTW, I don’t think being homosexual is a bad thing.) Maybe I did see you engage in a homosexual act—how would I not know it was you? You would have to “prove” that you were elsewhere or my testimony, according to your standards, would be “evidence” until it’s rebutted. If the rebuttal is rebutted, and so on, where’s the “truth?”
.
“If you say there is no x, and you have no idea what x is, your statement is completely incoherent and not deserving of attention.”
.
If I have no idea what x is, it’s because you have not defined x (x=god). Your statement (x exists) is no more coherent than mine (x does not exist). In truth, you have no idea what “god” is any more than I do. You want to think that you’re loved by a deity that is extremely repulsive to me. An analogy would be that you are into BDSM while I want a relationship in which we both encourage growth. Why should you insist I have the same kind of “love” you experience?

“If you say there is no x, and you have no idea what x is, your statement is completely incoherent and not deserving of attention.”

Every now and then, I run into this. For the sake of simplicity, I often say that I don’t believe in the supernatural. That includes God, Satan, angels, demons, resurrection, miracles, etc. but if some one asks me about the cause of the Big Bang and the apparent intelligent design that resulted in us being here, I can’t explain it in natural terms. So one might say that I do believe in that “supernatural”.  In that case you could consider what we call “Mother Nature” supernatural.

Bethany et al., it is so sad that you chose to respond reflexively rather than waiting until you had something intelligent to say.  When you type something as a defense mechanism immediately upon seeing a new post, you dilute whatever message you may have and generally lower the IQ of everyone involved.  This is reflected in Bill S.‘s latest response, which apparently fees off of your non-sequitur and leads everyone down a path farther away from truth.

In the unlikely event that you truly had a revelation about my sexual orientation, AND I had no “alibi” or counterveiling evidence, I would have to concede that you would have a case for me being gay. Of course, if this were a legal matter, your testimony would be subject to cross-examination and a fact-finder would be free to reject it. That’s very
different from saying there is no “evidence.” Under your hypothetical I would concede that there would be evidence, although not “conclusive evidnece,” of me being gay.  Unfortunately your hatred and/or ignorance prevents you from making the same concession about religious evidence.

Related to this, you and Bill S. have both completely missed my point when I made the comment “If you say there is no x, and you have no idea what x is, your statement is completely incoherent and not deserving of attention.”  The “x” that I was referring to, which you couldn’t and/or failed to define, is the word EVIDENCE, not God.  You, Bill S., Earl, and others have gleefully announced the lack of “any evidence” for religious beliefs without even knowing the definition of evidence. This makes the statement incoherent. The general lack of understanding of the term is reflected in the fact that, upon being presented with a concise definition, both you and Earl immediately began attaching qualifiers upon the word (in other words, trying to re-define the term); suddenly you started talking about “objective evidence,” “reliable evidence,” “convincing evidence,” etc. - subjective terms that you failed to define.  In other words, you tacitly admittedly that there is evidence, you just are not persuaded by it.  The fact remains that the original premise for your world view - the lack of “evidence” - has been rebutted.  Now you are scrambling for an alternative grounds for your non-faith.

In missing my point, however, you and Bill S. lead into another interesting point:  St. Anselm’s ontological argument.  This is often cited as a proof of God’s existence, which I don’t think it is.  It is, however, a powerful rebuttal to atheism, St. Anselm sets forth a relatively uncontroversial definition of God which, by its very definition either (1) has to exist or (2) the word is meaningless.  If the word is meaningless, then the statement “there is no God” is also meaningless.  But if the word means anything…. 
.

The whole pagan/Christian agreement that many Christians were tortured and killed during the first, second, and third centuries is evidence that they believed in the divinity of Christ and his resurrection. 
-Why would someone join Christianity, it’s not like most people were born into it in the early centuries?
-Did they get any earthly gain from joining Christianity (honor, power, wealth, etc.)?
-Wouldn’t a person have to be very certain that something was true to be willing to be tortured and killed for it?

You say that you think these accounts are untrue, and you don’t present evidence or reasons to believe that they are false.  Masochists get pleasure out of pain, since I do not, it is inaccurate to call me one.

“Do you suspect that somebody you know has a victim complex? Here’s a checklist to find out the truth. If the person’s behavior satisfies most of the criteria, you know what to do.
.
Attributes most or all of his/her failures to events beyond their control
.
Believes that the world, or a large group of people, are actively working to oppress them
.
Is disliked by numerous people, all of whom allegedly ‘misunderstand’ the person in question
.
Considers any challenge to their worldview a personal attack
.
Attributes any sort of (perceived) negative action against him/her to prejudice
.
Unable to accept criticism
.
Centers his/her identity around a cause (e.g. Catholic Church)
.
Crumbles under any form of pressure and is co-dependent as a result
.
Driven by attention and uses activism to draw attention to themselves
.
Emotionally manipulative and convinces others that they’ve been born into oppression.”

Which one of the posters do you wish to accuse of all of these things, or are you trying to accuse Jesus of having a victim complex based on the excerpt from the Sermon on the Mount?

Blessed are those who’re persecuted for righteousness sake for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when others revile you, and persecute you, and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets before you.

Pope Benedict XVI writes about this beatitude:
A reminder that if we suffer for God’s sake, for justice, it is really a blessing. That we should rejoice from that suffering because it means we are walking the right path.

No, I’m accusing you of taking Jesus’ words as a command that you give yourself a victim complex. He told you that you would be persecuted because of your faith in him, and so you believe you are persecuted. You display all the criteria of a victim complex because Jesus “told” you it would be so.
.

I have the same amount of “evidence” that you are a homosexual as you have “evidence” of god. You are eating your own words about what “evidence” means. Testimony, in itself, in not enough “evidence” for anything because it could be wrong and/or rebutted. You “testimony” that there is a god (and it is the Judeo-Christian god at that) is being rebutted all the time. You have no “evidence” to back up your “testimony.”
.
And you’re getting hostile.

Skywalker—you must have been typing your further comment while I was typing my reply. It proves my point—the persecuted are “blessed,” so you have developed a persecution complex to prove that you are among the “blessed.”
.
Sucker.

“I think that you have to take Church history with a grain of salt. Writers like Eusebius were not held accountable and are known to have made things up.”
I don’t think I brought up any quotes from Eusebius, but no works outside of the bible are considered inerrant by Catholics.  I merely object to throwing out all Christian accounts of martyrdom as fallacious without reason.  If there is a good reason to disregard a particular account, I might consider it inadmissable myself.  What scholar(s) consider Eusebius problematic?

From Gibbon’s “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”

The gravest of the ecclesiastical historians, Eusebius himself, indirectly confesses that he has related whatever might redound to the glory, and that he has suppressed all that could tend to the disgrace, of religion. Such an acknowledgement will naturally excite a suspicion that a writer who has so openly violated one of the fundamental laws of history has not paid a very strict regard to the observance of the other; and the suspicion will derive additional credit from the character of Eusebius, which was less tinctured with credulity, and more practised in the arts of courts, than that of almost any of his contemporaries.

Kayla et al. there is no inconsistency in what I am saying,  only a refusal by you to contemplate it. I conceded that in your psychotic hypothetical there would be evidence of my gayness. When that didn’t offend me to the degree you had hoped, you started making things up. It is also telling that you have declined to engage the philosophical arguments and instead chosen to concentrate on personal attacks. Now if you want to talk about evidence, every schizophrenic key you stroke stands as powerful testimony to the meaningless, truthless, hopeless, irrational existence that results from a rejection of God.

What would lead you to believe that I think I am being persecuted?  I think early Christians were persecuted, just like I think Julius Caesar was a roman general, who later became a dictator, based on the evidence. 
-
I’m getting hostile, how droll.
-
You don’t find martyrdom testimony compelling, you don’t find the existence of Christianity in the first century compelling,  or any miracle testimony compelling, or any Christians personal conversion compelling, that is a lot of people over a lot of time in many different places.  All of them have to be not true for your worldview to hold up.  That’s a lot of forged writing and a lot of lies or a lot of delusion. 
-
And this you compare to all the evidence you have about the sexuality of someone you’ve never met on the Internet. 
-
You can produce loads of web pages about me, martyrs for me, a holy book written about me, people everywhere who talk about me, churches in my honor, my name referenced again and again throughout history, historians who write about me, cities and towns named after me, people who will claim I touched their lives.

Well, Christians has over 2000 years to do it. What if I testify that Jesus Christ was/is homosexual?

Skywalker—that “getting hostile” and homosexual remarks were for Mike. Sorry I didn’t specify.
.
Oh, I accept you believe you are persecuted—in your own mind. That’s why it’s called a “complex.” Even if (and that is a REALLY BIG “IF!”) everything you cited is true, what does that have to do with you?
.
You can produce loads of web pages about me, martyrs for me, a holy book written about me, people everywhere who talk about me, churches in my honor, my name referenced again and again throughout history, historians who write about me, cities and towns named after me, people who will claim I touched their lives.
.
What the heck is that supposed to mean?

Skywalker—if you ever get out of the basement and visit the real world, there are therapies to treat paranoia and complexes. You just have to find a psychiatrist who doesn’t believe suffering is a Christian virtue.

Adam Wilson/ Kayla/sandy et al., as previously explained to you, said testimony would be meaningless for lack of personal knowledge. When i first encountered sandy et al.‘s, comments, I was surprised by how little regard she/have for the actual meaning of words, but upon further reflection, this should be expected since atheism is, when carried to its logical conclusion, incoherent:
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/higher-things/2011/nov/19/atheism-why-it-logically-incoherent
http://www.catholicthinker.net/the-incoherence-of-atheism/
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/4-arguments-transcendence.htm
Posted by Steve on Thursday, Feb 14, 2013 9:59 PM (EDT):
Blacklistedsandy wrote: “These people fear change and fear that they have wasted their lives with false beliefs. Expect hatred.”
I spent 30 years as an agnostic and had no religious upbringing, so this really doesn’t describe me. One of the biggest factors that has led me to theism recently is the online conduct of atheists. There is an increasing level of desperation that is reflected in the conduct of you, DVD Bach and others by coming onto to explicitly Christian websites and trying to evangelize.  It is one thing to put your view out there as a philosophical perspective, but if reason and progress is truly on your side, what need is there to go on the offensive?  Why troll the writings of particular authors or websites that no one is forcing you to read? Won’t the “truth” lead people to your side eventually, if what you believe is true? The real reason, I suspect, for this militancy is that atheism is, when carried to its logical conclusion, incoherent:
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/higher-things/2011/nov/19/atheism-why-it-logically-incoherent
http://www.catholicthinker.net/the-incoherence-of-atheism/
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/4-arguments-transcendence.htm
http://www.reasonsforgod.org/the-best-reasons/the-argument-from-reason/

“your entire world view was predicated on the statement “there is no evidence of God.””
You have it backwards.  Your worldview is predicated on the “evidence” that there is a god.  As is true of almost every religion.  And they all conflict.  All of the religious “evidence” conflicts.  What should a “jury” do with conflicting “evidence”?  There must be a “mistrial”.  Nothing can be considered “proved”.
“God which, by its very definition either (1) has to exist or (2) the word is meaningless.”
Yes.  The concept of a “god” is quite contradictory and meaningless.
“the statement “there is no God” is also meaningless.”
The statement becomes: you have no acceptable evidence for anything that might conceivably qualify as a “god”.

“your entire world view was predicated on the statement “there is no evidence of God.””
You have it backwards.  Your worldview is predicated on the “evidence” that there is a god.  As is true of almost every religion.  And they all conflict.  All of the religious “evidence” conflicts.  What should a “jury” do with conflicting “evidence”?  There must be a “mistrial”.  Nothing can be considered “proved”.

“God which, by its very definition either (1) has to exist or (2) the word is meaningless.”
Yes.  The concept of a “god” is quite contradictory and meaningless.
“the statement “there is no God” is also meaningless.”
The statement becomes: you have no acceptable evidence for anything that might conceivably qualify as a “god”.

Earl wrote, “you have no acceptable evidence.”  Again, you have appended an arbitrary standard of “acceptability” to the term “evidence.”  This appears to be the only way you can cling to your nihilistic world view.
Also, Earl by asserting that “the concept of a ‘god’ is quite contradictory and meaningless” actually makes by point that hard atheism is likewise meaningless and incoherent for the reasons stated above.

“One of the biggest factors that has led me to theism recently is the online conduct of atheists.”

Yeah. Even though we can’t prove it, there must be a God because atheists are rude on Catholic blogs.

Posted by Earl Thompson on Wednesday, Mar 20, 2013 10:36 AM (EDT):“All of the religious ‘evidence’ conflicts.  What should a ‘jury’ do with conflicting ‘evidence’?  There must be a “mistrial”.  Nothing can be considered ‘proved’.”
This statement reflects such a poor understanding of the legal system that I can barely begin to address it.  The evidence at EVERY trial conflicts or else THERE WOULD BE NO TRIAL, the Judge would throw one side or the other’s case out of court before trial.  By your reasoning, every trial would result in a “mistrial” (doubtful you know what that means in light of the context of your post) since there must be conflicting evidnece in the first place to hold a trial.  Something “can be considered ‘proved’” because the jury is instructed to hear all of the evidence (something you refuse to do because you’re only willing to think about evidence you arbitrarily deem “acceptable”) and then decide who prevails, based on whatever burden of proof applies.

