Anything worth doing is worth doing well…surely, gaining eternal life is worth a little effort.  I cannot imagine purchasing a new car by throwing a dart in the show room.  Or choosing a husband by pulling his name out of a hat.  Time and effort are required for both.  How can you “choose” what you don’t know?  We are talking about our soul and eternity here.  Isn’t that worth a few weeks worth of education and a full understanding of what is at stake?  It always amazes me when Protestants say that we do not “gain” heaven, and then proceed to claim that salvation is contingent upon OUR one intellectual nod of assent.  As if WE can gain salvation for ourselves, simply by acknowledging that salvation can be had.  Exactly what role does God play in that?  It is not man that put forth the path to eternal life, but God.  Therefore it is not man that “makes it happen”.  Either we do it His way, or we cannot do it at all.

Mark, I have often asked and been asked this same question that the reader asks.  I have found myself trying to put into words your very answer.  Sometimes i have been successful and sometimes not.  Your response is MOST helpful as I am an RCIA team member.  I will tuck this article away in my ‘file’ for later use or review.  IT will be helpful to many.

By the way.  Your answer is SPOT ON!
Thank you,
Bill

“It used to be that you needed to be a member of the Roman church but that changed.”

Not really.  The Church has always taught that the normative method to be saved is in the Church.  Outside we don’t know.

“Since Catholics reject once saved always saved, what then must a Catholic do to keep being saved?”

They must accept Christ and love Him with all our hearts, minds, and souls.  Love thy neighbor as themselves.  This is a continuous process.

“Does their being saved rely in anyway on themselves?”

Yes.  We must cooperate with God’s grace by accepting it.  He won’t force Himself on us.  Each day involves saying yes to Him throughout the day.  And we can say no.  That is the difference between Catholic teaching and “once saved, always saved.”

Colin-So what you are saying is that your works keep you saved? If you say no today then that sin would cancel out your salvation. Correct?

This sets me in mind of some tentative and probably false—feel free to chastise my ignorance—musings about Providence’s action in history that I sometimes have. As we know, slavery in Egypt and the Assyrian, Babylonian, Seleucid, and Roman conquests were part of God’s paternal preparation of Israel’s faith for the Incarnation of His Son.  This leads me to wonder about the Providential role of some of the secular setbacks (if not indeed scourges) of the Church: 
1.  I wonder if the conquests of what Belloc called the Arian heresy of Islam might have been useful for spreading faith in the God of Abraham to the Perso-Indic cultural sphere while simultaneously blocking Occidental Christian traders from the Orient, and so impelling the development of oceanic navigation techniques that would lead to the European evangelization of the Americas, sub-Saharan Africa, the Philippines, and centers like Goa, Nagasaki, and Macao. All this, of course, at the sorrowful cost of a Christian North Africa, Asia Minor, and Levant—for now.
2. I wonder if the secular anti-clericalism of the Enlightenment, springing from a heretical overemphasis on the goods of Reason, which led eventually to Jeffersonian disestablishmentarianism, Gallic “laicite” and the Italian conquest of the Papal States, didn’t remove from round the neck of Mother Church an albatross of Constantinian over-entanglement in matters that, when not left to Caesar, weaken the ability of the Church to stand as a disinterestedly prophetic “sign of contradiction.”
3. Lastly, I wonder if the various Protestant heresies, for all their over-simplification of the ancient mustard tree of the faith, haven’t led in the long run to some useful Tridentine and Vatican II clarifications and re-emphases in the true faith, while producing various easy-spreading kudzu-like American Protestant simplifications of Christianity that might do a better job of infiltrating Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, and Confucian civilizations than the fully-flowered, but Western-rooted high-cultural complex of Catholicism has done outside of limited successes like those in Goa, the Philippines, and Vietnam; to wit, perhaps Chinese “house churches” and such will better adapt to local conditions and prepare a harvest of “mere Christians” that will eventually have the Christian cultural capital to be drawn through a Newmanesque development of doctrine toward the “more Christianity” offered by the true Church, just as Mark Shea, Jimmy Akin, Scott Hahn, and Fr. Dwight Longenecker have so magnificently done.
But this is all just musing.  The Lord’s ways are mysterious.  But we know the victory is already won on the Cross, and can wait confidently for its fruits.
Pax Christi,
Irenist

I agree with your friend, it IS way to complicated to become a Catholic. Of course the complicated theology is necessary, but what we do as a result of that theology is another matter. The analogy of the hospital and health is a good example. If someone goes to a clinic for a health problem, they just want to get better. If the clinic says, well, you’ll have to jump through a multitude of hoops, apply to several committees, and have your case decided by a tribunal before we can treat you, how would that be? The way to deal with a new patient is to treat them first, work out the details later. As in someone who wants to turn their life around and become a Catholic, just say “sure, come on in. We’ll talk about all these details later on”. In the case of remarriage, just start with a clean slate as of now. Forgive and forget the past, and not be anal retentive about who knew what when in past marriages. In the past, they didn’t understand what marriage was really about. Let them gradually learn about that, but for now, be allowed to be full members of the Church.

I know, you’ll see this as the simplistic rambling of someone without higher degrees in theology. Well, I’m the average Joe in the pew, and the complicated theologies, Mass translations, and complicated details mean nothing to us. What matters is “getting well”, joining with Christs church. You may discount this as placing too much importance on “feelings”, but to us everyday people, that’s what matters. As a patient in a clinic, I don’t care or want to hear about all the technical details of my treatment, just “Will it work?”.

So, in short, I agree with your friend. The Church HAS allowed itself to become too complicated. It’s basically become like the government, and simplifying the way it deals with “regular people” should be considered.

Proto:

Are you then agreeing with Luther, who said, “During this life we must sin. It suffices that, by the mercy of God, we know the Lamb who takes away the sins of the world. Sin will not separate us from Him, even if we were to commit a thousand murders and a thousand adulteries a day.”?  Do you seriously propose that nothing you do can destroy the life of grace?

Dan:

Are you seriously proposing that the Faith should be based on feelings?

This difference in approach between the Catholic Church and the Protestant churches was at the heart of the Reformation. In broad terms, the Catholic Church assumes the need for official go-betweens authorized to interpret God’s will to church members. Protestants assume that each church member can read the Bible and interpret it for himself. In the Catholic Church your sins must be formally absolved by a priest. Protestants believe that the sinner has a direct dialogue with God, who directly forgives sins.

Their respective attitudes toward marriage illustrate this difference perfectly. When Protestants came to recognize the realities of modern life they decided that divorce and remarriage could be moral, and left the decision on whether it was in a particular instance up to the conscience of the individuals involved. The Catholic Church found that it could accomodate the needs of its members by amping up the annulment process. So release from marriage can be obtained, but the judgment on whether or not the marriage was valid does not come from the consciences of the individuals, but from authorized church representatives.

There is no way to prove which approach works better, since there is no way to measure salvation rates.

How could you POSSIBLY get that from what I said? Oh yes, forgot who I was talking to…

I mean that the Church of course should stick with the truth (not feelings), but what the Church DOES as a result of that truth is a different matter. The way that the Church deals with everyday people, especially with the process for becoming a Catholic, has become way too complicated. Becoming Catholic shouldn’t require an edurance test, as the RCIA has become. This is not a college initiation. Be failthful to truth, but not require an act of congress to be a full member of the Church. As in the case of past marriages, just let them acknowledge that they were living wrongly in the past, and start over from now, clean slate.

Maybe the story of Jesus and the adulterous woman could be an example. Jesus told her to go and sin no more, not go find everyone you’ve wronged and correct very possible consequence to your actions, then come back and you will be forgiven. He simply said sin no more, from now on. I think we should make it much simpler to become a Catholic.  The attitude of a Trappist monastery I spend time at is a good example I think. They have all kinds of people making retreats there, even becoming “Associates” (similar to an Oblate). Many of the are not even Catholic, yet they are welcomed completely. The monks don’t deny the truth of the faith, but they take people as they are.

The theology is important, but what we do as a result of that theology should be simplified.

“surely, gaining eternal life is worth a little effort.”
Insert appropriate comment here.
“Of course the complicated theology is necessary”
Insert appropriate comment here.
“since there is no way to measure salvation rates.”
Insert appropriate comment here.
“The theology is important”
Insert appropriate comment here.
Now get back to the important question:  How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?  Is the official Catholic answer different from the Protestant answer(s)?

Dan: The truly dangerous thing I see with your approach comes right from the CCC para. 846, which in part says “Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.”

If we just bring them into the Church, and worry about all those bothersome details later, we set them up for rebellion. Using the health analogy, it would be like signing them up for health care and telling them later “Oh, and you have to come to the office EVERY Sunday or you may die.” The “long, drawn out” process allows reasonable assurance that they know what exactly they are getting into.

As for “in the case of past marriages, just let them acknowledge that they were living wrongly in the past, and start over from now, clean slate,” that kind of dodges the issue that Christ said that divorce was not allowed. So that clean slate gets sullied again as soon as they commit the next sin of adultery, as they will if they are married to someone other than the one that God joined them together with.

After rebelling for 40 years I have found that, difficult as it may be, there is ALWAYS good reason for what the Lord, through his Church, asks us to do.

Oh… there you are Proto1!  I’m so happy I found you.  I thought I might find you on *another* NCRegister thread still trying very hard to confuse these poor ignorant Catholics. LOL

BTW, I see you’re still using that old personal questioning technique of asking them for their simple and quick answers to very complex issues.  Very effective method.  No reason to dig too deep into all that Catholic teaching because it gets so confusing… and it gets so detailed too.  Baah!  Better to just stay with the short and proven bullets.  Just shoot and reload!  Shoot and reload!  We have plenty of bullets!  LOL

In any case, Proto1, the real reason I was looking for you was to give you a message.  I just got off the BIG phone with the ‘Big Guy’ a few minutes ago and he wanted me to relay an important message to you.

Gee, Proto1… I hope I can remember all of it.  You know how mad he can get if you screw-up.  Remember the last time you failed?  Uggh!  Oh well, here’s the main part I think I remember:

BG said he wanted to tell you that he’s pleased on how hard you have been working, but (okay… here’s where it gets a bit tricky to explain) he said a *small* error was made and somehow you were given the *wrong* mission.  Hey, Proto1, maybe that’s why you have been feeling so inept… and why you have failed so miserably with these NCRegister Catholics? 

Anyway, BG is looking into how that mission mistake happened and I imagine there will be h***  to pay.  In the meantime, he will be sending you a new mission ASAP.

So please STOP working on your old mission immediately!  Leave all active NCRegister threads immediately! 

Why?  Because you are embarrassing yourself and making BG look bad you idiot!  So… please…  just relax and take a break Proto1. 

Why not do something new, exciting, and totally unusual? 

Hmm-m… perhaps something like actually reading and studying?  Wow… that would be *really* different for you!  Have fun Proto1!

Colin:  Brilliant, as always.

Proto1:  “So what you are saying is that your works keep you saved? If you say no today then that sin would cancel out your salvation. Correct?”

It depends on the sin.  If you deliberately turn your back on God (through murder, etc. on the mortal sin front) then you must go to the Sacrament of Reconciliation to reconcile yourself both with God and with His body on earh (i.e. our brothers and sisters whom you have also wronged through your deed).  We Catholics do not believe in salvation through works alone anymore than we believe in salvation through faith alone.  Both are important in aligning our wills with God’s.

Dan:  Here is perhaps a more dynamic way of drawing out Chesterton’s analogy with health care:  The Protestant method of evangelization is similar to an emergency room triage.  They slap a band-aid on your wound, give you some pain killers, and send you home so they can move on to the next case.  The Catholic method (through RCIA, etc.) is more like visiting an oncologist for cancer treatment.  You come in for regular visits, and you as a patient need to learn about the disease and the various methods to cure it.  You may have to go through some painful procedures (insert analogy between annulment process and chemotherapy) in order to cleanse your system of the disease (the cancer in this analogy is of course not marriage, but the sin that separates you from God and His people that occurs when you live in adultery after breaking the marriage bond that was formed before God and the community).  Then, by the grace of God and your own persistence, your body will not succomb to the tumor, but it will be healed.  The emergency room triage may very well heal some people, but many cases require frequent visits, consultation with physicians who have much more experience and knowledge in these matters… in other words, a greater investment of your time and energy.  But isn’t your eternal health worth a bit of an investment?