Posted by Bill S on Wednesday, Mar 20, 2013 12:25 PM (EDT):
—“One of the biggest factors that has led me to theism recently is the online conduct of atheists.” Yeah. Even though we can’t prove it, there must be a God because atheists are rude on Catholic blogs.—

I’m not sure why Mike re-posted this, but what I was saying back then was that the conduct of atheists led me to question the validity of their views and, in turn, led to me consider for the fist time the evidence (primarily philosophical but also scientific and historical) for God. I think that is actually explained pretty well in the excerpt Mike re-posted. It is too bad you did not read the entire comment and/or failed to consider it thoroughly before you added another specious comment.

Just like (in our country) an accused person is considered innocent until proven guilty, the “jury” in a “trial” about the existence of a god is rightly considered on the default assumption that there is no god. Since you contend that a god is “guilty” of existence, you have to show significant proof.
.
Also, the jury has to be secular, because you are contending that there is a god and that yours is the ONLY valid religion.
.
Your “evidence” is based on a book that is the center of a cult whose business is based on the premise your case has already been won.
.
If your going to play the “lawyer” for god, you can’t preach to the “jury” as if it is your choir.

Bill S. - you couldn’t have misconstrued Steve’s comment any more, nor could you have been a bigger azz about the manner in which you misconstrued.  Such a abject failure to understand a relatively simple statement can only be intentional. I would expect more out of you, given your comments a few months ago here, where you acknowledged the philosophical legitimacy of theistic belief:
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/matthew-warner/ask-fr.-barron-single-most-important-thing-to-build-up-life-of-church/
There, you indicated that you weren’t even sure you were an atheist, you expressed the belief that the universe was the result of some kind of transcendent intelligent creator, and you expressed an interest in reading more about various theistic arguments.
Now you appear to be on some kind of neck-bearded Tet Offensive in the last few weeks, comment bombing virtually ever blog on this site.

Sorry if I took Steve’s statement out of context. Other than believing in the possibility of intelligent design, I am an atheist. It’s not worth getting into that exception. I just say I am an atheist.

Adam Wilson/Sandy et al. - it is unfortunately that you have come back here before seeking the help that you so desparately need.  While you are clearly in no mental state to engage in logical discussion, anyone else reading this should be aware that your most recent comment is chock full of unfounded assumptions. Let’s examine them together:

-a “trial” about the existence of a god is rightly considered on the default assumption that there is no god.-

The U.S. Supreme Court has noted that “[w]e are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.” Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 313; 72 S. Ct. 679 (1952). While you might write that off as a historical anachronism, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit did not, when it cited this statement favorable last month Freedom from Religion Foundation v. City of Warren, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 3827 (6th Cir. Mich. 2013).  So your assumptions about the burden of proof are unfounded and contrary to federal law.

Also, if we assume the theist does carry the burden of proving existence, there is a whole lot of “evidence” for God’s existence, under the definition set forth above which you have not coherently addressed.  Apart from personal religious experiences, this eviudence includes the basic structure of the universe and human consciousness.

—Since you contend that a god is “guilty” of existence, you have to show significant proof.—

Again, there is no such term as “significant proof,” this is an arbitrary and meaningless phrase that you have made up to the dodge the undeniable fact that there is proof, contrary to what you said initially.  Faced with proof, now you call for “significant” proof - but, of course, no one knows what this means.  No doubt, as with Earl’s call for “acceptable” evidence, this standard will simply turn upon your whims and what you think comports with your world view.  This reminds me of Carl Sagan’s mantra that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There is no such legally recognized term as “extraordinary evidence” - he made it up.  And who decides what are “extraordinary” claims that are subject to this heightened burden of proof? To most people, the existence of God is an entirely ordinary claim. 

-“Also, the jury has to be secular, because you are contending that there is a god….”
Criminal defendants are subject to a jury of their peers.  78% of Americans profess to be Christian.  Most of the remaining 22% adhere to other religions including Jews and Muslims who share the Christian God. Only about 4% of Americans profess to be atheists.  An all-secular jury would defy the basic principles of our legal system and would not sustain constitutional scrutiny.  This is pseudo-legal gibberish.

“...and that yours is the ONLY valid religion.”

I never said that. End of story.  There could be and likely are elements of truth in every monotheistic religion and even in some polytheistic/pagan beliefs.

—“Your ‘evidence’ is based on a book that is the center of a cult whose business is based on the premise your case has already been won.”

This comment seems to flow from the unsupported comment that I am only advocating for Catholocism.  Because you simply made that up, no further discussion is warranted.

—“If your going to play the ‘lawyer’ for god, you can’t preach to the ‘jury’ as if it is your choir.”—

This comment seems to flow from your previously unsupported statement that the jury would have to be all secular.  That assertion has already been exposed as pseudo-legal gibberish.

Oh, please Bill! “Intelligent Design” is a religious pseudoscience that is trying to put religion back into school as a scientific theory. You’re not atheist if you accept the possibility of that crap.

Adam,
I thought the same thing. But it is not Creationism and it brings up some valid points. The physical constants are fine tuned. We can’t explain how life came into being and certain irreducible complexities. Most people who believe in the God of the Bible know very little about ID. To them, it is Creationism. But it’s not.

Adam Wilson/Sandy et al. - once again, don’t you think we would all be better off if you knew what you were talking about BEFORE you commented? Anybody that’s thought about the issue for more than 5 mintues notes that the Argument from Design is not the same as “Intelligent Design.”

Bill—Look up Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District on the web. The case was a triumph for science and a devastating blow to “intelligent design.” I’m sure you will find it intersting.
.
Mike—sorry, I should have realized you are incapable of processing an analogy.

Adam Wilson/Sandy et al. - you were not making an analogy.  You had talking points about intelligent design that you immediately started regurgitating despite the fact that NO ONE HAD MENTIONED IT, as evidenced by the fact that you are still citing case law about intelligent design even after we established that it is not the issue.

Mike,

I’m the one who brought up ID. I am probably the only atheist in the world who believes in it.

Bill S., you really didn’t whether you realize it or not.  You brought up the design argument.

Adam Wilson/Sandy et al. - you’re putting a lot of faith in one federal trial judge’s findings. Are you aware that this is not even an appellate decision and is therefore not binding on anyone except the litigants (the loser apparently chose not to appeal)?

Bill S. mentioned it. And it funny how you use legalese to assert that god exists, and brush off a very important court case.
.
Bill—don’t let Mike’s flimsy brush off of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District stop you from looking it up. It was determined that teaching Intelligent Design causes harm—it’s not just another point of view.
.
Bill-how do you like being told you really didn’t realize what you were writing about? Also, an atheist does not believe in any supernatural intelligent being. No atheist suggests there is any intelligence involved, or that the universe was designed—there is nothing to support the hypothesis. Maybe you could call yourself a deist or agnostic, but not atheist if you believe in the probability of an intelligent designer.

It doesn’t have to be a designer just a design. Like the human genome. How did that come about?

Bill S. a design without a designer, really?
Adam Wilson et al. Thank you for highlighting the dogmaticism of atheism. Bill doesn’t share the right unbeliefs and you’re trying to excommunicate him. Yet you say atheism isn’t a religion.

Bill S.—in spite of Mike being a total a$$hole, it makes sense that there cannot be a design without a designer.
.
Patters, however, are observed in the universe, and physics describes how they happen to be. That’s how the human genome came about—four nucleotides in different combinations are arranged into nucleic acids (DNA and RNA) that have the unique properties to replicate. It’s much more awesome than any creator god.

“Bill S. a design without a designer, really?
Adam Wilson et al. Thank you for highlighting the dogmaticism of atheism. Bill doesn’t share the right unbeliefs and you’re trying to excommunicate him. Yet you say atheism isn’t a religion.”

Mike,

Unlike religious fanatics who cry out “heresy”, “persecution”, “excommunicate him”, people interested in science actually learn about life through disagreements with one another. There can be a design without a designer. Otherwise, the designer would have to be so complex that it would need a designer, etc. why can’t there just be a pattern to life without a person creating that pattern?

“you have appended an arbitrary standard of “acceptability” to the term “evidence.””
The non-arbitrary standard is science.
“hard atheism”
There is no such thing as “hard atheism”.
“This statement reflects such a poor understanding of the legal system”
Reality is not a legal system.
“the jury is instructed to hear all of the evidence”
that has not been “thrown out” for some reason.
“then decide who prevails, based on whatever burden of proof applies.”
And the level of “proof” is different between civil and criminal cases.
What level of “proof” is required for the existence of a “god”?
And juries are a small number of possibly not too bright “peers”.
I want a “jury” of the members of the NAS to judge reality.

“acknowledged the philosophical legitimacy of theistic belief”
Hilarious.
“While you are clearly in no mental state to engage in logical discussion”
Hilarious.
“So your assumptions about the burden of proof are unfounded and contrary to federal law.”
Hilarious.  Let’s go to Saudi Arabia and apply Sharia.  Why not?
“under the definition set forth above which you have not coherently addressed”
Science addresses it and rejects it.
“this eviudence includes the basic structure of the universe”
Fail.  “God of the gaps” is a fallacy.
“human consciousness”
And ape and dolphin and whale and bear and dinosaur and ...?  This is not an argument for any god.
“To most people, the existence of God is an entirely ordinary claim.”
Hilarious.

Adam Wilson and his/her legion wrote: 
—“That’s how the human genome came about—four nucleotides….”—
Where did the nucleotides come from?
—”...in different combinations….”—
What made them combine? Why would we presuppose that they are even of a nature that allows them to combine? Aren’t purely blind forces more likely to generate “nucleotides” that are completely incompatable with each other, since its a random process?
—”... are arranged….”—
Arranged by what?
—”... into nucleic acids (DNA and RNA)...”—
Again, what are the odds that purely blind forces would generate things that are even capable of combining into anything, much less anything structured like DNA and RNA.
—”...that have the unique properties to replicate.”—
So not only did blind forces create these complexstructures, but these complex structures are themselves machines capable of creating? And nothing intelligent designed created these machines?
—“It’s much more awesome than any creator god.”—
On atheism, there is no standard by which anything can be said to be “awesome,” just as there is no standard by which anything can be said to be true. If we are all just the products of blind forces, we have no purpose, and we cease to exist in a few years, who or what would be harmed if I chose to simply reject science and reason entirely? There is no objective truth for us (only opportunities to eat, mate, or avoid prey) any more than there is for a fruit fly. So we care if a fruit fly’s beliefs are founded on logic reason?

Earl wrote:
—“The non-arbitrary standard is science.”—
The infallability of the scientific method is something that cannot be empirically tested.  Also, proving that the , by using the scientific method (the only means you say exists) would be impermissibly circular.  The statement that the scientific method is the sole source of knowledge in the universe is unfalsifiable.  Please look into the problem of induction and consider it thoroughly before you return.

—“There is no such thing as “hard atheism.’”
There is no such thing as anything under your world view since words and terms appear to have only arbitrary meanings created and altered at your whim.

—“Reality is not a legal system.”—
This is a meaningless statement.  The legal system is pretty real when it locks someone up for life, puts them to death, or takes away their assets. I can only infer from this that you are a solipsist.

—“What level of “proof” is required for the existence of a “god”?—
Since no one is going to prison over this, its a civil matter and Dod’s existence would be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.  You admittedly have no evidence against God’s existence you that’s a really problem for you. One witness will do.

—“And juries are a small number of possibly not too bright “peers”.
I want a “jury” of the members of the NAS to judge reality.”—
This is a totally meaningless statement and is legally incoherent. I want a jury of members who are prejudiced in my favor?

—“Unlike religious fanatics who cry out “heresy”, “persecution”, “excommunicate him”, people interested in science actually learn about life through disagreements with one another.”—
Yet that is exactly what Adam/Sandy did when you seemed to give the design argument some credibility. If you are interested in learning it would be helpful to read the comments.

—“There can be a design without a designer. Otherwise, the designer would have to be so complex that it would need a designer, etc.”—
This reasoning reflects a very nacent understanding of the relevant philosophy dating back to Aquinas.  It has unfortunately gained traction in recent years because Dawkins has espoused it in one of his books.  The reasons why God wouldn’t need a designer have been explained many times and are beyond the scope of what can be said here, but it has to do with the fact that only physical/“contingent” things need a designer, God is outside space/time, is immaterial, etc.

—“why can’t there just be a pattern to life without a person creating that pattern?”
Because it defies common sense and is contrary to what we observe in the physical world. A million monkeys with a million typewriters over a million years might eventually type Hamlet by accident, but when we read it do we infer it was the accidental result of such a process?

Mike—I hope you are not really a lawyer.

Adam Wilson - from the context of your twisted inner universe where up is down, right is wrong, and truth is false, I interpret that as a compliment.

Mike why don’t you read a science book before you start blasting science? The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.
.

Adam Wilson-
  I was responding to Kayla’s comments about me.  She asserted that she has just as much evidence for my homosexuality as I do for Jesus existence.
  Mass conversions and a religion that has amassed quite a lot of followers over the last 2000 years is unlikely to have occurred from a historic non-event.

“The reasons why God wouldn’t need a designer have been explained many times and are beyond the scope of what can be said here, but it has to do with the fact that only physical/“contingent” things need a designer, God is outside space/time, is immaterial, etc.”

Thanks. But I think I will get my information from scientific sources.

The Thought police have struck again! Short version:
.
Savvy I am Kayla and I still have the same evidence that you are gay.
.
Bill S—Bravo! Science has questions that are not answered yet, but religion has answers that cannot be questioned.

The problem is neither Adam Wilson nor bill s have demonstrated any real grasp of science either. That coupled with their total rejection of philosophy makes the underpinnings of their atheism highly suspect. Adam Wilson’s last quote about the universe’s properties is almost verbatim from Dawkins’ blind watchmaker. He/she has offered no independent analysis of the issue and it is questionable whether she even knows what it’s supposed to mean. What frame of reference do we have to expect anything from the universe? Based on all the other universes we have seen that we know are not designed? The Dawkins quote that you parroted but failed to attribute is at bottom meaningless hyperbole.

“that purely blind forces”
Your ignorance is awesome.
“The infallability of the scientific method”
Your ignorance is now even more awesome.
“Please look into the problem of induction and consider it thoroughly before you return.”
Please look into the problem of believing in a “god” and reject it before you return.  :-)
“God is outside space/time, is immaterial, etc.”
In other words, outside of “reality”.
“is contrary to what we observe in the physical world”
False.  Apparently you are not a member of the NAS.

“The problem is neither Adam Wilson nor bill s have demonstrated any real grasp of science either. That coupled with their total rejection of philosophy makes the underpinnings of their atheism highly suspect.”

I understand the basic concepts of both science and religion. For the most part, I understand that science mostly explains much of the phenomena previously explained by religion. I am personally stuck when it comes to the concept of intelligent design, which is different from creationism. The latter is religious nonsense, but I see some merit in the former. If that makes the underpinnings of my atheism highly suspect, so what. Am I not worthy of expressing certain atheist views?

Ok, I know I am really late to the game here, but I just had to respond to this. Wendy Haily quoted below:
Wendy Hailey on Sunday, Mar 10, 2013 7:19 PM (EDT

Contraception is the choice by any means to impede the procreative potential of a given act of intercourse.

Wendy, that definition you cited from a Catholic diocese does NOT support your argument that NFP is contraception. NFP does not “impede the procreative potential of a given act of intercourse.” It is simply refraining from the act during fertile periods.

Earl:  “Please look into the problem of induction and consider it thoroughly before you return.”
Based on the fact that you are back, we can infer either (1) you looked into it, and have an excellent explanation your faith in scientism can sustain, or (2) you didn’t look into it, and chose to comment from a position of wilful ignorance.  Which is it?

I’m guessing (2) based on the following.

—“Your ignorance is awesome.”—
Obviously you’re out of “reason” and “logic” grenades so now you’re firing ad hominem attacks.  Since you’ve only quoted part of one sentence out of context, its not even clear what, in particular, you find so awesomely ignorant.  And you have failed to even start explaining why my position is ignorant.

—“Your ignorance is now even more awesome.”
Same problem as above.  Your position is either that the scientific method is the sole source of knowledge in the universe, or you acknowledge that there are other source(s) of knowledge in the universe. If your position is that the scientific method is the sole source of knowledge in the universe, then it runs squarely into the problems noted above, which your comment fails to address.

—“Please look into the problem of believing in a ‘god’ and reject it before you return.”—
So the only position worth being is expressed is yours, and any others are stupid? That’s called “poisoning the well.” It is widely recognized as a logical fallacy and an unpersuasive method of argument. 

—“In other words, outside of “reality”.—
Again, you have arbitrarily selected your own definitions of words.  This time you have re-defined “reality” to include only those things verifiable by the scientific method.  Again, that’s scientism, a philosophy, so your arbitrary definition of “reality” is a philosophical position not testable by the scientific method. 

—“is contrary to what we observe in the physical world” False.—
Oh, do elaborate on this, if you are even aware of what you were saying. Where have you observed design without a designer? Even the neckbeard of all neckbeards Adam Wilson a/k/a Sandy acknowledged this above.

Bill S. wrote “Am I not worthy of expressing certain atheist views?”

Pretty much, yes, because you are extolling the virtues of scientism - the philosophical position that the scientific method is the sole source of knowledge in the universe - yet you expressly rejected philosophy as having any value.  In other words you are practicing the very thing, philosophy, that you disregarded as meaningless a few comments earlier in the context of God not needing a creator.  So your world view is internally inconsistent and incoherent.

Mike,

If I were to completely reject the notion that the Judeo Christian concept of “God” is based on anything but the folklore of the Old Testament, which is fiction and poetry, I could give the same name to what I perceive to be the intelligent design(er) of the universe and everything in it including the fine tuning of the physical constants, the laws of nature, the conception of the first living cell, etc.  This God of mine would not have the ability to care about anyone or anything, least of all whether I believed in and worshipped it. Since this would be so different from the God that we talk about, I make it simple by calling myself an atheist. I’m an atheist in terms of theism, but maybe not deism. So maybe I should call myself a Deist. But since I believe in most of what atheists believe I will just keep it simple and call myself an atheist. I hope that makes sense to you.

I just don’t see how you can talk about an all powerful creative force that would have to be spaceless, timeless, and immaterial, but at the same time say it isn’t intelligent in a personal sense.
As I said previously, I strongly recommend spending $1 on this:
http://www.amazon.com/Evidence-Existence-God-ebook/dp/B00BFCTQ7U
The author lays out a powerful purely philosophical (not theological) argument for the existence of something that looks a whole lot like the Judeo-Christian God.

I just read the bad arguments in chapter 2. Those are the ones I’ve been trying to make. Now I will read the better arguments in chapter 3.

I do think Kelly dismisses the argument from biological complexity far too quickly in that part, because he doesn’t account for irreducible complexity, particularly at the cellular level. (I.e., some beneficial traits have to arise in tandem or the organism simply cannot exist; you can’t randomly mutate a heart and have natural selection “hold it in place” until lungs come along).

Mike, I agree. Also, the God that is proven to exist has nothing to do with the Bible or the Catholic Church. It is a stretch, to say the least, to try to link this God with any religion.

Bill S. that is a true statement. My reasoning is as follows: if the God of Kelly’s book (Blase Pascal called this “the God of the philosophers”)exists, would we expect that God to completely divorce itself from human affairs, or would we expect that God to reveal itself directly to us somehow at some point in human history? I’m not saying that every single reported instance of divine intervention is true, I’m saying that God’s existence makes them plausible and given the number of them, it becomes a heck of a lot more likely that some really reflect the hand of God.
Particularly if they appear to 500 people after a public execution.

“if the God of Kelly’s book (Blase Pascal called this “the God of the philosophers”)exists, would we expect that God to completely divorce itself from human affairs, or would we expect that God to reveal itself directly to us somehow at some point in human history?”

It is the universe itself that is revealing itself through scientific discoveries being made at an accelerating pace.  As for a God that Abraham could talk into sparing Sodom and Gomorrah but who is any less accessible to us today, I don’t buy it. A god who parted the Red Sea and who walked on water at a time when it couldn’t be verified?  I doubt it.

But now you’ve changed the subject; Kelly’s book is strictly about proofs from philosophy, not scientific discoveries. The God revealed through science doesn’t appear to be personl because science doesn’t reveal the whole picture.  That is where philosophy comes into play, and when philosophy points to an intelligent, personal God, it naturally leads into theology (i.e., how can we relate to this intelligent personal God).

Mike—I didn’t identify the quote as being from Dawkins’ book, because usually when I mention Dawkins someone comments on his being an atheist %$*#@&!
http://protectthepope.com/?p=4949
.
I apologize—it was wrong not to acknowledge his quote.
.
You are not a lawyer, nor are you a scientist—you use documents written by such professionals to make your points. (You just stop your research when it indicates something might disprove or contradict you.) I’m willing to research whether your points can be contradicted, and I usually find the resources. You just don’t like me because I post them.

Joanp62
Go to Jennifer’s post on It’s a Great Day to be a Catholic. I’m not going into another debate over NFP. NFP’s promoted for contraception, is used for contraception, and is a very effective method of contraception. The only difference to you is that it’s approved by the Church.

Bill S and Mike—here’s a link that explains why “intelligent design” is not real science:
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Luciano.cfm
.
Another quote from Dawkins on the subject:
“...supporters of irreducible complexity begin their argument simply by proclaiming that something is irreducibly complex, and that if one part of the system is removed, the whole apparatus will not work properly. However, I fail to see, for example, how by recognizing that removing the retina from a human eye will render it useless, this does any damage to evolutionary theory. Evolution is predicated on the idea that genetic and biological compositions change over time as organisms adapt in accordance with their (changing) environments. These adaptations very often involve a “progression” from relatively simple systems to more complex ones. Rather than an argument against evolution, the eye may be rightly viewed as the intricate culmination of millions and billions of years of evolutionary change in those organisms from which humans are descended.”

Ok, so Buddy Sorrel is Wendy Hailey? There’s nothing to debate. Contraception is impeding the possibility of conception during the act of sex. Abstaining from sex during fertile periods is not impeding the possibility of conception during the act of sex because no sex is taking place.

That is the point of the Church being against contraception!! It changes the sex act into merely an act of pleasure only and over time objectifies the other partner. But you don’t want to think-thinking may make you start seeing things in a different light. But you have to think things through to get to the truth.

NFP is promoted IN PLACE OF contraception as a viable, moral way to avoid pregnancy,for MARRIED couples. Sex is very important in a marriage, but abstaining periodically is also beneficial.

“That is the point of the Church being against contraception!! It changes the sex act into merely an act of pleasure only and over time objectifies the other partner.”

Joan, is that what you believe or are you simply stating the Church’ s position?  So, over time, I objectified my wife because she was on the pill. Making love was somehow evil?  Isn’t this just being a killjoy?

Bill S: that is the Church’s position and I really believe it based on several facts: personal experience, other people’s experiences, and because I believe the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit on matters of Faith and Morals, I make it a point to learn WHY the Church teaches what it does so I can hold to these teachings with reason.

I also believe sex is best reserved for married couples-again, personal experience and the experience of others only confirms it more.

How would I know if you objectified your wife or not, only you know if you did, and to come to that realization you would have to do some serious thinking and honest soul searching.

Lastly, I have always found the term “making love” to be used too indiscriminately. Many people simply have sex- for fun and recreation, for self-pleasure, because they feel pressured, etc., I really wonder how often it is really Love, because if you loved your partner so much, why would you not want to have their child?

“Many people simply have sex- for fun and recreation, for self-pleasure, because they feel pressured, etc., I really wonder how often it is really Love, because if you loved your partner so much, why would you not want to have their child?”

I don’t know if you are really serious.  A husband and wife, both with careers, cannot have sex without the risk of pregnancy unless they practice NFP?  I’m sorry, but that is ridiculous. We had successful careers and managed to raise two children. The idea that the Catholic Church would have had any say in how we chose to live our lives is ludicrous.

You can’t wrap your head around it because you have been conditioned to think in a certain way. And the Catholic Church has every right to propose the Truth to it’s members. If they choose not to believe it, that is their choice, and the Catholic Church does NOT impose on anyone, it merely proposes.

“If they choose not to believe it, that is their choice, and the Catholic Church does NOT impose on anyone, it merely proposes”.

Are we talking about the same Catholic Church?  The one I’m talking about doesn’t “propose”.  It definitely “imposes”.

“You can’t wrap your head around it because you have been conditioned to think in a certain way. And the Catholic Church has every right to propose the Truth to it’s members.”
,
Are you saying you haven’t been conditioned by the Church to think in a certain way? You are certainly hard-wired to think the Church is right while everyone else is wrong.
.
Bill S—Joanp62 is another Catholic that has judged your sexual relations with your wife immoral and you have probably excommunicated yourself.

Bill S—you may want to Google “Einstein’s god.”

Yes. I’ve been conditioned to enjoy sex. Boy, am I brainwashed.

Buddy-I meant what I said. In order to understand and accept Church teachings you HAVE to THINK.

And once again, we have another atheist who likes to assume things and put words in people’s mouths. I make no judgement on anyone’s marriage or sex life.

Bill S, give me one example of the Church imposing on others. Give me something recent.

The Church imposes on others with its ability to direct its members to vote a certain way on referendum questions and, as in the last election telling Catholics that it is a mortal sin to vote for a pro-choice candidate.  That might not seem like imposing to you but it is to me.  In my state, Massachusetts, the Church was successful in getting Catholics to vote against Question 2 doctor assisted suicide. I consider that an imposition. It also spent millions and tried to influence Catholics to vote against same sex marriage. This is how the Church tries to impose its morals on others.

Another exposition of the wilful ignorance of atheism, by Buddy Sorrell/Adam Wilson/Sandy.  Where to begin?

—“Mike—I didn’t identify the quote as being from Dawkins’ book, because usually when I mention Dawkins someone comments on his being an atheist %$*#@&!”—
So you came to this explicitly Christian website for the sole purpose of spreading the Good News of atheism, but were bashful about saying the name Dawkins? I have a different theory. You thought this quote would be a show stopper because it “sounds smart” and we would all just be shocked and awed by your so-superior intellect.  It backfired when I immediately recognized it as a specious sound-bite.