Proto1:  Hm, I thought I had answered in my last post (i.e. reconciliation), but I suppose a little more detail may be warranted.  ED makes it sound like you are trolling, but I will answer on the off-chance that your questions are borne out of genuine interest and openness to what I have to say.  My answer to you is a simple matter of clarification through synonyms:  “Are you saying you must do something to keep your life and if you don’t you will lose your life?”  Read Matthew 10:38-39.  Does Christ tell us to get baptized and then sit around on our hands until we die?  No?  Hm, do you think maybe there’s a reason for that?

Dan:

You wrote this: “You may discount this as placing too much importance on “feelings”, but to us everyday people, that’s what matters.”

Don’t write things like that if you don’t want people to get the impression the Faith should be based on the feelings of everyday people.  And when people do quite understandably read you that way, don’t say obnoxious things like, “How could you POSSIBLY get that from what I said? Oh yes, forgot who I was talking to…”

Take some responsibility.

Proto1- Works are the evidence of our salvation, the proof that in our hearts we really love God and our neighbor (by following the Commandments, etc). 

Dave- I’ve gone through RCIA myself (even though I didn’t need to since I was already a baptized Christian), and my husband teaches RCIA to both Candidates for Full Communion and Catechumens (those that haven’t been baptized yet).  RCIA is for the purpose of giving the inquiring person every opportunity to know exactly what they are doing, what they are getting themselves into so they do not make a hasty decision that could put themselves in a very bad spiritual position (if they are not ready or don’t fully understand, or disagree with something they never are able to reconcile with and fall away).  It is a process of discernment for a very big decision (isn’t it always the wise thing to do before making a big decision like marriage, priesthood, or even buying a house?). The decision to follow Jesus Christ should not be taken lightly. In the early Church, Catechumens went through at least three years of “RCIA” before they were baptized and then they were given an oral exam by the bishop before he would baptize them.  So, if you think about it… the Church has actually simplified the process since then.

What must we do to be saved?  Ugh.  If I thought all my friends and family that dimiss the Church would end up…well you know…I would be crushed by despair.  It kinda makes me wish I was a Unitarian.  But it’s not about wish fulfillment.

“Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad the road which leads to ruin, and many there are who enter by it”

Lord have mercy on us all.

Mark,

I don’t know how to put this in more polite terms, but you tend to evade genuine questions - like those posted by Dan - by focussing on or over-emphasizing some insignificant detail or accidental theological slip-up.

Feel free to correct us all you want, but please continue on to the real questions then.

Sticking to the health analogy, when patients go to see a doctor (oncologist if you will), yes it is certainly necessary to know a bit about your illness and know that you will need to come back for check-ups and treatments regularly, but it’s completely unnecessary to expect a patient to know his entire anatomy, physiology, all the possible pathogens in existence and their pharmacological antagonists etc. That’s the doctor’s responsibility, and sometimes requires a specialist.

It’s not about something being too hard or tedious, but about it being UNNECESSARILY hard or tedious. The Church is all about fighting man’s natural capacity for sin through confession and the eucharist etc. which is great, but She forgets that those who aren’t in the Church YET, are plagued by the same temptations and doubts and fears. So now you expect someone, who has no access to the Eucharist or sacrament of reconciliation, to endure through the entire RCIA program (in my country it lasts for a year), and if necessary the annulment process, and the extra wait until the next RCIA starts. When they don’t endure, you just say “they didn’t want it badly enough”, when even most Catholics struggle to endure - and they have access to all the graces of the Sacraments!

Really, I think it’s time to go back to basics. I’m not saying the Baptist version of basic, but not this whole bureaucratic stand-in-this-queue and follow-that-line version.

Colin-So what you are saying is that your works keep you saved? If you say no today then that sin would cancel out your salvation. Correct?

I don’t think we’re hung up on the whole “Are you saved” thingy.  For us, it’s more about a world view and a relationship.  I have been married for 31 years and I do not wake up every morning saying “I wonder if I’m married????”.  I’m far to busy BEING married, loving my husband, and running a household.  When I serve dinner, am I earning my right to be his wife?  When I clean the toilet am I being good enough to be called his wife?  If I thought like that the marriage would have failed years ago. 

I clean the toilet because I love my family.  Not to ‘earn” their love.  But I can tell you right now if I ceased cleaning the bathroom, it might have an impact on our relationship.

I don’t cheat on my husband not because he might leave me, but because I love him and wouldn’t jeopardize that love for anything in the world.

I think, sometimes, that you guys are really hung up on what you “get” and all us Catholics are saying is that we are more focused on what we “give”.

It seems reader is making it much grimmer than it is. He should have encouraged the interest and brought in a priest at that point and let things proceed one step at a time.  Too much information, alot of which may not be relevant.

Proto1,

We don’t pull scripture passages out of context.  We read scripture as a whole.  It avoids the pitfalls you guys fall into.

Either way, the Scriptures do not say anything about knowing that you are “saved”.  What it does tell us is that there are certain things we must do in order to have eternal life.  Catholics do those things.  But nowhere does it guarantee anyones “salvation”...So no, we do not know if we are “saved”.  Neither do you.

Proto,

I think you confuse what you think is our attempt to “be saved” with what we think of as “becoming holy”.  You think we are trying to work our way into heaven, but we are only trying to become holier and holier.  As I said, we’re not hung up on “being saved”.  Jesus died.  That part is done.  We’re all “saved”.  The moment He died and rose, the entire world was saved.  Now the ball is in our court.  The question isn’t “Are you saved”, but “Do you love Him”?

“We don’t pull scripture passages out of context.”
Hilarious.
“What it does tell us is that there are certain things we must do in order to have eternal life.”
Find that Fountain of Youth!  And subject it to rigorous scientific testing.
“we are only trying to become holier and holier.”
Yes, holier than thou comes to mind.  Everyone who belong to the One True Religion is definitely holier than thou.
“We’re all “saved”.:
Define “saved”.
“The question isn’t “Are you saved”, but “Do you love Him”?”
Yesterday, today, or tomorrow?  Maybe next week is good enough?

Proto 1

We know because Christ left us a Church to tell us. Without that Authority we would all be as confused as you about how we can be “saved”. And trying to figure out what the Bible means all by ourselves in the dark. Christ knew that we would struggle to do it on our own, so he left us the Church. It’s gotta be hard trying to figure all this out from scratch without 2011 years of history and writings to help you light the way.

Proto 1 We know because Christ left us a Church to tell us. Without that Authority we would all be as confused as you about how we can be “saved”. And trying to figure out what the Bible means all by ourselves in the dark. Christ knew that we would struggle to do it on our own, so he left us the Church. It’s gotta be hard trying to figure all this out from scratch without 2011 years of history and writings to help you light the way.

I realize that there is no such thing as a bad question, but this is pretty basic Catholic stuff; I’m surprised the original letter writer didn’t know it.  He should get his money back from his RCIA course… (Same thing I told my converted Catholic sister-in-law who uses birth control.)

My understanding is that in the Catholic church only marriages between baptized people are indissolveable. Therefore, the friend at the beginning of the post would have no problems regarding annulment, which would not be necessary. This however is merely one reason that adults should not be baptized before they have been taught the full implications and obligations of the baptized. Also better catechesis all round would not hurt.

This however is merely one reason that adults should not be baptized before they have been taught the full implications and obligations of the baptized.

It is definitely a good reason why people should not marry before they have been taught the full implications and obligations of the baptized, and marriage for that matter. 

You’re not saying that only adults should be baptized, tho, are you?  You’re just saying that when an adult IS being baptized (ie RCIA, protestant churches) then they should fully understand what that means?

Mike McCants,

You are one more reason why Obama should not be relected.  If he had produced more jobs, you’d be working instead of trolling Catholic sites making sarcastic comments. (Which aren’t even clever btw…I like sarcasm as much as the next person, but seriously, your attempts are really lame…my advice?  Get a job.  Or a life)

I have read many stories of converts who are so well prepared that their conversion was not unnecessarily stymied by RCIA. Good judgement has been used to streamline entrance for the well prepared. 

Me on the other hand, I spent well over 2 years in RCIA, I have to say that nothing really important comes easy. I was a stubborn and difficult student and I didnt even have a past marriage to deal with. Now, looking back, I wouldn’t change a thing.

As far as past marriages and annulments…the RCC is one of the last collection of humans who take seriously the issue of vow making and breaking..everyone else has fallen into convenience and relativism, but the Church says that a valid marriage is indisoluable and isnt that what we say and vow to when we enter one?  Ignoring the profound importance of marriage (and resultant adultery if valid marriages are ignored) would be a grave error

Tammy,

Welcome home.

I can’t believe that people are falling for the old Protestant trap that the sacraments are burden and not a gift. That, after all, is the implication of, “Anything with doing, is worth doing well.” You guys really think this? Seriously?

It is not at all hard to become a Christian in the Catholic Church: becoming a Christian is a matter of God’s grace, full stop. The graces necessary for salvation are justification and sanctification. Ordinarily, we receive the grace of justification at baptism, but from the earliest times, the Church has taught a “baptism of desire” which applies in extraordinary circumstances—for example, to martyrs before they were baptized.

That said, the Church teaches what the Gospel teaches: namely, that if one has a sincere wish to be a Christian, then one will have a sincere wish to associate with other Christians, and to live a life that conforms with the Gospel. This is part of sanctification. It is hard, regardless of the denomination. If you think not, then you haven’t been reading your Bible; the standard Christ sets in the Gospels is impossible to achieve by our own effort. Hence, the need for God’s grace. (A note to Protestants: the Church that teaches “original sin” cannot possibly be a church of Pelagians. But a church that teaches that one need not be completely pure before entering heaven, as the “once saved, always saved” sects do, is not in agreement with either the Gospels or the book of Revelation, either.)

Because it is hard to live in Christ, the Church has an RCIA program whose purpose is to teach one what it means to become a Christian; that way, people know what they’re getting into. Likewise, the Church offers the sacraments as vessels of God’s grace.

Theologians in every era have agreed that it is not the actions of the sacraments that are required; it is their grace that is required. In ordinary circumstances, God expects us to seek that grace in the company of Christians; that is, in the Church, which is the body of Christ. (Where else would you seek God’s grace?)

The question then becomes, what counts as extraordinary circumstances? Obviously, unbaptized martyrs, but who else? There is a lot of theological argument on that question; for example, Fulgentius of Ruspe had a rather narrow view, whereas Thomas Aquinas had a very broad view.

Christ tells us that the gate is narrow and the road is hard; he tells us that, on the day of judgment, many who rejected his grace by refusing to feed the hungry or clothe the naked will be placed with the goats, even though they cast out demons in his name.

Mark,

These folks siding w/ the person submitting the question to you have a valid point.  You dodged the “manmade bureaucracy” question.  I guess the 12 set up a tribunal the day after the ascension?  Mother Church has the POWER to do this differently and these folks are speaking to forgiveness and ignorance.  They are concerned, rightly so, about the Church via ecclesial laws and inept bureaucratic forms not striking the right balance.  Sure, it’s complicated, fortunately for those who make a living at explaining it. But the TRUTH is there are ways to improve the process.  Those concerned about the Body of Christ should be looking at the status quo and asking how can we do this better.  That’s all these folks are trying to say.  And you of all people know that what exists today did not “fall from the sky”.

Jack,

I’m confused.  First you trash the statement “Anything worth doing, is worth doing well” then you go on to talk about how being a Christian is hard work…did I misunderstand you comment?  Is it not worth learning the Christian/Catholic faith well, if you are going to become a Catholic?

Stefano,

What is this man made bureaucracy of which you speak?

mk

My point is one of rhetorical style: should we talk about these things, as a burden, or reject the premise and insist that they are a gift? The answers offered by many Catholics above seem to concede the assertion that the RCIA and sacraments are a burden, and not a gift. I reject that assertion, and I don’t think the people writing that way actually believe that; I think they just missed it, because that kind of thinking permeates our fervently individualistic culture.

The question is not whether “anything worth doing, is worth doing well”—that’s entirely beside the point, since we can’t do it at all by ourselves. This entire way of thinking leads to rhetorical traps often sprung by Protestants, that make the Church seem like an obstacle to life in Christ, rather than a treasure chest of gifts. We cannot do it ourselves; we need gifts from God. That’s what the RCIA, the sacraments, annulments, and the rest are all about.