—“I apologize—it was wrong not to acknowledge his quote.”—
You should apologize for pretending that it meant something.  Notably you have still failed to address what if anything it could possibly mean, except from being a pretentious slice of hyperbole created by a neckbeard, for neckbeards.  The only way this quote could mean anything is if we had a big stack of universes, some we knew to be created and some we knew were not, and we could compare and contrast them to say “oh, here is what we would expect to get from blind pittiless indifference.” Its gibberish. It makes about as much sense as when Dawkins said the Resurrection was “not worthy of the universe.” What is a universe driven by blind chance and pittiless indifference worthy of? Why would it be worthty of anything? So God falls short of Dawkins’ expectations for this reason? The guy makes no sense.

—“You are not a lawyer, nor are you a scientist….”—
I’d be very interested to know how you know what I do for a living.  We all know the reality is you do not know. And because you professed to have such knowledge here, that makes you a liar.  What other lies have you told in this exchange? In others? Do the ends justify the means because your non-faith is so important that it’s okay to lie in defense of it?

—“you use documents written by such professionals to make your points.”—
I’d be curious to know what those documents are written for, if not for other people to read and talk about in order to make points.  You imply that this is somehow a misuse of knowledge.  Oh, the incoherence of atheism? When there is no such thing as truth, and words have only arbitrary meanings, it frees you to say such cute things!

—“You just stop your research when it indicates something might disprove or contradict you.”—
Then how did I immediately and correctly attribute your “pittiless indifference” quote to Dawkins’ Blind Watchmaker - a fact which you acknowledged above? This statement is defeated by your own comment.

—“I’m willing to research whether your points can be contradicted, and I usually find the resources. You just don’t like me because I post them….”—
Nothing in these comments indicates or even hints at a willingess or capacity on your part to do this.  You have only even attempted to address less than 10% of my points. You have completely ignored every philosophical argument.  Out of the extreme minority of points that you have tried to tackle here, your comments have mostly consisted of ad hominem attacks, speculation about my sexual orientation, and a strawman assault on intelligent design (remember you brought up intelligent design then proceeded to regurgitate a series of recycled sound bites against it).  Your comments have been superficial, unoriginal, unresponsive, and lacking in any depth of analysis.  If this is the result of your tireless research, then your Gods of reason and logic command that you firmly place your face into your hand, step away from the computer, and find a quiet place to rethink your life.

Joanp62—judging from your assumptions cited on this post and on Jennifer’s “Great Day” post—you should not accuse others of not being willing to think.
.
In order to think, you have to accept the possibility that you don’t KNOW everything. Apparently you can’t accept that possibility. You believe you’re an expert in medical situations, sexual morals, and personal ethics.
.
You are making judgments on other peoples’ sex lives. You’ve practically accused Bill S of not “really” loving his wife!

“Where have you observed design without a designer?”
Your ignorance continues to be hilarious.
“So your world view is internally inconsistent and incoherent.”
Hilarious.
“I just don’t see how you can talk about an all powerful creative force that would have to be spaceless, timeless, and immaterial”
That’s quite crazy talk.
“I’m saying that God’s existence makes them plausible”
Hilariously circular.

Buddy, you really are rude. I know nothing of Bill S’s personal life, are you really that daft or do you do this on purpose?

Bill S: I;m still waiting for an example of the Church imposing it’s beliefs on others. Just because the example you cited “seems” to you like imposing, doesn’t mean it is.

Political organizations and lobbyists can influence people on how to vote via pamphlets, articles, TV commercials, etc. and that’s not imposing their beliefs on others, but when the Catholic Church informs it’s members on certain issues coming up for a vote, they are imposing?

Let’s see now-let’s take the gun issue which is hot right now. Those who are against gun ownership are lobbying and influencing the people to vote against gun ownership or severely limiting what types of guns people can own. When/if they get their way, how are they NOT imposing their beliefs on those who are for unlimited, legal gun ownership???

The Catholic Church has every right to inform her members on certain issues that may be contrary to God’s Truth. It is then up to Catholics to choose if they will follow their conscience and the Church, or go along with the rest of the world.

Are you really trying to claim that with people being influenced by so much in the world that any decision they make is completely free of this influence except for Catholics?

“Are you really trying to claim that with people being influenced by so much in the world that any decision they make is completely free of this influence except for Catholics?”

No. But Catholics are most likely to vote based on what they are told is “God’s will” which is a very lame reason to vote a certain way. Suppose that your reason and logic (if it were uncontaminated by Catholic indoctrination) were told you that it is wrong to deny gays the right to marry or a terminal patient the right to die on her own terms, shouldn’t you vote according to your own reason and logic and not the way the Church “guides” you to do. By Catholics choosing the latter, even if it is obviously wrong, the Church is imposing its will on the American public. I feel the same about the NRA but that’s another story for another time.

Don’t you see what you are doing, Bill? When it comes to groups of people and issues you don’t agree with, you apply a different standard. Catholics (and other people of faith) are NOT the ONLY people who can be “contaminated” by various doctrines. And Atheists are not the only people who can think for themselves. It is false and insulting. We can honestly admit that the majority of professors in colleges and universities have leftist/progressive views. These views strongly influence those whom they teach, it is a fact. My niece and nephew came out of college spouting the progressive mantras as though they were brainwashed. And There are those who are convinced that Global warming is completely caused by humans and will not hear anything contrary to their “doctrine”, and who have greatly influenced others. There’s a plethora of special interest groups out there who’s sole purpose is to influence the voting public that their “truth” is the only “truth”.

Earl, your consistent refusal to engage the issues in any meaningful way proves more than anything I could say.

Bill S., Suppose that your reason and logic (if it were uncontaminated by atheistic indoctrination) told you that it is right and natural to uphold marriage as between one man and one woman, or a terminal patient the right to proper care, pain management and nutrition that were not extraordinary means to keep her alive, shouldn’t you vote according to your own reason and logic and not the way atheistic ideology “guides” you to do?

Joan,
My indoctrination has been by the Church. Atheists have helped me overcome it. You vote in accordance with the “Will of God”. That is something that the rest of us have to overcome.  Every time Catholics vote against personal freedom, others have to muster up enough votes to counter it. Since there is no God, there is no “Will of God” which means that people are voting based on the Bible and the teachings of the Catholic Church, neither of which relies on current information.

Bill, my point is that people are indoctrinated in many ways, not just from religion and Churches. You say “since there is no God”, but that has not been proven.

People’s wills are imposed on others all the time. Our President was voted in against MY will. But the majority rules and now many of us have to accept a President we did not want. By your logic, I can claim that those who voted for him imposed their will on me.

And what do you have to say with regard to my post at Mar 23, 2013 8:18 AM ?

It’s funny how Atheists are so dogmatic in their claiming that God does not exist. People of faith BELIEVE in the existence of God and can give plenty of reasonable explanations for their belief, none of which is absolute, beyond-a-shadow-of-doubt proof of God’s existence that atheists will accept.  Atheists on the other hand claim not that they DON’T BELIEVE God exists, but that God does NOT exist, and can give not one absolute, beyond-a-shadow-of-doubt proof of His non-existence.

“And what do you have to say with regard to my post at Mar 23, 2013 8:18 AM ?”

By indoctrination, I mean the kind that starts at childhood and never ends. It can be atheism, communism, fundamentalism, etc. I was indoctrinated with Catholicism. I did the same to my kids.  I agree that Catholics have a right to vote according to the guidance they receive. However, some of that guidance is disordered. In my opinion, which is all I am offering.

You admit that it is your opinion. Thank you. So you cannot say that it is a fact that Catholics who vote according to their faith are not voting according to their own conscience and reason and are imposing their will on you.

Indoctrination can happen at any age, believe me. People have been successfully indoctrinated to believe that homosexual sex is normal in the last few decades after centuries of human history when it was not deemed so. It is not just children but adults who have changed their minds due to the way homosexuality has been presented to us by the media.

“It’s funny how Atheists are so dogmatic in their claiming that God does not exist”

And the Church isn’t about God existing?

“It is not just children but adults who have changed their minds due to the way homosexuality has been presented to us by the media.”

I’ve changed my mind based on seeing how gays are discriminated against by Christians and especially Catholics. Yes. The media has exposed these abuses but it is not indoctrination just information.

My response got held up. I basically said that atheists are no more dogmatic about there being no God than the Church is about his existence. 
I also said that I have changed my mind, not from indoctrination by the media but by seeing how gays are discriminated against and thinking about how I would feel if the same happened to me.

Joanp62—you demand that atheists prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that god does not exist, but you refuse to prove to anyone “beyond a reasonable doubt” that god (your god) does exist.
.
Atheists don’t “believe” there is no god—they have no evidence of a god’s existence. We don’t “believe” in pink unicorns, spaghetti monsters, Thor, Zeus, Osiris, alien abductions, leprechauns, ghosts, fairies, the Loch Ness Monster, vampires, astrology, or any other phenomena for which there is no evidence.

Posted by Joanp62 on Saturday, Mar 23, 2013 8:56 AM (EDT):
Bill S., Suppose that your reason and logic (if it were uncontaminated by atheistic indoctrination) told you that it is right and natural to uphold marriage as between one man and one woman, or a terminal patient the right to proper care, pain management and nutrition that were not extraordinary means to keep her alive, shouldn’t you vote according to your own reason and logic and not the way atheistic ideology “guides” you to do?
.
Joanp62—Gay marriage will not affect marriage between a man and a woman. Hospice care is a wonderful option—I used to work for a Hospice and I’m a strong advocate. However, it is not always desirable to the patient or family—do you remember the Terri Schiavo case?

Laura Petrie, as discussed at length above, the athesits’ mantra of “there is no evidence” is based on an arbitrary, subjective, and constantly shifting definition of evidence, and the atheists’ wordplay when it comes to the term ‘evidence’  exemplifies the fact that, on atheism, there is no foundation for objective truth of any kind.

“Lastly, I have always found the term “making love” to be used too indiscriminately. Many people simply have sex- for fun and recreation, for self-pleasure, because they feel pressured, etc., I really wonder how often it is really Love, because if you loved your partner so much, why would you not want to have their child?”
.
You wrote that in the context of Bill’s question about your views on the relationship he has with his wife. You predicated “love” on the premise that both partners should want to have each other’s child. Bill and his wife don’t want anymore children. Your declarations certainly imply that their love for each other is not genuine.
.
Funny how you defend NFP as an expression of love when it has the same goal as other contraception.

All right-Mike. Go over it again—what do you consider evidence?

Laura/whoever you are: Joanp62—you demand that atheists prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that god does not exist

NO- I did not demand that. Reread my post. Are you really so unable to comprehend?

And yes I remember Terri Schaivo very well, I lived there when it was going on.  She was not dying and feeding her was not extraordinary means, even if by feeding tube. To starve her to death was simply evil.

Please stop responding to posts I address to someone else, I have no views on Bill’s relationship with his wife, my comments were general not personal, and stop confusing the posts of others with mine.

BTW, since I have been posting under the same name since I signed on here, please give us a rundown of all the names you have used, so we can see who we are dealing with.

Laura Petrie, all you have to do is scroll up and you know that. If you were too much of a troll to read or think about it when you were Sandy, Wendy, Buddy, or Adam, why would me typing it again make a difference?

Joanp62—Claire has been keeping track of all my names—ask her.
.
“Atheists on the other hand claim not that they DON’T BELIEVE God exists, but that God does NOT exist, and can give not one absolute, beyond-a-shadow-of-doubt proof of His non-existence.”
.
Are you splitting hairs again? Should I have quoted “beyond-a-shadow-of-doubt” instead of “beyond reasonable doubt?” Or am I wrong to tell you of my numerous doubts that there is a god—the main one being that there is no evidence of any god—because in your devotion to your faith, you refuse to think about them?

Laura you are not making any sense. I have not demanded that any atheist give me a reason for their belief that God does not exist. I was stating a fact that all of the reasons they do give are no more absolute than a believers reason for believing. Neither side can really prove, absolutely, one way or the other. For me, I believe that it is more reasonable to believe and the evidence for it is enough for me. 

Anyway,I will no longer respond to you until you tell me the other names you have used. I would like to know who I am dealing with and if I have been through this with you before. There is no need to bother anyone else.

“She was not dying and feeding her was not extraordinary means, even if by feeding tube. To starve her to death was simply evil.”
.
Joanp62—Terri Schiavo has been in a persistent vegetative state for fifteen years. At some point or another, we have to recognize that death has come and begin to deal with that appropriately, not medically, but through the mourning process.
.
“I have no views on Bill’s relationship with his wife, my comments were general not personal…” Bill’s relationship with his wife fall under your general comments—how is that not relevant to Bill. I did write “practically.”

Joanp62—my last reply to you is being checked for spam again. If this keeps up and my comments aren’t posted I’ll have to change my moniker again. Maybe I’ll change sitcoms.
.
Mike—If I have it right, your “evidence” is legal “testimony” which is not supported and is easily rebutted with “testimony” that is supported by evidence, but you regard as “arbitrary” and/or “made-up” either my me or by atheists in general.
.
That would make my “testimony” that you are a homosexual valid, because I reject the validity of your testimony of rebuttal.