So what I’m saying, is that we have to emphasize constantly that grace is God’s gift, that we need it desperately and constantly, and that the Church, as the Body of Christ, has grace in abundance. People are free to reject that, but given the New Testament’s stern words about the difficulty of genuine Christianity, simple humility would suggest that it is very, very unwise.

Again, the sacraments, the RCIA, the tribunals, etc. are not necessary, and to argue as if they are, is a mistake. In extraordinary circumstances, the simple desire to turn to God suffices—the good thief on the cross, the catechumen fed to the lions, or deathbed convert whose eyes, opened by God to the consequences of his sins, weep bitterly in genuine repentance. But how many of us wish to find ourselves in extraordinary circumstances?

“I think it’s time to go back to basics.”

Christianity, from its inception, has required potential converts to show their commitment before they are allowed access to the sacraments.  People would like to ‘try it before they buy it’ but that’s not how it works.

@Mark Shea
You often talk about something called the ‘Pearls before Swine’ principle.  From the context you use it in it sounds like it means, ‘don’t bother preaching to hostile morons because they won’t appreciate it and just try to tear you apart.’  (Please correct me if I’m wrong.)

I disagree.  The ‘pearls’ are the sacraments and they must be guarded from being profaned.  If converts weren’t screened, catechized, and held to a certain standard, we would not be treating the sacraments with the reverence they deserve.

So we have to deserve the Sacraments now?

If you want to take a look at an early Christian “RCIA class”, check out St. Cyril of Jerusalem’s series of Catechical and Mystagogical lectures. The first one is a stern “Paper Chase” style lecture to those finally accepted for Baptism at the upcoming Easter vigil. They’ve been auxiliary members of the Church for quite a while, but there’s still a lot they don’t know and will only learn now for the first time. Memorization will be involved, as well as oaths not to reveal the catechetical material to non-Christians or those not so far along. There are various warnings against becoming a Christian for various worldly reasons, as well as one against being baptized solely in an attempt to gain magical powers over demons. (Something apparently rather common back then.)

So yeah, I think it’s supposed to be a little bit of a process.

Perry,

The question is not whether “anything worth doing, is worth doing well”</bockquote>

If the question being asked is it a burden, I would agree.  But hard work is not necessarily a burdern.  To me at least.  I work hard at being a mother, being a wife, and yes, at being a good Catholic.  And none of it is a burden.  Even gifts can require hard work.  If someone gives me a puppy it is a gift, yet still requires hard work.  I just don’t think gift and hard work are mutually exclusive.  They can, and are, often both.

<blockquote>Again, the sacraments, the RCIA, the tribunals, etc. are not necessary, and to argue as if they are, is a mistake.

Extraordinary is the key phrase here.  If someone on their death bed writes in and says he doesn’t have time to go through RCIA then yes, I would say it was not “necessary”.  But these are ordinary people, asking about the ordinary means of being a Catholic.  In ordinary circumstances it most certainly is necessary to receive the sacraments, learn your faith and practice, practice, practice.

It might be disingenuous to claim that there is NO OTHER WAY to get to heaven than by RCIA or receiving the Sacraments, but it is equally disingenuous to imply that they are not necessary.

@George
We can never ‘deserve’ the sacraments.  That’s why we say, “Lord I am not worthy to recieve you…” before the eucharist.  We must respect them.

@George
“...treating the sacraments with the reverence they deserve.”

“So we have to deserve the Sacraments now?”

Hunh?  ‘They’ refers to the sacraments, not us.  The sacraments deserve reverence.  We should treat them with reverence, because ‘they’ (the sacraments) deserve it.

“You are one more reason why Obama should not be reelected.”
Hilarious.  The Republican candidates are simply jokes.
“If he had produced more jobs”
I retired 5 years ago.
“making sarcastic comments”
Maybe you should ignore me.  Why should you care about my comments?  You know in your heart that you are right and your brain is not engaged.
“We know because Christ left us a Church to tell us.”
Yes, the One True Religion.
“everyone else has fallen into convenience and relativism”
Yes.  And your “struggle” against this proves that you are correct.  Hilarious.
“the Church that teaches “original sin””
Of course “original sin” has no basis in reality and it doesn’t make any sense either.
“baptized solely in an attempt to gain magical powers over demons.”
Now there’s a good motivation.  Angels too?  Hilarious.
“there is NO OTHER WAY to get to heaven”
Quite boring from the reports.  Only good people there.  No excitement.

@Craig Roberts

I wholeheartedly agree that the Sacraments deserve OUR reverence. I wasn’t referring to that.

I was a bit perturbed by the following: “If converts weren’t screened, catechized, and held to a certain standard…”

It sounds an awful lot like we have to earn the right to use the Sacraments, as if they are only available to saints and not sinners. They are the ordinary means of receiving God’s grace, but now we have to be worthy to receive them?

I agree that we should give the Sacraments due reverence, especially the Eucharist, being Christ Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. But a prolonged “screening” process will only prevent people from entering the Church. They need Christ now. They want to become Christian because they are empty without Him, but now all these barriers prevent them from having full access to Him until they are deemed “worthy”. Most will turn away looking for fulfillment elsewhere. It’s easy to say that “they should have endured to the end”, but broken people often don’t have the spiritual capacity to endure. That’s why they came to Christ in the first place!

I think RCIA is a very good thing, but I also think that prospective Catholics need more than just weekly catechesis. They need to be integrated fully into the life of the Church, and the Church is more than just Her Sacraments.

Yes, the Sacraments should only be open to them once they fully understand its meaning, but nothing should prevent them from becoming part of the parish community, attending prayer groups and Bible Study, retreats etc. They need all the spiritual food they can get. We’re talking about saving souls here.

Mike McCants,

Nope.  Sorry.  Those weren’t much better.  But keep trying, you’ll get the hang of it.  (pssst….one of the tricks to sarcasm is to make sure your remarks make some semblance of sense.  If we can’t understand what you’re saying, it makes it hard to get the “joke”...carry on)

@George
Oh!  Gotcha.  It’s a tough question.  Make something free and easy and people assume it’s worthless.  Make it hard and expensive and they assume it’s not worth the sacrafice.

The tragedy is that no matter how Christ is offered to the world there will always be those that “fell on stony ground, where it had not much earth; and immediately it sprang up, but because it had no root, it withered away.”  The Church has to provide the ‘depth’ required for roots.

hey mk…it’s not nice to pick on people like Mike.  I found out the hard way.  Believe me, no matter how obnoxious or insulting he gets, you’re going to feel really bad when you realize who you’re mocking.

George:  “I think RCIA is a very good thing, but I also think that prospective Catholics need more than just weekly catechesis. They need to be integrated fully into the life of the Church, and the Church is more than just Her Sacraments.

*Yes, the Sacraments should only be open to them once they fully understand its meaning*, but nothing should prevent them from becoming part of the parish community, attending prayer groups and Bible Study, retreats etc. They need all the spiritual food they can get. We’re talking about saving souls here.”

For myself, and I suspect for most of the others responding to your comments here, 100% agree with these comments, both for those not yet in the Church, and for those who have entered the Church.  Non-Catholics, whether they are in RCIA or not, are always welcome so long as they are respectful and do not desecrate or disturb the worship of others.  That is why parishes ask non-Catholics to cross themselves if they wish to receive a blessing in the communion line, rather than receive the Eucharist.  Ditto for prayer groups and Bible studies… I’ve been in many Bible studies with non-Catholics, even with those going through the RCIA process.  As you yourself say, they should not receive until they can understand what the sacraments mean.  That is also what this process is for, to educate the catechumens so that they will fully understand the gift of love they are being given and the yoke that they must carry (Matthew 29-30) when they enter into full communion with the Catholic Church.

Mike McCants:  I fear I’m rattling the cage, but if you have a Bible, crack it open to Matthew 16:23, meditate for a minute, and stop wasting your time and ours venting whatever frustrations you have with the Catholic Church in non-productive guffaws.  If you honestly want to contribute to the conversation, then use your words and make sense, please.

Craig,

Why?  Who is he?

“But keep trying, you’ll get the hang of it.”
Of course everyone knows that the story of Adam and Eve was metaphorical.  But “original sin” kind of comes from that story.  Now “original sin” does not make a lick of sense.  But without it, the rest of your religion does not make any sense.  So you’re kind of stuck with it.  So please explain it to me.
And “salvation” kind of presumes a heaven and another place.  But there’s no evidence.  There are no reports back from visitors.  So why does anyone believe such nonsense?
“you’re going to feel really bad when you realize who you’re mocking.”
How are you going to find out who you’re mocking?  Did I admit somewhere that I have done a couple of thousand hours of tax returns as a volunteer?  Do I show up on the proper Facebook page?  Nah.  Well maybe.

Thanks Mikey!  You’re right on time, as usual.  And yes you did mention the tax returns, but I didn’t realize it was volunteer work.  GFY!  (that means “good for you!” and don’t let anybody tell you otherwise)  Have a nice day!  ttyl!  (that stands for: talk to you later)

mk- what more do you need?  There comes a point when it’s not fair to retaliate because the person cussing at you has such serious issues that responding is just cruel.  Would you yell at some homeless drunk, or an old relative that’s not quite all there anymore.  The only compassionate thing to do is let them rant.  Grin and bear it.

Well Craig,

You’re right.  I read that he was retired, but I didn’t realize he was “feeble”.  I’ll play nice.

Mike,

If a mother and a father both have brown eyes, chances are their children will have brown eyes also.  This is called passing down genes. 

Now obviously every child won’t have brown eyes, but lets look at something like the heart.  Would you agree that everyone (that is alive) has a heart?  So we can see that some things are passed down every time, and some things are passed down some of the time.

The same thing happens in the metaphysical world. Every child will receive the stain of their parents sin.  And their parents received the stain of their parents sin and so on.  And that sin can be traced back to our original parents.  Something in them changed.  Forever.  And they have passed down that bad metaphysical “gene” since.  Now they are not real genes of course, because genes belong to the physical world, the visible world.  We are speaking here of the invisible world.  But the process is the same.  So even if you don’t believe in Original Sin, it still makes sense.  You can reject the premise, but not the argument.

That sin, also brought death into the world.  Again, not physical death, but spiritual death.  Thus, everyone with the stain, must die in a spiritual sense.  Now the tricky part is that we, human beings, belong to the physical world AND the metaphysical world.  God is a metaphysical being.  How to reconcile the two…?  God chose to become one of us, while retaining His full divinity, in order to give life, spiritual life, back to us.  He had to bring the visible and the invisible together, the physical and the metaphysical.  Because we are physical creatures.  Now to be sure, there are laws that govern the physical world, no one, not even you would deny that.  There are also laws that govern the metaphysical world.  That would only make sense given there are laws that govern everything.  We must follow both of them, because we are creatures of both of them.

Mike:  Thank you for posting something that can actually be the basis for a conversation!  Now I will answer you, and perhaps we can both learn something from a respectful discussion (please don’t revert to inane blithering again or I will have no choice but to ignore you):
“Of course everyone knows that the story of Adam and Eve was metaphorical.”  Well, none of us can really know that since we weren’t there, can we?  And last I checked, metaphor meant a tangible illustration of an intangible truth, and not a complete fabrication (which is what your next sentences imply).  Regardless of what extent Adam and Eve have historical fact behind their existence (science hasn’t totally debunked this… there was still a point where there were no homo sapiens, and then at a later point in time there were), for Catholics their story represents the first act of rebellion of humankind against our creator, the first break in our relationship with God.  When something is broken you can’t undo it, but you can fix it.  This world is a mess, right?  Lots of violence, lots of senseless things happening out there?  But there are glimmers of goodness too, right?  Every once in a while someone does something beautiful and selfless (Mother Teresa, etc).  The mess is evidence of the Fall, of original sin, the fact that there is something fractured inside of ourselves.  The beauty is evidence that there is something more than chaos out there, that there is reason, and truth, and light, and love.  The rupture between God and mankind continues (through original sin, and through our own acts of turning away from God and turning away from our fellow human beings).  But through Christ’s sacrifice of His own life, He made it possible for us to reunite with God… He gave us a way to heal the wound in our relationship with God, by God’s grace.  What Catholicism teaches us is that when we are faced with this truth, we have free will to either reject or accept Christ’s gift.  If we accept it, that means striving with God to live our lives growing in relationship with Him in a way that allows Him to heal the wounds of darkness and sin so that we may be united with Love, and Truth, and Beauty, and Light, and so much more in God Himself.
You are right that salvation presumes a destiny for us, something beyond just rotting away in the earth.  As for evidence, we have the historical record:  The Gospel writings of witnesses of Christ’s life, His works and teachings on earth (Luke 23:43, one among many references to salvation), and we have the continuation of this in the tradition of the Church.  This is truth, from what I have witnessed myself and read in the testimonies of the apostles and saints, and my faith and reason do not see any disparity.  What do you believe, Mike?  If you see the mess, and you see the potential for non-mess (look at great art, and architecture, and good music and literature, and the fact that you can perform a mathematical calculation and come out with just one correct answer, time and again… well, so long as you are good at math and don’t make errors).  I’m honestly curious, what does that tell you?