I see that while I was typing Joanp62 has left the building.

“Neither side can really prove, absolutely, one way or the other. For me, I believe that it is more reasonable to believe and the evidence for it is enough for me.”

It is actually more reasonable to not believe in the supernatural then to believe in it. Scientists have not discovered a shred of evidence to verify it. The only thing that tips the scales in favor of believing is a superstitious, irrational fear of the consequences for not believing. I don’t give in to that fear and I can therefore think more clearly than those who give in to it.

Bill that is not true. You may wish it to be so but it isn’t. It makes you feel better to think that the ultimate reason people believe is out of fear of hell or some sort of punishment. Although that fear is not irrational if there really is a hell, but that’s not the point.

I do not want to get into a lengthy post here. I just want to say that I believe because it really, truly, does make more sense to me. Everytime I try to look at things from an atheistic point of view all I get to inevitably is hopelessness and confusion. I am speaking of myself here and not others. Also, I have had some small, but non the less, very real indications that there is something else beyond what we can see and measure and test.

I have said nothing derogatory about what Atheists believe or don’t believe and I have not condemned anyone. Yet, the atheists here have condemned, insulted and belittled those of us with faith. If you are so certain of your beliefs, then why do you and Laura, et al resort to these tactics?
I am very secure in my beliefs and the atheists here do not intimidate me, nor have they given me any solid reason to question my beliefs. In times past I did question and I was a bit intimidated. Sincere atheists have helped me to go deeper into my faith and thru that questioning, thru prayer and further study, my faith has only been affirmed and validated.

“Everytime I try to look at things from an atheistic point of view all I get to inevitably is hopelessness and confusion.”

Well, that’s no fun. I would never want to cause someone to feel hopelessness and confusion.  If I could argue these issues without questioning people’s faith, I would.  But it is the faith that causes people to espouse outrageous views.

That is YOUR opinion Bill. I think certain atheist claims are outrageous, and even dangerous,but I have never advocated that they be silenced, as some here on this board have suggested for people of faith. The only defense against Atheism is love and reasoned sharing of the Truth.

The difference between you and me is that you are obviously consumed with hatred for the Catholic church and faith in God in general. I do not hate atheists and am not so consumed by them that I go on their forums and post. I cannot be bothered. Once they are here, I will gladly engage them. Perhaps a seed will be planted. Or not. But I will happily defend the Church and our faith in God to anyone who posts here.

I’m not trying to silence anyone. I respect you for defending your faith.

Joanp62—if you don’t like your ideas being ridiculed, stop believing ridiculous ideas. We will respect your intelligence when you show us some.

“Laura Petrie” wrote: if you don’t like your ideas being ridiculed, stop believing ridiculous ideas. We will respect your intelligence when you show us some.”

Spoken like a true bigot. ( Defined ....especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance)

Posted by Bill S on Saturday, Mar 23, 2013 6:31 PM (EDT):
“It is actually more reasonable to not believe in the supernatural then to believe in it. Scientists have not discovered a shred of evidence to verify it.”
But philosophy has, and if you are of the opinion that philosophy does not count, then you are adhering to the philosophy of scientism. It brings us right back to the question Earl refused to address earlier - how do you scientifically verify that the scientific method is the sole source of knowledge?

“But philosophy has, and if you are of the opinion that philosophy does not count, then you are adhering to the philosophy of scientism.”

I guess. The philosophy that tries to prove the existence of God does not make sense to me. I bought the book on Amazon but so far the arguments are not convincing. The concepts that make some sense to me are ruled out as bad arguments while the ones that don’t make sense are presented as good arguments. Go figure.

My point to “Laura” is not that I don’t WANT to be ridiculed for my beliefs. But that by resorting to these tactics, it makes atheists look inferior.
Christ said that we will be mocked and persecuted for our faith in Him, and blessed are we who are. I only point it out to you as I apparently have before when you were posting under some other name (Gloria, Christine?)to show you how foolish you look. So, bring on the ridicule “Laura”- it only makes you the lesser person.

Buddy/Wendy/Laura/Adam etc. says:
“I’m not going into another debate over NFP. NFP’s promoted for contraception, is used for contraception, and is a very effective method of contraception. The only difference to you is that it’s approved by the Church.”
This is like saying…
“I’m not going into another debate over stealing. Working is promoted for stealing, is used for stealing, and is a very effective method of stealing. The only difference to you is that it’s approved by the Church.”
-
Laura etc. can’t tell the difference or won’t admit the difference between means and ends, therefore she or he is incapable of understanding the difference between NFP and contraception.
-
You could have the same kind of argument about whether spermicides and condoms were both barrier methods.  A barrier method requires a physical blockage between sperm and egg, like the male or female condoms.  Spermicides are not a physical blockage but a chemical used to limit sperm motility.  They both try to prevent conception, but they do not work in the same way.  Laura’s argument would say that they must be the same thing, they must both be barrier methods because barrier methods are used to prevent conception, she would not look at the means they use to arrive at those ends.

There is no logical rationale to differentiate NFP from the use of a condom. The only possible criteria for the Church to give its OK to NFP is that there is a chance for it to be done wrong. So, by some bizarre logic, you are still allowing God’s will to be done if you are incompetent and get pregnant. But all God has to do is make the condom break or leak and his will could still be done. So I think the Church should allow condom use as well since it still allows God’s will to be done.

Bill S. you really don’t know the difference between simply abstaining from having sexual intercourse on fertile days and engaging in sexual intercourse using a condom, taking the pill, using a diaphragm, having a tubal ligation or vasectomy, using an IUD or a contraceptive patch or injection?

The whole point against these methods is that they impede fertilization DURING intercourse. With NFP there is NO intercourse taking place for anything to be impeded. If your logic is that by not having sexual intercourse on fertile days a couple is using contraception, then you really are dense.

“The whole point against these methods is that they impede fertilization DURING intercourse.”

And this is a problem because….

Because the Catholic Church says it’s a problem is not an acceptable answer. I need a legitimate reason.

Is sex bad?  Is it only accepted at all because we would cease to exist as a species without it?

Bill S., you said you are an ex-Catholic? No wonder you left the Church. Being a Catholic takes work. You have to think, you have to read. And you have to pray to ask God to help you understand those things that are hard to accept. You really think that we just believe things because the Church says so?

The reason the Church, speaking for God, claims that contraceptive sex is evil, is because it is contrary to God’s plan for us. Married sexual intercourse between a man and a woman is to be totally, completely self-giving, a gift of self. We are to be trusting in God completely, and letting His will be done in every aspect of our lives, including sex. A child conceived from that love of a man and a woman is a gift, it is the fruit of their union. We should not be closing off our coming together in sexual bonding to the possibility of a new life. We should not be holding anything back. This is also why sex between unmarried persons and persons of the same sex is wrong.

This whole teaching from the Church goes very deep and there is a lot more that the Church has to say, but I am not going to write out an entire encyclical about it. Read Humanae Vitae, JPII’s Theology of the Body, the Catechism.

It is a biological fact that sexual intercourse between a man and a woman may lead to a new life being created. We take part in that creation of another life. But, since the dawn of humanity, we have tried to go against what is obvious about our nature. We have divorced sex from procreation. Sex between a married couple is supposed to be unitive/bonding and procreative. It is sacred and very serious. But we have made it a means of getting pleasure only, of passing time, of recreation. We deny the reality of what sex is and we are paying the consequences. First we have sex with people we are not married to. Then we form a connection to them, and when it doesn’t work out we are devastated. Or, surprise surprise! a child is conceived- how could that happen? That results in either destroying that new life, or possibly having the child alone being a single parent, struggling without a father. Maybe the couple get married but they may be young and poor. Or maybe they do put the child up for adoption, a blessing.

And that is what children should be seen as-a blessing from God. A pregnancy is not a disease or an illness that should be avoided, like an STD-oh and that’s another problem if you are not monogamous.

You may bring up all the single mothers, people with so many children and so much poverty. That is not the Church’s fault or God’s. It is our fault because of sin. If we all truly tried to live as God intended and as He expresses through His Church, with His help, I really do believe things would be different. Not perfect, but better than they are.
But no, we will not listen to the Church- we have sex whenever with whomever we want, then, when things go wrong we blame the Church. We get married, then divorced, then remarry outside the Church, and blame the Church when we cannot receive Communion, when the Church was there telling us first of all, to have Christ at the center of our marriages, and if it still fails, then seek an annulment before remarrying. If that is not possible, well, it is not the end of the world to live without a partner. I know, I am one of them. It’s about sacrifices made in this life, so we can be with God for all eternity. God wants our happiness here, but more than anything, He wants us to be happy with Him in the next life which is eternal. Jesus gave us His example to follow. He suffered much before He died, but then He received the Glorious Crown. Do you think that we can get away without suffering ourselves. He told us that we must deny ourselves and take up our crosses daily and follow Him.

I truly believe God is, and that Jesus is both God and Human, that He died for us and rose again. He left us a Church so that we would not be left alone in this world trying to find our way. He promised that He would give his Holy Spirit to his apostles to guide them in all Truth and that promise continues with the successors of the apostles, the bishops. The Church is both human and divine. The human part is sinful and far from perfect. We all are. But the divine part is the Holy Spirit who guides these sinful men, our bishops and Pope, when teaching us on matters of faith and morals and will not lead us astray. I am so grateful for that.

Bill S. I posted a long response, but it was flagged for spam. I’m waiting to see if it goes through, or I will repost it later.

Skywalker is still ranting like the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Fortunately I don’t have to answer him again because his rants show what a fool he is without any help from me.
.
Bill S—Hasn’t this be discussed with your Catholic friends? The Church does think sex is bad when it is practiced for pleasure and not “open to life.” Pope Paul VI “defined” the supposed difference in NFP, but also specified that there must be DIRE circumstances to justify it. Like you wrote before, it is a bone tossed by the Church in its reluctant acknowledgement reproduction is not always desirable, and that modern society had access to methods that made contraception much easier than before.
.
Apparently, the sperm must not be blocked, but it’s OK if it’s been arranged that it will not fertilize anything. Also—get this—many Catholics here cite that the husband does his wife a special service with NFP because her body absorbs the nutrients in the semen.
.
Apparently barrier methods are a means of wasting “food, along with a forbidden method of contraception.” The same thing cannot be said about the pill, but that renders the woman infertile all through the month.
.
So sex for the pleasure alone is bad, but the Church had to make a concession. Catholics “believe” NFP is not contraception because the pope declared it so. Every non-Catholic knows otherwise.

If humans produced babies by sticking their fingers in each other’s ears, the Church would come up with restrictions for wearing gloves.

Bill S., you said you are an ex-Catholic? No wonder you left the Church. Being a Catholic takes work. You have to think, you have to read. And you have to pray to ask God to help you understand those things that are hard to accept. You really think that we just believe things because the Church says so?

The reason the Church, speaking for God, claims that contraceptive sex is evil, is because it is contrary to God’s plan for us. Married sexual intercourse between a man and a woman is to be totally, completely self-giving, a gift of self. We are to be trusting in God completely, and letting His will be done in every aspect of our lives, including sex. A child conceived from that love of a man and a woman is a gift, it is the fruit of their union. We should not be closing off our coming together in sexual bonding to the possibility of a new life. We should not be holding anything back. This is also why sex between unmarried persons and persons of the same sex is wrong. (Continued)

(Part 2)This whole teaching from the Church goes very deep and there is a lot more that the Church has to say, but I am not going to write out an entire encyclical about it. Read Humanae Vitae, JPII’s Theology of the Body, the Catechism.

It is a biological fact that sexual intercourse between a man and a woman may lead to a new life being created. We take part in that creation of another life. But, since the dawn of humanity, we have tried to go against what is obvious about our nature. We have divorced sex from procreation. Sex between a married couple is supposed to be unitive/bonding and procreative. It is sacred and very serious. But we have made it a means of getting pleasure only, of passing time, of recreation. We deny the reality of what sex is and we are paying the consequences. First we have sex with people we are not married to. Then we form a connection to them, and when it doesn’t work out we are devastated. Or, surprise surprise! a child is conceived- how could that happen? That results in either destroying that new life, or possibly having the child alone being a single parent, struggling without a father. Maybe the couple get married but they may be young and poor. Or maybe they do put the child up for adoption, a blessing.

And that is what children should be seen as-a blessing from God. A pregnancy is not a disease or an illness that should be avoided, like an STD-oh and that’s another problem if you are not monogamous.

You may bring up all the single mothers, people with so many children and so much poverty. That is not the Church’s fault or God’s. It is our fault because of sin. If we all truly tried to live as God intended and as He expresses through His Church, with His help, I really do believe things would be different. Not perfect, but better than they are.
But no, we will not listen to the Church- we have sex whenever with whomever we want, then, when things go wrong we blame the Church. We get married, then divorced, then remarry outside the Church, and blame the Church when we cannot receive Communion, when the Church was there telling us first of all, to have Christ at the center of our marriages, and if it still fails, then seek an annulment before remarrying. If that is not possible, well, it is not the end of the world to live without a partner. I know, I am one of them. It’s about sacrifices made in this life, so we can be with God for all eternity. God wants our happiness here, but more than anything, He wants us to be happy with Him in the next life which is eternal. Jesus gave us His example to follow. He suffered much before He died, but then He received the Glorious Crown. Do you think that we can get away without suffering ourselves. He told us that we must deny ourselves and take up our crosses daily and follow Him.