But there’s no evidence.  There are no reports back from visitors.  So why does anyone believe such nonsense?

But Mike, of course there is evidence.  Look around you.  Talk to your neighbor.  Ask the people you meet if they have experienced God.  Experience IS evidence.  We have books from eye witnesses, archeological evidence to back up the books, miracles, trees, roses, babies, imagination, the cosmos, ourselves…the evidence is everywhere.  Open your eyes and look!

“*Yes, the Sacraments should only be open to them once they fully understand its meaning*”

Not at all! Do infants understand? Do adults ever understand the meaning of the sacraments fully?

The standard the Church sets is not whether a candidate understands fully. Otherwise, there would have to be a detailed test at the end of RCIA, or any other catechesis.

The standard the Church sets, is whether you assent to what the Church teaches.

In fact, it would be impossible to understand fully; the sacraments are sacred mysteries, no?

Whoa… slow down a bit people.  Before everyone here quickly decides to hold hands, sing Kumbaya, and tightly hug sweet little old Mike until he turns blue… do you realize that Mike is Proto1’s teacher and spiritual advisor?

**WARNING:  Be *too* nice to Mike and he will invite Proto1 (and his friends) to come back to the party!

Okay, you have now been warned… so be careful and proceed at your own risk.  LOL

ED,

It’s good practice if nothing else.  I mean, we get to state and restate what we believe.  Then, when it really matters we’ll have worked out the kinks!  ;)

Have fun… but be careful!  [wink]

“has such serious issues that responding is just cruel.”
Hilarious.  A religious believer does not have “serious issues”???
“The same thing happens in the metaphysical world.”
Your analogy is silly of course.
“Every child will receive the stain of their parents sin.”
Stupid, stupid, stupid.  Define “sin”.
“We are speaking here of the invisible world.”
Not me.  There is no such thing.
“So even if you don’t believe in Original Sin, it still makes sense.”
Nope.  Stupid, stupid, stupid.
“You can reject the premise”
Of course.  And with no premise, you have no argument.
“That sin, also brought death into the world.”
Life goes back over 3.5 billion years.  Life brought death into the world.  No need for “sin” - whatever that means.
“spiritual death.”
There is no such thing.
“we, human beings, belong to the physical world AND the metaphysical world.”
That’s crazy nonsense of course.  There is no “evidence” for your assertion.
“There are also laws that govern the metaphysical world.”
Hilarious nonsense.
“we are creatures of both of them.”
Your assertion is rejected.
“we can both learn something from a respectful discussion”
Nope.  I reject your assertions without evidence.
“I will have no choice but to ignore you”
That makes really good sense.
“since we weren’t there”
Stupid, stupid, stupid.  The evolution of the human species is pretty well known.  With a little intermixing from Neanderthals and other near-humans over the last few hundred thousand years.
“metaphor meant a tangible illustration of an intangible truth”
Unless, of course, it doesn’t.  What is an “intangible truth”?
“there was still a point where there were no homo sapiens, and then at a later point in time there were”
Not really.  Such a demarcation is not “hard and fast”.  It’s simply a matter of opinion.  At any rate, it was a few hundred thousand years ago.
“rebellion of humankind against our creator”
A completely meaningless concept if there was no “creator”.
“The mess is evidence of the Fall”
Why?  You have misused the word “evidence”.  Maybe the mess is the result of human fallibility, greed, etc.  So what?
“As for evidence, we have the historical record”
Considered and rejected.
“I’m honestly curious, what does that tell you?”
That humans are self-aware beings that are capable of thinking.  This also applies to some extent to other apes, dogs, dolphins, elephants, but probably not cats.  :-)  So what?  Humans are not “special”.  Humans are not “made in the image of a god”.  That’s crazy talk.
“Ask the people you meet if they have experienced God.”
That’s silly.  Such self-reported delusions are rejected.
“Experience IS evidence.”
See Wikipedia.  There is a distinction between “physical experience” and “mental experience”.  There is also “emotional experience” and “spiritual experience”.  So, no, self-reported delusions are rejected.
“archeological evidence to back up the books”
Not exactly.  Maybe there was a “Jerusalem”.  So what?
“miracles”
Nope.  Self-reported delusions are rejected.
“trees, roses, babies”
Yes.  Physical experience.  So what?  Therefore a god?  That’s silly.
“imagination”
Purple unicorns, therefore a god.  Nope.
“the cosmos”
Yes.  13.7 or so billion years old.  The dinosaurs were wiped out about 65 million years ago at least partly by an asteroid.  The Earth revolves around the Sun at about 66,000 miles per hour.  The Earth is about 8000 miles in diameter.  So if that asteroid had been 1/8 hour sooner in its orbit or 1/8 hour later (total time interval 15 minutes), then it is very likely that mammals would not have taken over the Earth and humans would not be here 65 million years later.  Therefore a god exists.  I don’t think so.
“ourselves”
Obviously entirely contingent.  Winners of a fantastic lottery.  And in another million years, we will very likely be gone from this universe.  I wonder what will take our place?  Will there still be other apes?  Could one of those other species evolve intelligence enough to be considered “human” in another few millions of years?  We will never know.
“the evidence is everywhere”
You are again misusing the word “evidence”.
“we get to state and restate what we believe.”
Yes.  And it’s belief without evidence of course.

Oh Mike,

Maybe you really are old and just don’t get how to do this.  I’ve seen you on here before.  Now, I am not the best debater on this blog by far, but I do know that there is a right way and a wrong way to go about it.  You don’t even have to believe that there is an objective right way (although there is).  You can look at this selfishly.  There are some really good debaters here…really good.  So when you come on and argue with the style you use, you just look really lame.  Like you can’t keep up with the big guys.  That’s just the facts.  People are laughing “at” you, not “with” you.  Not even the guys that are on your team.  I don’t even know you, but this makes me feel sorry for you.  It looks like you’re trying hard to sound like the “smart” guys that you’ve seen debating…Like you admire them (and it doesn’t matter which side they are on if they are good), but instead you come across like a child imitating the grown ups. 

You might even have some good points, but they get lost in your immaturity.  Out of everything that you just wrote, the only thing that could even possibly be considered a legitimate response is “What is sin?”.
But nobody wants to respond to that question because like grownups who keep getting interrupted at the dinner table by the attention seeking child who is up past his bedtime, we grow weary of dealing with you.  This also makes me sad.  You keep coming back so I assume you want to play with us, but you’ve got to get a grip, man.

This is the art of conversation.  Learn it.  Practice it.  Play with us, but do it like an adult and not like a petulant 6 year old.  Please.

mk- way to go big guy.  You really showed him who the pathetic one is.

Mike,

ev·i·dence (v-dns)
n.
1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment:
2. Something indicative; an outward sign:

proof/pro?of/
Noun: 
Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.

Do you understand this?  Evidence does not need to be empirical, and proof can be an argument.

Craig,

I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic or not.  I’m not trying to make him look pathetic…in fact, I’m trying to do the opposite.  He is making himself look pathetic, and I’m wondering if he wants to do that.  He doesn’t have to act the way that he does.  I’m sure the people on here would be happy to talk to him, but he’ll have to stop acting like a juvenile.  If he knows he is being a jerk, then at least I have tried.  But if he really wants to debate, but doesn’t know how, then maybe we could all give him a hand up.

*sigh*  You can’t help Mike by insulting him.  You probably can’t ‘help’ him period.  I tried to warn you.  He’s innocent.  He really has no alternative than to act the way he does.  Do you?  All you can do at this stage is apologize for being the jerk you accused him of being, and hope Mike forgives you.  He probably will…then you’ll see that he actually can be a ‘big guy’.

BTW If you can’t recognize sarcasm, maybe you should try to lay off it.

Oh p-l-e-a-s-e…  just cut the crap Craig. 

If you know so much about Mike then just man-up and explain the *details* to mk and stop playing this juvenile cat-n-mouse game.  It’s getting a bit old…

Thank you ED.  Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. First Mike tells me to quite being a jerk, then he turns around and acts like a jerk…sheesh, it can sure get confusing around here.

Craig,
I was not insulting Mike.  I was pointing out that his behavior is juvenile and that he could probably add a lot to the mix if he’d just learn how to “do” it.  You’re not seriously going to try to tell me that calling people stupid is something he cannot help?!?!? 

I get it.  For whatever reason you feel defensive about Mike.  But you don’t own him.  He was smart enough to hold a job that he retired from, he must be smart enough to know that calling people stupid, their faith silly and using “Hilarious” every third comment isn’t going to put him in the “favorites to debate with” box.

You two geniuses have read his posts and you still can’t figure out his state of mind?  HE’S NOT SURE IF HE’S ON FACEBOOK BECAUSE HE THINKS IT MIGHT BE LIKE THE TELEPHONE BOOK!  When somebody so ill equipped to fight back is attacked, it’s YOU the attackers that are pathetic.  Is that clear enough for you?  You’re pathetic bullies picking on the oldest most helpless fool you can find…AND YOU’RE TO DUMB TO REALIZE IT!

”...sheesh, it can sure get confusing around here.

Unfortunately, mk, not everyone is being honest and playing fair on these NCRegister threads.

As you probably know, many of our so-called loving brothers and sisters have an agenda and actually have great fun disrupting Catholic blogs, etc.  Some play by NO RULES! 

Best to test… be careful.  They can be quite devious…

mk…dude.  I was just trying to warn you.  If you take a fool seriously, then you’re acting like a fool.  If you attack a helpless person, you’re a bully.

I wasn’t trying to save Mike because his feelings can’t be hurt.  No matter what you say to him he won’t care.  THAT’S HIS STATE OF MIND.  He’s a taco short of a combo plate.  I was trying to keep you from making a butt of yourself…but I failed.

“But if he really wants to debate”
There is no “debate”.  You have no “evidence”.  You have nothing but your opinions.
“What is sin?”
Hilarious.  “Sin” is a religious word.  So it is rejected as nonsense.
“I assume you want to play with us”
It’s true.  I’m playing with you.
“He is making himself look pathetic”
Hilarious.
“You can’t help Mike by insulting him.”
Hilarious.  You can’t help or change me no matter what you say.  There is no “debate”.  You have no evidence.
“I’m sure the people on here would be happy to talk to him”
But obviously there’s no point in that.  There is no “debate”.
From Wikipedia:  “The burden of proof is the burden of providing sufficient evidence to shift a conclusion from an oppositional opinion.”  My opinion is that you (believers) have the burden of proof and that you do not have sufficient evidence to shift a conclusion towards “some god exists”.  Not to mention which god.
“The theory of evidence is a field wrought with dispute. Many of these disputes stem from the limits of human knowing, a field known as epistemology.”  So you presume to know that there is something beyond the “material”.  The burden of proof is on you and you have failed.
“calling people stupid”
The correct word is “irrational”.  Irrational people have “stupid” opinions.
“put him in the “favorites to debate with” box.”
There is no “debate”.  I can never be a favorite, since I refuse to play.
“if you want evidence for sin just look at all the evil in the world”
Hilarious.  Define “evil”.  Who gets to decide exactly what is “good” and what is “evil”?  Are there “degrees” of good and evil?  Are there degrees of assault or murder?  Who judges what the proper degree of a crime is?  Are earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, and tornadoes “evil”?  Are automobile accidents “evil”?  Is the stock market “evil”?  Who gets to decide?  Your authority?  The Pope?  Hilarious.  Even 90+% of Catholics use contraceptives.  Special holiday for confessions in Spain for those who have had abortions.  Humans are hilarious in their irrationality.
“Now if you are an evolutionist there is no such thing as evil.”
What a silly thing to say.  Do you reject evolution?  The proper word at that point really would be “stupid”.  Oh, now I remember.  Sometimes I said stupid, stupid, stupid.  Of course that means I think your opinion is irrational, not that I think you really are stupid.  Of course there is such a thing as “evil”.  But it is a HUMAN invention.  Dogs may feel remorse when they know that they have done something wrong.  But we would never call a dog “evil”.
From Wikipedia:  “Evil is the violation of, or intent to violate, some moral code.”  And moral codes are a HUMAN construct.  (Of course you people claim some “god” had something to do with it, but that’s silly.)
“all we are is an accident of the slime with no purpose but to eat and procreate and then become worm food?”
Correct.  So define “evil”.  Why do we have laws?  What happens if you break a law and get caught?  But yes, the idea that humans really are contingent and have no purpose is almost too much for most people to bear.  So living in a fantasy world might very well be preferable to living with reality.  Is that sad?  Am I sad?  No one ever seems to try to reply to my questions.

Hey Craig… can’t you read?  If you actually read the posts on this thread you would actually know whether mk was male or female.  So what’s with the Big Guy and Dude comments?

Seems you like to post here… but not read too much.

Hmm-m… curious?

Goodbye Mike… GAME OVER!!!

And take your pupil Proto1 with you!  LOL

ED-  You get your jollies harassing feeble old men and you’re worried about fairness???  You try to stifle debate by chasing away proto1 and you worry about rules?  You need to find a nice ‘mutual admiration society’ so that your paranoia isn’t exacerbated by the stress of free speech.

Have a *great* evening Craig… and God Bless!

@ED
Good one.  I’ll have to remember that you can’t call girls ‘dude’ or ‘big guy’.  Is that because girls don’t understand colloquialisms?  Men are used to being called the other sex, but it’s not by mistake.

Should I take into account your gender before I comment to make sure I don’t offend your tender sensibilities?

@ED
Have I been dismissed?  That’s fine.  If you want a mono-tone echo chamber where everybody gets together to pat each other on the back for being so enlightened and spiritual and caring…you got it.  Just remember, Catholics are supposed to be defenders of the weak…not their tormenters.

Sorry if I offended anybody.

“The moral code is just an opinion.”
True, but it’s the “opinion” of a human society.  And it could be a quite different “opinion” in Saudi Arabia compared to the US.  And if you violate that “opinion” and get caught, you could be in big trouble.

“There is no such thing as evil if evolution is true.”
I reject your assertion for the second time.  I noticed that you failed to define “evil” and you did not argue against the Wikipedia definition.

“Goodbye Mike… GAME OVER!!!”
As I said, there is no debate.  So it is not surprising that you would give up and leave.
“And take your pupil Proto1 with you!”
He has a very strange opinion about evolution and evil.

“You get your jollies harassing feeble old men”
Your insult is silly.  I did over 500 hours of tax return volunteer work in 13 weeks last spring.  That’s not “feeble”.  And 70 is the new 60, that’s not “old”.  And his attempted harassment is a complete failure, so he got no “jollies” out of it and he gave up and left in a huff with “game over”.  Hilarious.

“You try to stifle debate”
But, of course, there is no “debate” to be stifled.
“so that your paranoia isn’t exacerbated by the stress of free speech.”
Yes, free speech can be stressful.  But he does not seem paranoid to me.
“and God Bless!”
Such a silly statement.  This is better:  May you “win” the lottery of life!  I know I did.  But I don’t seem very grateful, do I?

“If you want a mono-tone echo chamber where everybody gets together to pat each other on the back for being so enlightened and spiritual and caring…you got it.”
That’s really what I expected when Jennifer posted her silly “How to reason with atheists assuming that God exists”.  I expected to be banned.
“Catholics are supposed to be defenders of the weak…not their tormenters.”
Hilarious.  As if he was successful in “tormenting” anyone.  He was simply amusing and easily mocked.
“Sorry if I offended anybody.”
It was really silly of you to imply that I am old and feeble.  Were you playing to the audience?  Do you really think that?  How could I “prove” that it isn’t true?

ED,

I struggle to understand how my comments to Mike make me a bully, but Craigs comments about Mike make him “more Catholic” but as I said, this whole thread has me more than a little confused.  Thank you for recognizing that I am a “she”.  I must “write” in a masculine way because it happens all the time.

Mike,

YOU are the one that asked what sin is…Are you laughing at yourself?  You keep saying things like “rejected”, “nonsense”, “not accepted”...as if you had some sort of authority over the matter.  WHO is rejecting it?  WHO thinks it is nonsense?  WHO doesn’t accept it?  You?  Then say so.  Do you mean that “in your opinion” it is nonsense which you reject?  Or is there some higher authority that you are referring to?  I mean, it’s pretty obvious that you reject what we’re saying…so who is this authority to which you allude?  Are you saying there is no such thing as morality?  If so, then what is justice?  Are you saying there is no metaphysical world?  If so, then what is love?  Are you saying there is no such thing as evil?  If so, then why do we have laws protecting us from the things we say are evil? 

It was really silly of you to imply that I am old and feeble.  Were you playing to the audience?  Do you really think that?  How could I “prove” that it isn’t true?

By actually conversing “with” instead of talking “at” us.  Try picking one and only one thought and following it through to the end.  That would go a long way in showing that you aren’t 12, old and feeble, or a lunatic.  You have an opinion, share it.  Quit beatin’ us over the head with the ranting…believe it or not, we’re not just waitin’ to pounce on you.  Pick one, and only one, of your many (many, many, many) bones of contention, and let’s look at it.

As for winning the lottery of life and not being grateful…well, in your own words…hilarious.  You know what they say, you’ve got to play to win…so far, I haven’t seen any “playing”.  Bulldozing everyone with your style and wit might make you feel good but it doesn’t make you look good.  Check your winnings…I think it’s Monopoly money.  ;)

Sorry Mikey
I didn’t mean to imply that you were feeble.  Your posts speak for themselves and if somebody can’t figure you out that’s their problem.  You’ve heroically battled these guys to a stalemate.  GFY!  (good for you!)  Looks like I didn’t give you enough credit.  Forgive me?

Sorry mk
I sincerely thought I could spare you the shame I felt when I first realized that the I guy I was (metaphorically) boxing was in a wheelchair.  If he seems fine to you, maybe you guys can learn something from each other.  When you failed to heed my advice I got a little miffed that my message wasn’t being heard and resorted to shouting.  My bad.  *Sorry*.

Sorry ED
You seem bright and articulate.  I don’t understand why you would want to chase anybody off the forum when you obviously have the skills to go toe to toe with them.  Whatever, that’s my problem.  As you have seen there is a fine line between honest argument (with a little snark and bark thrown in for spice) and bullying and harassment.  Respect for the child of God that you are talking to (no matter how obnoxious they are) is a hard thing to hold on to when things get heated.  If I crossed the line, I apologize. 

Group hug!...anybody?....anybody?

Proto1,
That was a very clear and concise explantaion of a very deep subject.  You sound like a crusader for Truth.  So why does ED want you to get lost?

“That was a very clear and concise explantaion of a very deep subject.”
Nope.  That was a completely muddled up mess.

Thanks Mike.
I’m sure “that was a completely muddled up mess”...to you.  No need to explain why.

Jerry Coyne today:  “Saying that we are creatures with evolved and culturally-derived morality (yes, Andrew, that’s where our moral imagination came from, not from God), and can be both good and bad, is hardly a “paradox”.  And how is it “fatal” to try to master the universe with our minds? We’ve done a pretty good job of it so far.  We sure haven’t mastered it with our nonexistent “souls”—or with a belief in baby Jesus.”

The actual topic under discussion is Adam and Eve and evolution and Original Sin and morality.  More Coyne:  “All Sullivan is doing here is confecting a post facto story to justify his Catholic beliefs. But the story is unconvincing.  He has not come close to answering my main question: how does he know that certain parts of the Bible—like Adam and Eve and the Fall—are to be taken metaphorically, while others—like the existence of God, Jesus, the Resurrection, and the expiation of sin “through the universal embrace of a loving God”—are true?”

“In evolution there is no moral code.”
So what?  I repeat - morals come from human culture.

“The ultimate standard for good is the God of Christianity”
Only if there really is a “God of Christianity” and that “god” clearly stated what was good.  But since neither of these is true, you have no “standard”.  The “infallible” Pope is your standard and even 90+% of Catholics ignore his opinion on contraception.  Not to mention the Catholics who obtain abortions.  And then your Pope goes to Spain for four days during World Youth Days and says that any Spanish woman who was automatically excommunicated because she had an abortion can come back into the church if she confesses her sin to one of the specially appointed priests during that four days.  This is just silly madness.  And very time-relative morality.

“That moral code is spelled out in the law of God”
Riiiight.  And who gets to specify exactly what the “law of God” really is?  Your Pope?  I don’t think so.  As if there really was a “law of God”.  Hilarious irrational nonsense.

“because it has no objective standard outside of itself”
Of course.  That is why it is correct.  There is no moral standard apart from what a particular society has chosen.  So your faith is so “strong” that you reject reality.  Is adultery good?  Is it against the law?  In Saudi Arabia?  What is the penalty in the US?  Excommunication?  Who cares?  What is the penalty in Saudi Arabia?  Death?  Oops.  Of course morality is relative - your religious beliefs can’t change reality.

“Drug lords could have their own moral code”
Of course they do.  So what?
“and to break it would not mean it would be evil to do so.”
Well, who gets to judge whether or not the moral code of a drug lord is acceptable to society?  Is the drug lord going to go before a US judge and claim “I don’t think what I did was wrong”?  That’s not going to work very well.  So what?  What’s your point?  That morality is “absolute”?  That’s ridiculous of course.

“You have no way to determine if a Nazi moral code is good or evil.”
Who is this “you” that is doing the judging?  There were a lot of Christians in Germany and you would think that some of them knew that the Holocaust was taking place.  Did they judge that that was wrong?  What did they do about it?  What could they do about it?  Perhaps they were convinced by the writings of Martin Luther that the Jews were a problem and needed to be eliminated.  So they would not have had the opinion that the Holocaust was evil.  So what?  Moral judgements take place all the time.  And they are all relative.

“WHO is rejecting it?  WHO thinks it is nonsense?  WHO doesn’t accept it?”
I am attempting to explain the fundamental position of atheism.  I am attempting to speak for most atheists.
“Or is there some higher authority that you are referring to?”
Not exactly.  Of course I read atheist blogs and I agree with the positions stated there.  The “higher authority” is mere rationality.
“If so, then what is love?”
Hilarious.  Perhaps I should consult Wikipedia:  “In English, love refers to a variety of different feelings, states, and attitudes, ranging from pleasure (“I loved that meal”) to interpersonal attraction (“I love my partner”). “Love” may refer specifically to the passionate desire and intimacy of romantic love, to the sexual love of eros, to the emotional closeness of familial love, or the platonic love that defines friendship.”  But one who does not have a brain, cannot love.  So fundamentally, love is physically based in the brain.  No silly metaphysics are involved.
“By actually conversing “with” instead of talking “at” us.”
What’s the point?  You are irrational believers.  You are never going to accept anything I say.  We are speaking different languages based on our fundamental difference in starting points:  religious irrationality versus scientific rationality.
“I haven’t seen any “playing”.”
There’s no point in doing anything here on this blog except mocking you.  Of course I was referring to my real life.
“You’ve heroically battled these guys to a stalemate.”
Hilarious.  There is no “battle” between irrationality and rationality.  Irrationality is simply discarded as useless.
“maybe you guys can learn something from each other.”
Hilarious.  Neither party appears to be interested in learning.  Catholics have their “salvation” irrationality and there’s not much I can do about it except mock it.
“have the skills to go toe to toe with them”
But I said “there is no debate”.  How can you go “toe to toe” with someone who declares himself the winner and that any debate is superfluous?
“Group hug!...anybody?....anybody?”
I would be afraid of getting religious cooties.