I truly believe God is, and that Jesus is both God and Human, that He died for us and rose again. He left us a Church so that we would not be left alone in this world trying to find our way. He promised that He would give his Holy Spirit to his apostles to guide them in all Truth and that promise continues with the successors of the apostles, the bishops. The Church is both human and divine. The human part is sinful and far from perfect. We all are. But the divine part is the Holy Spirit who guides these sinful men, our bishops and Pope, when teaching us on matters of faith and morals and will not lead us astray. I am so grateful for that.

Trying to get the rest of my post in, but it’s not letting me.

(Part 2)This whole teaching from the Church goes very deep and there is a lot more that the Church has to say, but I am not going to write out an entire encyclical about it. Read Humanae Vitae, JPII’s Theology of the Body, the Catechism.

It is a biological fact that sexual intercourse between a man and a woman may lead to a new life being created. We take part in that creation of another life. But, since the dawn of humanity, we have tried to go against what is obvious about our nature. We have divorced sex from procreation. Sex between a married couple is supposed to be unitive/bonding and procreative. It is sacred and very serious. But we have made it a means of getting pleasure only, of passing time, of recreation. We deny the reality of what sex is and we are paying the consequences. First we have sex with people we are not married to. Then we form a connection to them, and when it doesn’t work out we are devastated. Or, surprise surprise! a child is conceived- how could that happen? That results in either destroying that new life, or possibly having the child alone being a single parent, struggling without a father. Maybe the couple get married but they may be young and poor. Or maybe they do put the child up for adoption, a blessing.
(continued)

(part3)And that is what children should be seen as-a blessing from God. A pregnancy is not a disease or an illness that should be avoided, like an STD-oh and that’s another problem if you are not monogamous.

You may bring up all the single mothers, people with so many children and so much poverty. That is not the Church’s fault or God’s. It is our fault because of sin. If we all truly tried to live as God intended and as He expresses through His Church, with His help, I really do believe things would be different. Not perfect, but better than they are.
But no, we will not listen to the Church- we have sex whenever with whomever we want, then, when things go wrong we blame the Church. We get married, then divorced, then remarry outside the Church, and blame the Church when we cannot receive Communion, when the Church was there telling us first of all, to have Christ at the center of our marriages, and if it still fails, then seek an annulment before remarrying. If that is not possible, well, it is not the end of the world to live without a partner. I know, I am one of them. It’s about sacrifices made in this life, so we can be with God for all eternity. God wants our happiness here, but more than anything, He wants us to be happy with Him in the next life which is eternal. Jesus gave us His example to follow. He suffered much before He died, but then He received the Glorious Crown. Do you think that we can get away without suffering ourselves. He told us that we must deny ourselves and take up our crosses daily and follow Him.

I truly believe God is, and that Jesus is both God and Human, that He died for us and rose again. He left us a Church so that we would not be left alone in this world trying to find our way. He promised that He would give his Holy Spirit to his apostles to guide them in all Truth and that promise continues with the successors of the apostles, the bishops. The Church is both human and divine. The human part is sinful and far from perfect. We all are. But the divine part is the Holy Spirit who guides these sinful men, our bishops and Pope, when teaching us on matters of faith and morals and will not lead us astray. I am so grateful for that.

Bill, the only way I could get this thru was by doing it in 3 parts. Oh well. Now the full post will probably get posted later.

“The reason the Church, speaking for God, claims that contraceptive sex is evil, is because it is contrary to God’s plan for us.”

First of all there is no “God’s plan for us”. We are the product of evolution through natural selection that does not follow any plan. Natural selection has resulted in us having strong reproductive instincts so we pass on our genes. It is perfectly OK to follow those instincts and have sex but we are under no moral obligation to pass on our genes every time we have sex. In this regard, there is nothing wrong with contraception. To think that we are disobeying a god by having sex without allowing the possibility of procreation is just an ignorant superstition.

Bill S. stated:
Joan, is that what you believe or are you simply stating the Church’ s position?  So, over time, I objectified my wife because she was on the pill. Making love was somehow evil?  Isn’t this just being a killjoy?
Having sex on the pill is akin to saying “I want you to be infertile regardless of the way your body was designed, which is to be fertile some days and not on others.  Take this drug so that we can alter your body’s natural state and confuse it into thinking it is perpetually pregnant.”  Do most people think it through all the way?  I doubt it.  People don’t think a lot of things through.  It lessens their responsibility for the wrong they do, but sometimes it can’t save them from the effects of doing wrong. 
Joan stated:
Many people simply have sex- for fun and recreation, for self-pleasure, because they feel pressured, etc., I really wonder how often it is really Love, because if you loved your partner so much, why would you not want to have their child?
...
There are several good reasons that one might not want to have a child with ones husband or wife, even if they really loved him or her.  Medical reasons, financial reasons, emotional reasons, etc.  It is not the position of the Catholic Church that there is never any good reason not to have a baby with your spouse, but that some ways of not having babies go against the design of our bodies. 
...
Similarly, bulimia is a way to lose weight that goes against the design of our bodies.  The food we eat is supposed to be pleasureable and nourish us.  Bulimia artificially separates the pleasure we get from food from its nourishment to our bodies.  This is not to say that there is never a good reason to lose weight, but that bulimia is not a good way to do it.

Bill, that is your opinion. As I stated already, we cannot prove beyond any doubt that God does or does not exist.

“It is not the position of the Catholic Church that there is never any good reason not to have a baby with your spouse, but that some ways of not having babies go against the design of our bodies.”

Skywalker, I did not say or imply that the Church claimed there is never a good reason not to have a baby. That is why there is NFP.

“As I stated already, we cannot prove beyond any doubt that God does or does not exist.”

Well then you really can’t say that my wife and I, by practicing contraception for 37 years and having just two planned children were not following God’s plan for us. If you can’t prove that God even exists, how can you know what his plan was for my wife and me. We’re we supposed to have more children than we wanted, abstain from sex or practice the ridiculous “rhythm method” to please a god that you can’t even prove exists. I don’t think so.

Bill, I have never said anything about you and your wife. I have simply answered your questions about the Church’s teachings. It is you who have applied this to yourself and your wife. Apparently it bothers you- that is for you to sort out. This is what you asked:

“I need a legitimate reason.

Is sex bad?  Is it only accepted at all because we would cease to exist as a species without it?”

And I answered your question. You have brought your wife into this, I have not.

I think it’s telling that NFP and other methods of contraception are compared to “fasting” and “bulimia.”
.
If you’re scheduling your relations to the infertile part of the woman’s cycle, you’re denying the pleasure of sex, as well as the opportunity to produce offspring. If your using contraception that either blocks semen or makes the woman temporarily infertile, you’re indulging in too much sex only for pleasure.
.
So is the denial of procreation or is the denial of pleasure that makes NFP qualify for Catholic approval? The end of all methods of contraception, including NFP, is to prevent pregnancy. The difference in the means seems to be how much pleasure from unfruitful sex is allowed.
.
Maybe the analogy should be between anorexia and bulimia—though I still don’t know what there is to “throw up.” The Church would rather have you starve yourself than indulge yourself.
.
The Church agrees that responsible parenting is a good motive for “spacing children,” but it has an issue on how much and what kind of pleasure married people should have. Naturally, masturbation and gay sex must be repulsive because they’re infertile pleasures.
.
So, yes Bill—sex is bad and the Church only accepts it because we need it to perpetuate our species. It puts as many restrictions on sex as it can devise.

Blocked by the spam robocop again.
.
I find the comparison of NFP vs. other methods of contraception against fasting vs. bulimia interesting, in light of Bill S’ question of sex being bad and only tolerated by the Church because we have to perpetuate our species.
.
Apparently the pleasure of sex, like food, can be too much of a good thing. If you’re having sex with an infertile woman or using a condom, you are having too much sex. If you’re having sex with a woman in her infertile part of her cycle and avoiding sex when she is fertile, you’re just “dieting” in the production of children.
.
This strongly suggests to me that the Church considers sexual relations only for the pleasure of each other’s company is bad. It is the basis for its sanctions against premarital sex, masturbation, homosexuality, and contraception. The Church holds sex organs are only to be used for reproduction—though I can’t see how shooting sperm into a blank wall counts for that.
.
The Church as the same authority over women’s health care and how complications in her pregnancy are treated in Catholic hospitals, even against her will.
.
I just can’t understand why you would allow, let alone invent, such authority over your lives. How can you believe you have free will when you believe your life is controlled by a supernatural alien being?

OK, Joan. I won’t press the issue any further. What I was trying to get across to you was that, regardless of what the Church has to say on the matter, there is nothing intrinsically evil about a couple such as my wife and I deciding that we wanted a small family and using contraception as a means to that end. You said that it must bother me. No. It doesn’t bother me at all. What bothers me is all the sentimental crap about how all sex should be open to the total giving of oneself to the other for the purpose of procreation as if there is something wrong with a couple enjoying sex together without the risk of pregnancy.

You are incapable of saying “regardless of what the Church has to say on the matter”.  Instead, you preach complete obedience, which is just what the Church wants and isn’t shy about telling people how sinful they are for thinking for themselves and how they will go to Hell if they disobey God, by whom they mean them.

Nonetheless I’ve enjoyed discussing this with you but I think I would just be repeating myself over and over again if we don’t move on to another topic.

OK, Joan. I won’t press the issue any further. What I was trying to get across to you was that, regardless of what the Church has to say on the matter, there is nothing intrinsically evil about a couple such as my wife and I deciding that we wanted a small family and using contraception as a means to that end. You said that it must bother me. No. It doesn’t bother me at all. What bothers me is all the sentimental crap about how all sex should be open to the total giving of oneself to the other for the purpose of procreation as if there is something wrong with a couple enjoying sex together without the risk of pregnancy.

Continued

You are incapable of saying “regardless of what the Church has to say on the matter”.  Instead, you preach complete obedience, which is just what the Church wants and isn’t shy about telling people how sinful they are for thinking for themselves and how they will go to Hell if they disobey God, by whom they mean them.

Nonetheless I’ve enjoyed discussing this with you but I think I would just be repeating myself over and over again if we don’t move on to another topic.

Buddy/Laurie:  you are a liar.  There is no Church teaching against a husband having relations with a wife who is infertile.

Claire. I think she meant intentionally infertile by being on the pill. Not naturally infertile. If a woman were naturally infertile that would presumably be God’s will. But not if she made herself infertile.

Bill, the Church’s teaching on sex is anything but sentimental. Read the documents before you make that judgement. What I wrote barely scratched the surface.

You want me to say “regardless of what the Church has to say on the matter” to suit what you think I ought to do. Do you believe everything that Science tells you? Do you at least believe the things that make sense to you? Science tells us that the Sun is 93 million miles away because you have measured it yourself, or because you have faith in science and it makes sense to you?

I have demonstrated to you that I do not just blindly accept what the Church teaches on matters that may seem at first hard to accept. I find out the whats and the whys. You and other atheists take pride in “thinking for yourselves” yet in your own lives you do not always think for yourselves. The makers of your car say that it requires unleaded fuel. Do you just go along with that because you trust that they know what they are talking about, or do you “think for yourself” and decide to try diesel fuel instead?

It’s the same way with my belief in God and His Church. I trust God who created me and His Church to know what is best for me, and experience has proven me right in my life.

It’s really funny, in stating the Church’s teaching in answer to your questions I have not spoken about you personally or about what you and your wife should or should not do. Yet, you have specifically tried to get me to think the way you do, and have shown your frustration with me that I do not see things the way you want them to be. Why is that? I can only explain what and why I believe what I do and if that does not give you any pause to think, then that is fine, it is not my job to convince you. Yet you, otoh, seem frustrated about what I believe and that I will not see things your way.

PS to Bill: I do not PREACH complete obedience. I have only stated that I am obedient to the Church. Why do you project my beliefs onto yourself? I have not once said what YOU should do or not do, just what MY faith and Church teach and why.

Yes. I admit that you seem to have benefited from your faithfulness to the Church.  The Catholic Church teaches ONE way to live a happy and successful life and to build a sustainable society. For some people, that is enough. Having done that, they never bother to think about the fact that there are other ways to live that require Catholics to back off. I am happy for you that you have found a lifestyle that you feel good about and are willing to defend. Just try to be tolerant of other lifestyles.

I appreciate that Bill, but please show me where I have been intolerant of your lifestyle. You say Catholics need to back off. First, the Church does not force the world to comply with its’ teachings. It doesn’t even force it’s members to do so. The Church does speak out on matters that involve the basic human rights of all people and has spoken out against various injustices as do other groups and organizations. With regard to the HHS mandate, the bishops had every right to speak out because the government was/is trying to impose itself on people of faith to go against their faith.
Regarding tolerance, there are some who come on this site, which is Catholic, (Laura,Gloria, et al) and have showed nothing but intolerance using the only excuse for it being that in her opinion we are ridiculous.
Yet, homosexuals demand not just tolerance anymore but that everyone, no matter what we may see as obvious, embrace and accept their activity as normal. 