Craig,

No worries.  I have a dear web friend who is also in a wheelchair.  He’d be mortified to think that I was cutting him any slack because of it.  Mercy?  Yes.  Pity?  He’d have my head!  The thing with Mike is, he repeats a lot of the sound bites that “his side” throws around, but I wonder if he actually knows what he is saying.  Maybe he does, maybe not.  I’d sure like to here “him” talk though, instead of the people he imitates.

Mike,

I think an explanation of why Proto’s comments were muddled is absolutely necessary.  Can you give me one?  Or two?  Was Nazi Germany evil?  If so, why?  If not, why not?

“I wonder if he actually knows what he is saying.  Maybe he does, maybe not.”
Thanks for your condescension.  How could it possibly be important whether or not I “know what I’m saying”?  Is what I’m saying actually rational?  If not, can you be specific how or why it is not?
“a crusader for Truth.”
Hilarious.
“I think an explanation of why Proto’s comments were muddled is absolutely necessary.”
Of course my long reply is being held up because it might be spam.
Here is a comment today on Coyne’s blog:  “Hector Avalos in “The End of Biblical Studies” thoroughly debunks the notion that that there is historical or archeological evidence for any claim made in the Bible.”
“I’d sure like to here “him” talk though”
That’s silly.  The people I quote can say it so much better.

Mike,

How could it possibly be important whether or not I “know what I’m saying”?  Is what I’m saying actually rational?

Well, no, Mike.  It’s not rational.  You just say the same things over and over and they are not arguments at all.  Can’t you see that?  Saying that something is silly without saying why it is silly is not an argument and certainly not a rational one.  Dismissing what we say out of hand is not rational either.  And for the record, I think calling me condescending is a little hypocritical, considering you’ve done nothing BUT be condescending since you got here.

That’s silly.  The people I quote can say it so much better.

I know they can.  That’s my point.  You are a parrot.  Parrots are not rational, they just mimic.  Do you have any “real” thoughts on the matter?  Or do you have a script?  Silly 4 times, Hilarious, I reject it, Silly 2 more times, Hilarious 3 times, nonsense, no evidence…This seems like a rational argument to you???

“You just say the same things over and over and they are not arguments at all.”
Rational statements do not need to be “arguments”.  The sky is blue.  Is that rational?  You have no “evidence” for your god.  That is a statement.  Is it rational?  Is it true?  There is no “debate”.  There are no “arguments”.  Belief in a god without evidence is irrational.  Denial of such a belief is rational.  Do you wish to argue?  Define “rational”.  Using “reason”?  Is “evidence” required?  Do you have any?  Atheists say no, you don’t have any.
“why it is silly”
It is silly because it’s irrational.  You have to pick something and try to claim that it is rational.  You have failed.  Belief in “Adam and Eve”?  Irrational.  Belief in a “Fall”.  Irrational.  Belief in “salvation”?  Irrational.  And on and on.  There is no argument when discussing irrational things.  Belief in purple unicorns?  Irrational.  Belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?  Irrational.
“Dismissing what we say out of hand is not rational either.”
Well, of course I say that it is rational to dismiss your “belief without evidence” out of hand.  So we have a rather fundamental disagreement.  And I doubt that we are going to be able to discuss this disagreement rationally.  So there will be no discussion or debate.  It’s just your religious opinion against an atheist’s irreligious opinion.
“you’ve done nothing BUT be condescending since you got here.”
Hilarious.  Of course I am the rational one, so it is appropriate for me to be condescending.
“Parrots are not rational, they just mimic.”
This opinion is irrelevant.  The question is - is the parrot saying something rational?  If so, you cannot dismiss it simply because it is coming from a parrot.
“This seems like a rational argument to you?”
Nope.  For the tenth time, there is no argument.  There is religious irrationality and irreligious rationality.  I am attempting to explain the fundamental position of atheism.  I am attempting to speak for most atheists.  Either point out where atheists are wrong or point out how I have not properly given the fundamental position of atheists.
I see that the comment that was held as spam has now been released.  It now shows up as 3:35 EST even though it is now 5:26 EST.

mk -  this type (Mike, etc.) won’t go away until you STOP feeding it.  It’s certainly your own choice… but I would seriously think peeling onions with your eyelids would be more fun than continuing to listen to this irrational and worthless chatter.

Hey… just saying.  [wink]

Mike,

  The sky is blue.  Is that rational?

Not if the question was “What did you have for breakfast?”

You have no “evidence” for your god.  That is a statement.  Is it rational?  Is it true?  There is no “debate”.

No it is not rational.  Because we have evidence and have given it to you.  Your saying “NO EVIDENCE” in the face of that is most irrational.  Now, if you were to say that you do not think there is enough evidence, you would have been being rational.  Is it true?  Of course not.  There is no debate because you do not give counter arguments, not because there is nothing to debate.

Atheists say no, you don’t have any.

Oh well, then.  Why didn’t you say so.  I mean if atheists say it, it must be true, right?  And atheists do not say we have no evidence (because that would be irrational).  What they say is that the evidence we have, does not convince them. 

If so, you cannot dismiss it simply because it is coming from a parrot.

Perhaps this is part of your problem.  You give equal weight to someone like Thomas Aquinas and a bird brain.  No wonder you are losing this debate…you’ve been arguing with parrots.  Scratch that, no wonder you think you are winning this debate.  You’ve been arguing with parrots.  Now there’s a triumph if I ever heard one.  Can you show me evidence that parrots are rational beings? 

I am attempting to explain the fundamental position of atheism.  I am attempting to speak for most atheists.  Either point out where atheists are wrong or point out how I have not properly given the fundamental position of atheists.

First, there is no need to explain their position as it is quite simple to comprehend.  Even a parrot could understand it.  Second, I’m sure that atheists everywhere are grateful beyond words for your amazing clarity and brilliant prose.  What would they do without you?  Lastly, (and thank goodness you finally invoked the flying spaghetti monster), you have absolutely not properly given the fundamental position of atheists.  There is no fundamental position of atheists.  They would be the first ones to tell you that the ONLY thing they have in common, fundamentally, is a disbelief in God.  That is one sentence.  One.  And the word silly or hilarious cannot be found in it.  But that, I suppose, is the fundamental difference between and intelligent atheist and a parrot.  *sigh*

ED,

I’m getting pretty tired.  That is for sure.  I wonder if he has a wife.  She probably bought him his computer just so he’d stop calling her silly!  You’ll notice that there are no other atheists on the board.  Probably embarrassed to be associated with our friend. Either that or they are erecting a monument in his honor…you know, for all the hard work he does, representing them on these blogs. 

Remember when I said it was good practice?  Never mind.  Practicing with a parrot is not practice.  It’s closer to torture!  lol

mk -  time to stop feeding it and go peel some onions instead!  LOL

ED,

No kidding.  Feeding the troll?  How bout feeding the parrot?  Polly want a cracker???  You’re right.  If he doesn’t come back with something even halfway intelligent, I’m done.  Either that or I’m going to set my hair on fire and swallow battery acid.  Definitely more fun than this nonsense.  Can’t say I didn’t try.

mk -  you tried VERY hard.  Good job.

IMO, this type requires much prayer and fasting… if you get the drift.  [wink]

ED,

Prayer and fasting…will do.  Who knows, one day Mike might actually come on and have something to say.  Then we’ll know that prayer works and we’ll have the “evidence” he keeps demanding.  God Bless.  Have a great night!

mk,
I think you may be more compassionate than I am.  You’re willing to work with Mike despite his special needs.  I’m sure he would prefer to argue with you than be defended by me.

Hi ED.

Craig,

lol…I think Mike needs all the friends he can get.  We can all be his “friend”...and offer it up…  ;)

mk-
WOW!  You ARE good!  I defer to your superior advice.

“Because we have evidence and have given it to you.”
Your “evidence” does not stand up to the scrutiny of rational scientists.
“There is no debate because you do not give counter arguments”
The only way to “counter” the statement “yes, we do have evidence” is to point out “no, you don’t”.  So we are reduced to opinions and there is no point in arguing about opinions.  I say your religious opinion is irrational.  You say my opinion (and the opinion of thousands of atheist scientists) is irrational.  How can there be an “argument”?
“atheists do not say we have no evidence”
You have no evidence that is acceptable to science.
“Can you show me evidence that parrots are rational beings?”
Hilarious (deliberate?) misunderstanding of what I said.
“They would be the first ones to tell you that the ONLY thing they have in common, fundamentally, is a disbelief in God.”
Actually, that’s not quite right.  The correct statement (you ought to read what The God Delusion actually says) is that given the lack of evidence, there is only a very small chance that any god exists.  No atheist tries to “prove” that no god exists.  That would be impossible.  But the point is - WHY do they think that there is only a small possibility that any gods exist?  Because there is no acceptable scientific evidence.  Not to mention that there is no “need” for any “god”.  A “god” is simply superfluous.
“And the word silly or hilarious cannot be found in it.”
But rationality can be found in it.  Correspondingly, the belief in a god without evidence is irrational.
“If he doesn’t come back with something even halfway intelligent”
You and I have said the same things over and over for several days and you want me to “come back with something intelligent”.  Hilarious.
“Can’t say I didn’t try.”
Try what?  Presenting evidence?  Like “First, Prayer works” on the other thread?  No, scientific tests have demonstrated that prayer does not work.  “Miracles” like the baby that was saved by modern medicine?  Rejected as not scientific evidence.  The “truths” in your book of mythology?  Hilarious nonsense.  You have no acceptable evidence.
“Mike might actually come on and have something to say.”
I’ve had my say 20 times already.  There are 450+ comments on the “Atheist Dogma” misrepresented page.
“The evidence for God’s existence can be seen in creation i.e. the beginning universe”
Considered and rejected as simply “god of the gaps”.  We don’t know yet.  We may never know.  But that cannot imply “therefore a god (which one?) exists”.
“the fine tuning of the universe”
Similar rejection.
“the origin of life”
Similar rejection.  However, scientists are learning more and more about how life could have arisen from non-life.  This “gap” in knowledge may disappear dome day.
“the moral law”
Already rejected as irrational.  There is no such thing as “the moral law” (as I have stated twice before) on this thread or the other thread.
So, all of your “evidence” is rejected by all those scientists.
“as recorded in Scripture”
Your book of mythology is also rejected as evidence.
“You also know that God exist because He has made this known to you in your heart and mind.”
And that’s why the majority of scientists are atheists?  Hilarious.
“It is you who is in denial.”
Hilarious religious opinion of course.

Mike,

Can you please show me evidence to back up this statement:

And that’s why the majority of scientists are atheists?

And as much as I admire your wealth of knowledge, “because I said so” is not evidence.  Because Mr. Hitchens says so is not evidence either.  Also, while Wikipedia might quote some sources that are good (and you can use the sources as evidence) Wiki itself is not considered an acceptable source by most of the blogging community.  Even teachers won’t accept it.  So you’ll have to find me some statistics from a reliable source showing that MOST scientists are atheists…

Here Mike,

I’ve done the work for you.  Turns out that MOST scientists are NOT atheists. Bummer.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/why_are_scientists_atheists.html

“Turns out that MOST scientists are NOT atheists. Bummer.”
Hilarious.  It turns out that Ecklund is “special”.  She has grants from the Templeton Foundation whose purpose is to sponsor research that tries to claim that science and religion are “compatible”.  So you have found a religious web site that quotes her biased interpretation of her own research!
Here is a guest post at Coyne’s site:
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/09/06/spiritual-atheists-explained-a-guest-post/
The money quote:  “... four separate peer reviewed papers. The entire series of publications can probably best be described as Ecklund having one long losing argument with her data.”
And “The initial dataset, published in 2007 in the journal ‘Social Problems’, provided a picture of scientists remarkably similar to that revealed by Edward Larson and Larry Witham in their famous 1997 Nature paper, with less than 8% of natural scientists in Ecklund’s survey stating that they had no doubt about the existence of God. Fully 75.2% of natural scientists questioned did not state a belief in God.”
From http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2010/05/scientists_and_religion.php
“34% of scientists say that they have no belief in God, while another 30% agree with this statement: “I do not know if there is a God, and there is no way to find out.”  That makes 64% of them who are in the atheist camp (or atheist/agnostic camp, depending how you define “agnostic”). Only 6% of the American public falls into these two groups.
“An additional 8% opted for, “I believe in a higher power, but it is not God.””  Whatever does that mean?  Total 72%.
And “From the other side, it is just 9% of scientists (compared to 63% of the public), who chose, “I have no doubts about God’s existence.” An additional 14% of scientists chose, “I have some doubts, but I believe in God.””

When I was 13, I began to discover masturbation. It was alarming that something so pleasurable and so out-of-control could happen within my own body. I confessed to Dad what was going on, and he wanted to know all the details. He told me to keep him informed of what was happening because it was easy to fall away from God in that process. He was concerned and I was fearful.

When I was 14, I remember making a resolute decision that I could never get married. There was no way, I, as man who desired the best for the women in his life, could ever subject any poor girl to the perversion that I was. It might even be better for everyone in the world if I didn’t exist.
Thank God, I am now an Atheist.

@Stephen
That’s a sad story.  But you’re not an atheist.  You just opted for denial.  Denial sometimes seems like the best alternative when faced with a seemingly irreconcilable situation.  Keep trying.  The Truth is hard, but it’s better than the alternative.  God Bless.

“Thank God, I am now an Atheist.”
Poe’s law, named after its author Nathan Poe, is an Internet adage reflecting the fact that without a clear indication of the author’s intent, it is difficult or impossible to tell the difference between sincere extremism and an exaggerated parody of extremism.
One clue is that “Atheist” is capitalized.  This is very unusual.
Of course another clue is “Thank God”.  That’s seems very uncharacteristic for an atheists.
“When I was 14, I remember making a resolute decision that I could never get married.”
This is idiocy.  They don’t let minors join a monastery and make a vow for life, do they?  No 14 year old could be that stupid and continue such a vow.
“It might even be better for everyone in the world if I didn’t exist.”
Everyone gets depressed from time to time.  What did your father say when you told him this?
“He told me to keep him informed of what was happening because it was easy to fall away from God in that process.”
That’s a stupid thing to say.
“Thank God, I am now an Atheist.”
Non sequitur.  Atheists get married and have children and bring them up to be proper citizens.
I think you’re just making up a really silly story without even the slightest truth in it.
“But you’re not an atheist.”
You have come here an made a silly post without indicating that you have read the original topic or anything that was posted here in the last 3 days.  Who knows what you are?
“You just opted for denial.”
Hilarious.  Not only that, but he does not have any good reason for his supposed denial?
“could ever subject any poor girl to the perversion that I was”
Ha!  Trying growing up to be older than 14.  Try 24 or 34.
“Denial sometimes seems like the best alternative when faced with a seemingly irreconcilable situation.”
What “irreconcilable situation”?  Self-loathing at 14?  Hilarious.
“The Truth is hard, but it’s better than the alternative.”
Yet another ridiculous nonsense statement from a true believer.

I’ll tell you what’s hilarious Mike…

My biased site had more atheists than yours…37% (my site) to your 34%.

I’m not talking about agnostics. You’re statement was MOST scientists do not believe in God.  Your own statistics prove that that statement is wrong!

Saints in training….1
Grumpy old troll…...0

Mike,

I’ve asked you two questions and you have yet to answer them…

1.  Was Nazi Germany evil?  If so, why?  If not, why not?

2.  Are you saying there is no such thing as morality?  If so, then what is justice?  Are you saying there is no metaphysical world?  If so, then what is love?

Proto1,
Since Mike had to go to bed early, would you do the honors and answer mk’s questions for us, please?

“Was Nazi Germany evil?”
What was “Nazi Germany”?  Its leader - one person called Hitler?  His generals and immediate subordinates?  Their subordinates?  Army soldiers with the belt buckle “God is with us”?  The ordinary people who supported Hitler when he first came to power?  The ordinary people who did not really know what was happening to the Jews?  The people who did know what was happening to the Jews and thought they were powerless to stop it?  It is pretty easy to say the Hitler was “evil”.  Most megalomaniacs who gain power use that power for evil purposes.  Perhaps it is harder to assign blame to those who were farther and farther removed from the seat of power.  Why is my uninformed opinion worth more than 2 cents?  Why do you ask such a stupid question?
“If so, why?”
Hitler chose to use his power to subjugate other people and kill those who opposed him.  Those with absolute power often do this.  Syria is a current example.  That’s a pretty good case to call someone evil.  Why do you ask such a stupid question?
“Are you saying there is no such thing as morality?”
Of course not.  Why do you ask such a stupid question?  Apparently you are too lazy to go back and read what I have previously written.  But I am claiming there is no such thing as “absolute morality” in the sense that someone (your Pope?) determines this morality from some special “revelation” (like a book?).  That’s just crazy.
“Are you saying there is no metaphysical world?”
From Wikipedia:  “Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world.”
So metaphysics is philosophy and “metaphysical world” does not make any sense.  Perhaps you mean “non-material world”?
I am saying that the idea of “scientific evidence” for a “non-material world” is self-contradictory.  Science is concerned only with the material world.  If there were “scientific evidence” for something “non-material”, that would immediately place that something in the material world and it would no longer be non-material.  So there can never be “scientific evidence” for something “non-material”.  That would be self-contradictory.
Science seems to be incapable of “detecting” anything but matter and energy.  If someone claims that there is “something else”, such a claim is “outside science”.  My 2 cents is that such a claim could never be determined as “true” or “false”.  Therefore such a claim can safely be ignored as irrelevant.  On the other hand, if someone claims that “prayer works”, then that is a claim that some action in this world produces some effect in this world.  Such cause and effect relationships should be the study of science.  If science studies such a relationship and cannot find any effect associated with such a cause, then science concludes that “prayer does not work”.  If science studies such a relationship and finds that there is an effect associated with such a cause, then science would attempt to determine “why” there is some effect from that cause.  For a different example, science has also studied “mental telepathy” and found no effect.
“If so, then what is love?”
Why do you ask me such a question?  I have already answered this on one of the threads.  But, of course, I am entering comments on two different threads.  Love is an emotional state in a brain.  No brain means no emotional state.  Therefore “love” depends on an entirely material object.  Does you dog love you?  Especially when you feed him?  Of course he does.  So what?  Are you kind enough to put him out of his misery when he has been severely injured in an accident?  I hope so.  So what?  They shoot horses don’t they?  Or maybe they use strong anesthetics as poison.  Why not permit “choice in dying” for humans in severe irremediable pain?  Because your God say no?  That’s stupid.

“I’m not talking about agnostics.”
Why not?  They do not really “believe in a god”.
At any rate, there is a tremendous difference in belief between scientists and the public.

“what do atheists give thanks for”
Hilarious.  Do you wish to imply that atheists are not human?  What are humans thankful for?  Life and liberty and friends and family and food and shelter and medicine and ...  The only thing missing is “blessings from Zeus, Thor, Apollo, Ra, Aphrodite, or any other god”.
“Do atheists give thanks to the mindless forces of nature for creating them?”
Why would anyone do that?  Do you thank a tornado for missing you?  Do you thank gravity for keeping you from flying off into space?  What a stupid question!

“Both worldviews need to answer these kinds of questions.”
Hilarious.  As if the answer “God did it” or “God said so” actually had any meaning.  Different gods have certainly specified different actions as good and evil.  Why do you think your god is better than any of the others?  You have no evidence.  Many of the things that you call “good” were good for a long time before your particular god showed up.  And it seems that the silliness of anti-contraception is one of the many things that Catholicism calls “bad” for absolutely no good reason at all.  It’s simply “God said so”.  Hilarious nonsense.

Why do you nitwits ask such stupid questions of me?  You can’t possibly accept my opinions.  Are you trying to trip me up in order to laugh at me?  What a waste of your time and mine!  Hilarious.

Mike, are you familiar with the term ‘epic fail’?

Mike,

Thank you for answering my questions…sort of.  Okay.  So according to you Hitler was evil.  Can you prove that?  I mean, if there is no scientific evidence that what he did is evil or that evil exists, then how can you make the claim that he was evil?  What is evil?

So love is in the brain…can you prove with scientific methods that this is so?  Can you prove with scientific methods that love exists?

As for the metaphysical world…you are saying that it might exist and it might not.  But no one can prove it with scientific methods, so you’ve opted not to care about it.  Is that wise?  By your own admission, it can’t be proven with scientific methods because then it would no longer be metaphysical.  But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.  Since Love, Beauty, Justice, Courage, Truth..all belong to this world, you are left living a life that does not contain these things.  Are you really willing to live without them, simply because you can’t see them under a microscope?

By this statement:  Many of the things that you call “good” were good for a long time before your particular god showed up.” I assume you mean before my God showed up and revealed that He was the author of them.  Yes.  You are right.  Good has always existed.  We don’t say a thing is good because we say so.  We see that a thing is good and say it.  We didn’t invent good.  You are right.  That would be crazy talk.  But I’m curious.  How do you know good existed for that long?  I mean, according to you, there is no such thing as good, right?  Good is part of the metaphysical world.  So how can you say that there is no point to the metaphysical world on one hand, and then on the other say that good, a metaphysical concept has existed for longer than God.  This is what you are saying…Good, which doesn’t exist, existed long before God, who doesn’t exist, so that proves that there is no God…Confusing to say the least.

<blockquote>
Why do you nitwits ask such stupid questions of me?  You can’t possibly accept my opinions.  Are you trying to trip me up in order to laugh at me?  What a waste of your time and mine!</blockquotes>

No Mike.  I have no desire to laugh at you.  You’re way of thinking is anything but funny.  I suppose we ask these questions because we are trying to get a handle on the way you think.  Your posts are long and rambling, difficult to understand, contradictory and confusing.  So I am simply picking them apart, one piece at a time, in an effort to understand you.

“are you familiar with the term ‘epic fail’?”
Thanks for your opinion.  I value it highly.  Not.
“What is evil?”
If you need a Philosophy 101 class, perhaps you can sign up at a local community college.
“can you prove with scientific methods that this is so?”
Dead men tell no tales and show no significant signs of love.  But live dogs do.  Go run some scientific experiments.
“Can you prove with scientific methods that love exists?”
Scientists do not usually use the word “prove”.  Scientists make observations and draw tentative conclusions.  After the word “love” is defined in certain ways, it is observed.  Therefore such brain states exist.
“But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.”
Until there is “evidence” that it “exists”, it can be safely ignored in the search for “natural causes produce natural effects”.  Now if irrational humans make bad decisions based on irrational beliefs, that is not science’s fault.
“you are left living a life that does not contain these things.”
Who are you to tell me about my life?  A god?
“How do you know good existed for that long?”
The assumption is that proto-humans evolved to become self-aware many thousands of years ago.  And such proto-humans evolved awareness of the feelings of others and the advantages of cooperation.
“I mean, according to you, there is no such thing as good, right?”
From what I have written above, it is clear that I need to take Philosophy 101.  Or else you are deliberately misunderstanding me.  I assume the latter.  So your statement is idiotic.
“Confusing to say the least.”
Yes.  You seem to be thoroughly confused.  But I cannot see that it is my fault.  It would seem that you think that “good” can only “exist” if your so-called “metaphysical world” exists.  I find that to be a non sequitur.
“we are trying to get a handle on the way you think”
Hilarious.  Why bother?  Why me?  Go read some atheist blogs?  Why Evolution Is True by Jerry Coyne?  Choice in Dying by Eric MacDonald?  Remember, I’m just “parroting” what I learned there!  Why not go straight to the pure stuff?
“So I am simply picking them apart”
I don’t believe you.
“1.  Was Nazi Germany evil?  If so, why?  If not, why not?
2.  Are you saying there is no such thing as morality?”
That’s not “picking them apart”.  That’s an attempt to go back to Philosophy 101 to determine if I am an inhumane idiot.

This is the “salvation” post.  I am not going to read or respond on this thread any more.
“we are trying to get a handle on the way you think”
Perhaps you could learn something from the 450+ comments on the “Atheist Dogma” post.  Mark Shea did an excellent job of misrepresenting atheism in that post.  So there were a few responses.  I and others are still reading it.

mk-
I think your efforts to break through to Mike have given me some insight on the problem.  An atheists failure to have faith is not because they lack reason or intelligence.  It’s because they rely on intelligence exclusively that they are unable to see spiritual truths outside the material world.  Their failure is in their heart.  When an atheist hardens their heart against God they deny the soul and are cut off from the one part of them that can detect spiritual truth.  Luckily “all things are possible with God.”  So we will never lose hope that, by His mercy, their souls will live.  Keep up the good fight!