There was a recent case where one, just one, atheist student complained about a plaque in her school,that had been there for years, that mentioned God. She filed a complaint and won, the banner had to be removed. How is that right for ONE person to impose their rights over the rest of the student body? What about their rights?

Joan. I agree with much of what you are saying. You sometimes think I am accusing you but I am referring to extreme cases of Catholic intolerance not necessarily by you personally.

“Yet, homosexuals demand not just tolerance anymore but that everyone, no matter what we may see as obvious, embrace and accept their activity as normal.”

To me, that still falls under “tolerance”. It gives the coat as well as the shirt and goes the extra mile, which as a Christian, you are told to do.

You are mis-reading scripture, and being disingenuous to boot. Embracing homosexual activity as normal is not going that extra mile and it would be contradicting other parts of scripture that clearly speak out against that type of sexual activity. Also, regardless what the world thinks, science-biology and human anatomy, tells me that homosexual sex can never be normal. Regardless of the fact that it is even seen in other animal species does not make it normal for those species. It may still be an aberration. There are people and other animals born all the time with certain physical deformities for example. No one would claim that that was normal. Is it normal to be born with one eye or no legs? Are we supposed to mistreat anyone with those deformities? Of course not! But we do not need to say it is normal in order to treat them with dignity and love and compassion. The same applies to those with homosexuality.

Not that long ago, most of the world agreed that homosexual activity was wrong, not because everyone said so, but because it was obvious. Now, those lobbying for the gay agenda have slowly but surely conditioned people’s thinking so that now, things are turned on their heads, and what was wrong is now right, and what is right is now wrong.

Bill, I’m sorry if I thought you were accusing me personally. Thanks.

“it would be contradicting other parts of scripture that clearly speak out against that type of sexual activity”

Scripture is not where I get my morals. Homophobic writers could easily be mistaken.

“Not that long ago, most of the world agreed that homosexual activity was wrong, not because everyone said so, but because it was obvious.”

Humans have been wrong about many things. What makes this so different?  We learn from our mistakes and move forward. The pending court cases will not rule on whether gay sex is normal or not but whether gay marriage is a constitutional right. I think they will rule that it is.

Of course we have been wrong about things but we also have been right about many things. I believe the courts will rule in favor of gay marriage and it will be the law of the land. But making it so does not mean that this time around they got it right. They could be wrong again. Humankind does not always learn from its mistakes-history shows that again and again.

You may be right. It is what it is. I just made myself depressed writing the other post. I should get back to work.

I’m sorry, really. Try not to make yourself depressed, there are too many things in this world to depress us already.

People of faith have an energy and optimism that I lack. I’m making a new to do list and working on anti-Catholic posts is not on it. Talk to you later.  Much later.

Take care of yourself, Bill. I enjoyed our discussion.

Same here. I have bootstraps that I need to pull up to get me through the to do list I just made.  Talk to you later.

Posted by Laura Petrie
.
“I find the comparison of NFP vs. other methods of contraception against fasting vs. bulimia interesting, in light of Bill S’ question of sex being bad and only tolerated by the Church because we have to perpetuate our species.”
.
The Church says food is good and sex is good.  (For the purposes of this discussion we are only addressing sex between married persons.)  Sex is not just tolerated by the Church because we have children through it.  The unity and pleasure of sex are also considered good.  The pleasure of food and its nutritious affects are both considered good.  It would be bad to worship food or sex and treat either like a little god that your whole life revolved around.
.
“Apparently the pleasure of sex, like food, can be too much of a good thing. If you’re having sex with an infertile woman or using a condom, you are having too much sex. If you’re having sex with a woman in her infertile part of her cycle and avoiding sex when she is fertile, you’re just “dieting” in the production of children.”
.
The church says it is fine to have sex with your wife whether she is fertile or infertile, or your husband may suffer from infertility as well, and there is no prohibition of sex in either case.  Having sex with a condom is not having too much sex, but having sex in a way that your bodies were not designed for.
.
“This strongly suggests to me that the Church considers sexual relations only for the pleasure of each other’s company is bad. It is the basis for its sanctions against premarital sex, masturbation, homosexuality, and contraception. The Church holds sex organs are only to be used for reproduction—though I can’t see how shooting sperm into a blank wall counts for that.”
.
If you are using your spouse for pleasure and not having sex as an expression of your love for them, then yes, the Church would consider that bad.  The basis for sanctions against premarital sex is that it is sex without commitment to your partner and to any children you might have.  Masturbation is wrong because sex is meant to be shared with your spouse and not just used for a personal temporary high.  Homosexual sex is wrong because we were designed to be in a relationship with another person who can have sex with us and we both use our reproductive/sexual organs for and with each other at the same time. 
.
“The Church as the same authority over women’s health care and how complications in her pregnancy are treated in Catholic hospitals, even against her will.”
.
If you want an abortion go to a non catholic hospital.  We don’t kill one person to save another.
.
“I just can’t understand why you would allow, let alone invent, such authority over your lives. How can you believe you have free will when you believe your life is controlled by a supernatural alien being?”
.
We did not invent the Catholic Church, that was God’s job.  We follow her because we have been convinced of Jesus’ divinity.  The Church’s teachings make rational sense to us.  We are not controlled by Him or the Church, as evidenced by those who disregard her teachings.

Bill S, Joanp62, Skywalker, Steve, and Mike—most of you are aware of my essay on Jennifer’s Good Day blog. Again I apologize it was so long, but I was thinking about all the references you suggested I read and trying to get to the root of our differences. I look forward to your responses and reasonable rebuttals.
.
Please, Mike—I have mad special efforts to refer to Catholic cannon and other Catholic resources, so any of your “testimony” should have supportive references.

Interesting—my last comment informed that I was blacklisted! I hope all of you watched the Dick Van Dyke Show.
.
I’m repeating myself, because I’ve been blocked so many times, I want to make sure my point get’s across.
.
The Catholic mission is to save souls. The secular healthcare mission is to save lives. Catholics believe their mission is more important than secular missions, and they have the god-given authority to govern secular issues. If they fail in establishing authority on secular matters, millions of souls will be lost. To them, the next life is more important than this life.

The 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution has the “Free Exercise Clause” which supports freedom of religion, but there have been legal cases that have established the government’s right to interfere when there is compelling reason—ritual drug use, child abuse, coercion, etc. It has also been established that the government can enforce laws that incidentally affect religion, but to not oppose religious practice unless there is compelling reason.
.
I’ll agree that the HHS mandate and homosexual marriage are outrageous to Catholics, but except for a relative little amount of money, how are they affecting the direct practice of your religion?
.
Religion is for saving souls, government is for saving lives. That’s the root of the conflict.

Millie Harper you have forfeited the right to discuss the First Amendment or any other legal concept given your demonstrated ignorance of basic legal terms and your refusal to accept guidance as to their meanings. If you refuse to accept a Black’s Law definition of ‘evidence’ because it was provided to you by a theist, how can anyone take you seriously when you discuss the highest of constitutional principles? In order to discuss such things, words have to have recognized, objective meanings. You have proven to be incapable of accepting this, most likely because your atheism denies you the capacity to recognize objective truths of any sort.  You insist upon assigned your own subjective and arbitrary meanings to the critical terms because otherwise you are forced to ackowledge the irrationality of your world view.
If you want to talk about the establishment clause, you have to understand its historical context. It is almost entirely explained by the founding father’s horror at the thirty years war, which had ended about 125 years before the American revolution and was still very fresh in Europe’s collective psyche. Protestant kingdom’s took up arms against the Holy Roman Empire. The founders said never again, the United States would not be a catholic or Protestant nation so that we would never be dragged into such a war. This is consistent with the founder’s desire to avoid ‘entangling alliances’ with Europe. The establishment clause was never meant to institutionalize secularism or atheism, much to your neck-bearded dismay.it was never meant to keep prayer out of schools because when it was drafted the state was not in the education business. I f fact the clause didn’t even apply to the states for the 100 or so years of its existence (see 14th amendment selective incorporation). Another purpose of the establishment clause that neckbeards cannot accept is that the establishment clause compliments and supports the free exercise clause, since religious minorities could never really be secure if there was the threat of a theocracy. So contrary to being the basement-dweller’s shining becon of ‘hope’ for secularized ‘reason,’ the establishment clause is really a reflection of this nation’s theistic foundations.

Millie says
“I’ll agree that the HHS mandate and homosexual marriage are outrageous to Catholics, but except for a relative little amount of money, how are they affecting the direct practice of your religion?”
.
It’s not a little amount of money if you don’t comply with the HHS mandate.  Employers who offer insurance plans that are not HHS Mandate-compliant by covering early-abortion pills, etc. will be fined $100 per employee per day.
Employers who have over 50 employees and drop insurance coverage altogether to avoid the HHS Mandate will be fined approximately $2,000 per employee per year.
.
If you do cover the contraceptive/abortion drugs, then you are cooperating with evil, although you’re doing it under duress.  Never before in U.S. history has the federal government coerced/forced citizens to directly purchase a product that goes directly against their moral and religious beliefs.  It sets a very bad precedent.

“The Catholic mission is to save souls. The secular healthcare mission is to save lives. Catholics believe their mission is more important than secular missions…”

You know. I think you are on to something here. I think saving souls goes both ways. To me, giving up the enjoyment of this life with the hope of gaining a better life in the world to come is the secular equivalent of losing your soul. You are giving up the pleasures of the only life you are going to have. Not only that, but you are trying to deprive others of their enjoyment of life.

“The Catholic mission is to save souls. The secular healthcare mission is to save lives.”

This is a false dichotomy.  The two objectives are in no way inconsistent. Why would saving lives be a worthy goal, if not to allow for the soul to reach its fullest earthly potential?  The illusion of a conflict arises only when one’s vision is clouded by hatred and/or an adolescent resentment of authority.

“The illusion of a conflict arises only when one’s vision is clouded by hatred and/or an adolescent resentment of authority.”

What authority?  Granting authority to the Catholic Church can have devastating effects on a person’s life and might even result in death. To you, that’s probably not a big deal unless you are an unbaptized baby in which case you might be horrified at such a circumstance and actually place more value on a fetus than on a mother raising other children, as sick and twisted as that might be.

Anyone who knows that this life is it and that when it’s over it’s OVER would never trust their life to the frivolous requirements on how to live that are dictated by the Catholic Church.

But you can’t know that for certain. It is impossible! And there is too much evidence of something beyond this life to simply dismiss it out of hand.
Below is the story of a neurosurgeon who was positive that consciousness resided in the brain, and when the brain is damaged to the extent that his was, consciousness would be impossible. And yet, this man survived and claims that his consciousness was elsewhere, that he was conscience of another place while he was in coma.

http://www.lifebeyonddeath.net/

“Anyone who knows that this life is it and that when it’s over it’s OVER would never trust their life to the frivolous requirements on how to live that are dictated by the Catholic Church.”

It appears that your rejection of church teachings flows from your certainty that God does not exist.  Buy why are you so certain God does not exist? In large part, because you find church teachings to be absurd.  This is circular. Why doesn’t God exist? Because church teachings are absurd. Why are church teachings absurd? Because God doesn’t exist.

Also, on atheism, there is no inherent meaning to life apart from what we arbitrarily give to it, which is exactly what you criticize the church for doing.

Mike “Also, on atheism, there is no inherent meaning to life apart from what we arbitrarily give to it, which is exactly what you criticize the church for doing.”

Something worth thinking about here.

Joan,
The only plausible explanation I can offer is that this doctor is parlaying his credentials and his near death experience into a best seller and that he is being fast and loose with the truth.

Mike,
“Also, on atheism, there is no inherent meaning to life apart from what we arbitrarily give to it, which is exactly what you criticize the church for doing.”

Overall, the Catholic faith does give meaning and purpose to life. I will grant you that.  No one can dispute the absurdity of a relatively low percentage of absurd teachings that have, in fact, led me to stop believing. And then yes. Since I don’t believe, the rest of it falls in place as also being absurd. It has been an iterative process.

Bill, unless you read his book or at least some of his story, you really can’t say for sure. Parts of his “experience” sound rather strange, but the point is, this man is a neurosurgeon.He knows the brain and how it works. After he came out of the coma he was able to read and understand his charts with regard to his brain and the lack of activity in ways the average person can’t. He shouldn’t have had any memory of being conscious while in coma and from outward appearances, he wasn’t. Yet, he claims he was vividly aware, alive and in an environment that was so real, more real than what we experience here on earth. And that he experienced such intense love and peace. Many people who have had near death experiences make many of the same claims.

Joan,

If the book is true, I would have to change my entire worldview. What would be important to me is that I don’t have to believe it. If it is true, so be it. But I would not buy any argument that tries to tell me that I will be sorry if I don’t believe. That is the part of religion that I really have a problem with. The requirement that I must believe to be saved. How convenient for religion that what it needs to grow and prosper is the same as what I need to be saved.

Hi Bill, I read the book and I’m not so credulous to believe that it is true beyond a doubt. It sounded very plausible, except for some strange parts about his “out of body” experience. What got me was that this man knew what he was talking about with regard to the brain and what he knew or thought he knew about where are consciousness stems from. Since I already believe that when we die our consciousness continues on outside the body, this book wouldn’t do anything for me except confirm my beliefs.

The big question to ask is: not if this book is true, but if Christianity is True, then you would have to change your entire worldview.

One really big misconception about Christianity and some other religions is the false notion that we are punished if we do not believe. It’s true that in many ways that is how it has been explained in various circles.

But think of it this way. Heaven is being with God. Hell is the absence of God. God is Love, so Heaven is being with Love and Hell is the absence of Love. Now this next part is my opinion: I think that God did not create Hell to send people to. Hell just is by the mere fact of being apart from God. It’s just an automatic consequence of being without God. So, when we die, and we are still conscious and we meet God and do not want there to be a God, we want no part of Him, then God will not force us to be with Him so he will permit us to depart from Him, which is then Hell.

I know, people will ask, then why doesn’t God just make them cease to exist, why permit them to live for eternity without Him, if being without God is pure Hell? Why let someone suffer for ever, for things they did or did not do during such a short period of time on earth(because our time on earth is short)? I don’t know the answer to that, but I’m sure some theologian or holy person has wrestled with it. Maybe it’s just that God loves us so much that He wanted us to be immortal like Him and He cannot annihilate a soul.

Hi Bill, I read the book and I’m not so credulous to believe that it is true beyond a doubt. It sounded very plausible, except for some strange parts about his “out of body” experience. What got me was that this man knew what he was talking about with regard to the brain and what he knew or thought he knew about where are consciousness stems from. Since I already believe that when we die our consciousness continues on outside the body, this book wouldn’t do anything for me except confirm my beliefs.
(cont.)

(cont.)The big question to ask is: not if this book is true, but if Christianity is True, then you would have to change your entire worldview.

One really big misconception about Christianity and some other religions is the false notion that we are punished if we do not believe. It’s true that in many ways that is how it has been explained in various circles.

But think of it this way. Heaven is being with God. Hell is the absence of God. God is Love, so Heaven is being with Love and Hell is the absence of Love. Now this next part is my opinion: I think that God did not create Hell to send people to. Hell just is by the mere fact of being apart from God. It’s just an automatic consequence of being without God. So, when we die, and we are still conscious and we meet God and do not want there to be a God, we want no part of Him, then God will not force us to be with Him so he will permit us to depart from Him, which is then Hell.

I know, people will ask, then why doesn’t God just make them cease to exist, why permit them to live for eternity without Him, if being without God is pure Hell? Why let someone suffer for ever, for things they did or did not do during such a short period of time on earth(because our time on earth is short)? I don’t know the answer to that, but I’m sure some theologian or holy person has wrestled with it. Maybe it’s just that God loves us so much that He wanted us to be immortal like Him and He cannot annihilate a soul.

“One really big misconception about Christianity and some other religions is the false notion that we are punished if we do not believe. It’s true that in many ways that is how it has been explained in various circles.”

What about Jesus telling his disciples to shake the dust off their sandals and their fate will be worse than that of Sodom and Gomorrah?  Are you sure that I will not be punished for not believing?  And I don’t mean separation from God’s love, I mean real punishment. I am separated from God now and it isn’t all that bad. I’m pretty sure I will cease to exist anyway.

Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for their grievously sinful behavior. We do not know if they were given time to repent, most likely yes. Their bodies died but we do not know if everyone then went to hell. Maybe this was done to give them one last chance to turn to God and the moment of their death. Many may have done so and their souls were saved. We know their bodies died, as will all of ours, but we do not know the fate of their souls, which is ultimately the most important thing. Also, Heaven was not opened up until after Christ came and died. Everyone who died prior to Christ’s coming would have been “asleep” in the abode of the dead or Sheol, also called hell but not the hell of the damned. It is the belief from earliest Christianity that Christ came down to the souls in the abode of the dead and preached the Gospel to them. All of these billions who had died prior to Christ, would have had the opportunity to repent, believe in the Gospel and choose Christ or not.

Things are a little different for humanity now- Post Christ so to speak.

Don’t expect you to accept all this, it’s just what we believe is.

Joan:  I hope you’re feeling better.  Blessed Tridium everyone!

Still struggling with the bronchitis but I’m up and about. Thank you, Claire. God Bless, and I pray I am able to take part in the rest of Holy Week.

I’m sorry to hear that it hasn’t cleared up yet.  My son gets it sometimes, and I’ve had it a couple of times myself (always in the spring, but never at Easter thankfully).  I know how debilitating the cough can be.  I will certainly pray that you turn the corner in the next few days.

“Don’t expect you to accept all this, it’s just what we believe is.”

Joan,

Do you really believe the stories in the Old Testament like Sodom and Gomorrah?  The way you are describing it you make it sound like a real historical event. It has all of the makings of a legend. How would you separate fact from fiction in Genesis?  Exodus? I don’t think any of these events such as the parting of the Red Sea really happened. At best these stories are folklore that was passed down and embellished and ultimately set down in writing centuries later.  Does your faith depend on these stories being factual?

Bill S. and Earl: Why are you so afraid of our faith?

“Why are you so afraid of our faith?”

I am not afraid of the Catholic faith. The Catholics that I know, including my wife, derive strength and consolation from their faith. I just happen to believe that there is no such thing as God and the supernatural. Everything is subject to the laws of nature so there can be no resurrection, ascension, assumption, soul, saints, angels, demons, devil, etc. if faith makes your life better, that can’t be a bad thing unless you try to impose it on others, which, as far as I know, you don’t. But there are others who do. I’m not afraid of them. I just don’t respect them. I hope you had an enjoyable Easter.

Joanp62—why don’t you try to frighten Bill S and then convince him to pray to the god he doesn’t belive in for the “gift of faith” for 30 days, in the privacy of his own home?
.
I can tell you I’m afraid of your faith because it makes you psychotic!

You can have your own near death experience:
.
http://io9.com/5916403/how-to-have-a-near-death-experience
.
You may also note that NDE vary from culture to culture. So, if there were an afterlife, there are many differnt kinds.

“how do you scientifically verify that the scientific method is the sole source of knowledge?”
Hilarious.  How do you verify that anything else is the source of any knowledge at all?
“Why are you so afraid of our faith?”
Your faith - like most others - wishes to control the freedom of others.
“And there is too much evidence of something beyond this life to simply dismiss it out of hand.”
Hilarious nonsense.

“Sodom and Gomorrah ...”
It’s a book of mythology.  There’s no way to know if anything in that book has any relation to what may or may not have actually happened.

So Earl, I guess you are acknowledging your fear of our faith. That’s a good first step.  The next step would be to do something to conquer your fear, instead of acting like an immature troll.

When I originally commented I clicked the -Notify me when new comments are added- checkbox and now each and every time a comment is added I get 4 emails with the same comment. Is there any way you can actually remove me from that service? Thanks!


<a >michael kors outlet coupons</a>

“I guess you are acknowledging your fear of our faith.”
What???  Hilarious misconception.  Why should I fear things written in a book of mythology?  Oh.  I see.  I do not fear your faith.  I fear your actions which you seem to think are demanded by your faith.

Wow Earl, you are really insecure.  I never knew I was so scary.  Maybe if you had faith, you wouldn’t have to live in fear.

“I do not fear your faith. I fear your actions which you seem to think are demanded by your faith.”

I would have to second that opinion. The Catholic worldview causes people do, say and think in ways that they probably wouldn’t if they saw things for the way they truly are. They are told by the Church what is right and what is wrong. They take these concepts and weave all kinds of arguments to defend the Church instead of listening to those with whom they are arguing with and adjusting their worldview accordingly. They are slaves to dogma.

Gee, Bill. We live in the same world you do. We have all experienced life and see things as they truly are and have come to the conclusion that Christianity makes a lot of sense and explains a lot about the human condition. We realize that if more people were to follow what the Church teaches, life would be better. Of course we live in a fallen world and no one can be forced to do anything-all that can be done is to make every effort to share Christ with others and leave the rest to God.
We also realize that this world has never been and never will be perfect.

You just can’t seem to get your mind around the fact that we see and know and understand as much as you do, but come to different conclusions. It makes you feel better to assume that we must live sheltered lives, are less intelligent or educated and that if we only knew what you did we would see things your way-and that is not the case.

“Christianity makes a lot of sense and explains a lot about the human condition. We realize that if more people were to follow what the Church teaches, life would be better.”

True. It does make sense to have everyone follow the teachings of the Catholic Church (more so than the Bible alone as many non-Catholic Christians do).  I personally am able to do that as a 61 year old married heterosexual man. But I needed to ignore Catholic teaching to get to where I am today and I see many others who must do the same.  It took an abortion, forty years of contraception and the acceptance of a gay son to get me here. When the time comes for me to no longer exist, I want the option of ending my life on my own terms and not be a burden to the two sons that I fathered when I intentionally stopped using contraception. I want more control over my own life and more freedom for others than the Catholic Church is willing to allow. And I want it to stop teaching that I will go to hell if I don’t live by its teachings.

It’s God’s teachings, not the Church’s, but you don’t believe in God. We believe that ultimately God is in control, that He created all of us out of Love, and that He wants all of us to be with Him for all eternity. God, as the creator of all things, knows us the best and what is best for us. If we seek Him and His Will, He will guide us. There are some things that are for everyone to follow, ie the Ten Commandments. And when you think of it, they are not a set of Don’ts but way to live better. Do you really want someone to lie or steal from you? Wouldn’t it hurt if your wife cheated on you?

Anyway, you really aren’t up on Church teaching. God doesn’t send anyone to hell. If someone does not want to be with God, they can choose to not be with Him. Being apart from God is Hell.

“Being apart from God is Hell.”

You may have revised the classical definition of Hell, but the threat still exists. If God exists, I refuse to acknowledge that existence. Wouldn’t that make me “apart from God”?  And when I die, I do not plan to start believing in God. Would that mean that I would spend an eternity “apart from God”?  So, by your definition, that would be Hell.

Well, I am either in Hell now, or I will be when I die. In OK with that.  Better that than adopting some of the beliefs offered by the Church. Yes. We owe the Church our gratitude for getting us to where we are today. And I am grateful for what people of faith have meant to me and done for me. And I acknowledge that your faith gives your life meaning and purpose. But I’m good. Thank you.

” But I’m good. Thank you.” Bill, I am not trying to convince you or convert you. You feel free to make erroneous statements about Catholic beliefs, and as a Catholic, I am free to and feel I must address your posts-someone needs to.

The Church hasn’t changed any teachings on Hell, but it has developed them. The Church has approved the writings of St. Faustina of Poland,1930’s, a nun who allegedly had visions of Jesus who spoke to her about His Divine Mercy (yesterday was Divine Mercy Sunday in the church) and how deep and endless His mercy was. He told Sr/St. Faustina that at the moment of death, He personally calls that person and they will see and know Him to be real at that moment, and will have one final chance to accept Him and His mercy or not. I find that to be very hopeful for those who seem to persist in their unbelief until the last minute. However, I would not advise someone to wait until then to decide to accept Christ or not.

“We believe that ultimately God is in control”
Then he has an awful lot of misery to answer for.  Or else there are no gods.
“the Ten Commandments”
Jealous god?  Why should a god care about anything?  It’s all just a made-up fairy tale.
“The Church hasn’t changed any teachings on Hell, but it has developed them.”
Hilarious.
“will have one final chance to accept Him”
Hilarious.
“I would not advise someone to wait until then”
Hilarious.

Is that all you can do Earl, respond a week late with “hilarious”? Oh you really know how to make a good argument. Hilarious.

“Is that all you can do Earl”
It is all that is necessary - point at religion and laugh.
“you really know how to make a good argument.”
There is only one “argument” - you have no evidence.

No Earl, that’s all you’re capable of.  You aren’t smart enough to contribute any intelligence to any type of a discussion.

Earl, Claire makes a valid point. I would also add that your arrogance makes you look like a fool.

Claire,

How are you?  I see Earl is still annoying you. How long has this been going on?

“You aren’t smart enough to contribute any intelligence to any type of a discussion.”
Hilarious.  There is no need for any “discussion”.  You have no evidence.  You have belief without evidence.  That’s simply ridiculous.
“I would also add that your arrogance makes you look like a fool.”
The “arrogance” of religious people claiming to know what is best for others is stupendous.  Apparently you do not read any atheist blogs.

You’re right Earl, we don’t read atheists blogs.  There would be no point in that, since we’re not atheists.  The only point would be to troll, and unlike you, we have more maturity and better things to do with our time.  And it is incredibly hypocritical of you to accuse anyone of being ridiculous, since you are the poster child for being ridiculous, as “evidenced” by your behavior on these threads.

Actually Earl, I read atheist blogs sometimes. I am aware of all their “reasoning” and “excuses”. So far none have come up with evidence against God’s existence. If you have anything new, please share with us.

“So far none have come up with evidence against God’s existence.”
Hilarious.  They have not found evidence against unicorns in Brazil either.  So what?  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  And you have none.  No atheist should claim to know that no gods exist.  They should claim that you do not have any convincing evidence.  Gods are simply unnecessary.  But that does not stop religious people from trying to control others.

And being an atheist doesn’t stop people from being ignorant trolls, either.

“But that does not stop religious people from trying to control others.”
Hilarious.