“detect spiritual truth”
Irrational religious nonsense.

“we are trying to get a handle on the way you think”

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/10/09/why-i-am-an-atheist/

“I [this is PZ Myers] put out a simple call for your explanations for why you’re an atheist, and in a single day I got almost 100 essays.”
This is the first essay he has presented.  So if you really want to know, ...

Comment number 10 starts with:
“To believe that we / life is just a mistake is, to me, the most illogical and unreasonable notion possible. That gave me the faith to actually seek God. I now KNOW him and have a personal relationship with the creator God of the universe.”
Then there are quite a few subsequent comments ripping his opinions to shreds.  Why read my comments here when you can go read the much more interesting comments there?

Mike,

I’m not trying to get a handle on the way PZMeyers and his readers think.  I’m trying to get a handle on the way that you think.  If you think like them, then tell me…what do YOU think. 

So I’ve asked you, Mike, 2 more questions.  Will you answer them for me?

1.  What is evil?  Can it be proven with scientific experiments?  (You’ve already said that Hitler was evil, so I’m going with the assumption that you recognize evil as real.)

2.

The assumption is that proto-humans evolved to become self-aware many thousands of years ago.  And such proto-humans evolved awareness of the feelings of others and the advantages of cooperation.

I thought you said proof was necessary.  Now you say that assumptions are good enough???  What is love?  Can it be prove using scientific methods?  Brain waves might exist, but they do not prove that love exists.  They prove only that there is a physical reaction to love.

Advantages of cooperation???  Hmmmmm…what would those be?  What do you mean by “cooperation”?  Why do some people refuse to cooperate?  Taking each other possessions, lives, loved ones?  Do they not have this evolutionary instinct to “cooperate”?  Why do YOU cooperate sometimes, and other times refuse to cooperate?  If it’s all physical then what is the motivation to cooperate on Tuesday but not on Wednesday? 

What is your main objective in life?  What are your values?  Standards?

Craig,

I agree.  The faulty premise they begin with is that if a thing cannot be proven with scientific methods then it either does not exist or is not worth their time.  But I’ve yet to see one of them prove that subjective value judgment using those same scientific methods.  They feed themselves on the best sellers of atheism (drivel and trite) and think they have the “big picture”.  But their pictures are actually very, very small.  They eliminate half of reality.  They also confuse science with technology and they run themselves mad going in circles trying to prove things like love and justice.

“I’m trying to get a handle on the way that you think.”
Hilarious.  I cannot for the life of me believe for an instant that you care about “the way that I think”.
“Will you answer them for me?”
Nope.  I’m not going to play your game.
“The faulty premise they begin with is that if a thing cannot be proven with scientific methods then it either does not exist or is not worth their time.”
You and Mark Shea are really good at misrepresenting atheists.  You should read his post on “Atheist Dogma”.  But don’t read the comments that point out his misrepresentation.
“But I’ve yet to see one of them prove that subjective value judgment using those same scientific methods.”
Hilarious idiocy.
“They eliminate half of reality.”
Hilarious.  You have no evidence.
“trying to prove things like love and justice.”
Hilarious idiocy.

From Atheist Dogma, mk writes:
“After all this time you still don’t get it?  God is not “a” creature.  He was not created.  He is not “a” being.  He is being in itself.”
Hilarious religious nonsense.  Completely incoherent to a rational person.
“Whatever took place it had nothing to do with science.”
Hilarious.
“Magic is the attempt of man to manipulate the world around him.  Faith in God is exactly the opposite of this.”
Faith in a god means that that god is manipulating the world around us?  Hilarious.  Of course there’s no evidence.
Then you had no further comments.
Mark Shea:
“The believers in miracles accept them (rightly or wrongly) because they have evidence for them. The disbelievers in miracles deny them (rightly or wrongly) because they have a doctrine against them…”
Simply a lie.

Why in the world is this silly bantering STILL going on?  Not only has this entire thread been hijacked and drifted off course… but a poor irrational lunatic has been given all this excessive time to continue to spew his illogical nonsense.

So what’s up people?  What don’t we get about NOT FEEDING?  Is it a personal pride thing that we MUST have the last word?  Are we afraid to just let God handle his stubborn non-believers?  Don’t you think God will take care of it if He wants too?

Look people… after we make a *reasonable* attempt to shed the light of Truth on a *stubborn* brother or sister who happens this way… just direct them to the proper places for further learning and MOVE ON!  Don’t allow them to take-over this blog!  There are too many other fish in the sea who really want to ask SERIOUS questions, etc.

As far as Mike goes… let it go for now. 

Remember:

#1)  God has given Mike the gift of free will.

#2)  Faith is a gift.

[Again, it is evident that this “light of faith” is a supernatural gift and is not the necessary outcome of assent to the motives of credibility. No amount of study will win it, no intellectual conviction as to the credibility of revealed religion nor even of the claims of the Church to be our infallible guide in matters of faith, will produce this light in a man’s mind. It is the free gift of God.]

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm

#3)  Mike is *free* to reject God.

Pray for him… but it’s time to let him go. 

Trust that God will find a way.

————

NOTE: [  mk -  Please stop feeding Mike.  If I have to I will personally send you a BIG bag of onions to peel!  <wink> ]

ED,

I was really hoping that he would come around and focus on one or two things that he takes issue with, but clearly that’s not going to happen.  I was giving him the benefit of the doubt and perhaps he would learn the art of blogging.  Not gonna happen… 

I’m takin’ it off my open windows now, so that I won’t even be tempted to respond to him….cross yer fingers!

“I was really hoping that he would come around…”

No way mk… as I said earlier this type requires much prayer and fasting.  (Matt 17:21)

“I was giving him the benefit of the doubt and perhaps he would learn the art of blogging.”

Unfortunately, he knows *exactly* what he is doing… at least in his own warped mind.

“I’m takin’ it off my open windows now, so that I won’t even be tempted to respond to him….”

You better NOT give in to your temptation to respond to him; otherwise, I will definitely send you that Big bag of onions and your eyelids won’t be very happy with you!!!  <wink>

“Was Nazi Germany evil?”
How many Germans lived in “Nazi Germany”?  Were they all evil?  It is now clear you were just playing a game.
“Are you saying there is no such thing as morality?”
What a stupid question for a stupid game.
“what is love?”
What a stupid question for a stupid game.
“So according to you Hitler was evil.  Can you prove that?”
What a stupid question for a stupid game.
“Can you prove with scientific methods that love exists?”
Yes.  But it’s still a pretty stupid question.
“Since Love, Beauty, Justice, Courage, Truth..all belong to this world”
then humans have a brain.  So what?
“they are unable to see spiritual truths outside the material world”
Correct.  Because there are no “spiritual truths” and there is nothing “outside of the material world”.  You have NO evidence.
“I’m trying to get a handle on the way that you think.”
Apparently this statement was dishonest.
“What is evil?”
You are continuing your stupid game.
“What is love?”
You are continuing your stupid game.
“What is your main objective in life?”
You are continuing your stupid game.
“They feed themselves on the best sellers of atheism”
Hilarious.  It really is a “God Delusion” for most people.  And I don’t need a best seller to have the opinion that anti-contraception is stupid.
“They eliminate half of reality.”
Says the one with no evidence of any other “reality”.
“a poor irrational lunatic has been given all this excessive time to continue to spew his illogical nonsense.”
Hilarious.  Adam and Eve, Original Sin, inherited sin!, Resurrection, salvation, eternal life.  It’s all illogical nonsense from your book of mythology.  And you call me an irrational lunatic!  Hilarious.
“Is it a personal pride thing that we MUST have the last word?”
Yes.  And pride goeth before the fall.  Hilarious.
“Are we afraid to just let God handle his stubborn non-believers?”
Yes.  We must do our best to proselytize them even if it’s very clear that it’s hopeless.
“just direct them to the proper places for further learning”
Correct.  I directed the believers to some proper places and they ignored me.
“God has given Mike the gift of free will.”
1) Of course “God has given” is silly.
2) There are still arguments about “free will”!
“Faith is a gift.”
Of course that makes absolutely no sense to an atheist.
“a supernatural gift”
Oh.  Something else with no evidence.
“Pray for him”
Prayer does not work.  For me or anything else.
“he would come around and focus on one or two things that he takes issue with”
So you chose Hitler and evil and love?  Hilarious.  I “take issue” with everything religious.  I don’t think you can name anything religious that I do not “take issue” with.  The Golden Rule is not religious.  Everything else is fair game?
“he would learn the art of blogging.”
Hilarious.  You make foolish statements and I point out how foolish they are.  Blogging is a very different world.  Blogging should be about something real, not about religious nonsense.
“this type requires much prayer and fasting”
Hilarious.  Give me atheism or give me (assisted) death.
“You better NOT give in to your temptation to respond to him”
Hilarious.

From Choice In Dying today:
“Whatever its other responsibilities may be, Christian theology cannot evade the task of biblical interpretation. It is in the biblical texts that the irreplaceable primary testimony to the God acknowledged in Christian faith is to be found. According to Christian faith, this God cannot be directly deduced from general features of the world and our human experience of it, and the effect of this is to emphasize our dependence on a highly particular stream of religious and cultural tradition.”
Quite irrational.  And who gets to “interpret”?  The Pope?  Oops.  Let’s protest and create the Protestant sect.  Oops.  Let’s create more sects.  Oops.  We have hundreds of sects.  And some Amish are now cutting the hair off other Amish.  Madness.

“Even atheists have to interpret atheist writings”
Hilarious.  There is only one “atheist writing” - reality is material and anything non-material does not exist.  There do not seem to be any schisms about that.
“There is no getting around interpretation.”
Interpret 2 + 2 = 4 for me.  Interpret E = m c squared for me.  Interpret quantum mechanics for me.  Oops.  Well, apostasy is not punishable by death, only the “scientific shunning”.  Hilarious.
“Even atheists have to interpret atheist writings and not all do so the same way.”
What a crazy irrational comment!  Can you be a little more specific?  Some atheists disagree about exactly which gods they do not believe in?  Hilarious.

“We are supposed be asking, “Which is rooted in the Faith once entrusted to the apostles?””
And you wonder why there have been so many schisms?
“And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity,”
Wait.  There’s an exception!  It’s “unchastity”!  Hire that PI to catch him in the act!
“Jesus says that a validly married couple *cannot* divorce”
Oh.  That little word “validly” has kind of “crept into the doctrine” instead of the word “unchastity”.  I don’t think you’re doing it right.  And Henry VIII didn’t either.
“So it becomes imperative to ascertain whether somebody is validly married or not”
So, now that you have changed the plain meaning of the original text, you get to ask “what authority is allowed to determine if a marriage was entered into validly”?  The Pope of course.  Hilarious.

“These include the problem of evil”
Yes.  The problem of evil might be a problem for an omniscient benevolent god.  But that still leaves a lot of non-omniscient or non-benevolent gods to not believe in.  Hilarious.
“the argument from inconsistent revelations”
What!  Not all of the numerous books written by gods are consistent?  I don’t believe it!  Wait.  I do believe it.  So what?  Atheism rejects all gods whether or not their particular revelations are or are not consistent with any other god’s revelations.  Hilarious.
“Other arguments for atheism”
Hilarious.  Do atheists argue about “arguments for atheism”?  That would be silly.  Maybe these “arguments for atheism” are really “arguments against believing in any god”.  Well, who cares?  Why should atheists really argue about arguments against belief.  It’s all good.
“If reality is “material” then that means the laws nature don’t exist since they are not material in nature.”
Excellent sophistry!  I suppose the “laws of nature” apply to material things.  Should they apply to non-material things?  That would be silly.  Maybe “non sequitur” applies to your silliness.
“Your feelings about love and injustice don’t exist either nor do numbers.”
I am not allowed such things?  Oh dear!  What is the penalty for being caught in possession of such things?  The Spanish Inquisition?  How stupid are you?
“Do all scientists interpret the results of their work identically?”
Some scientists have now measured the speed of neutrinos as being slightly faster than the speed of light!  They are anathema!  They are to be shunned!  Tar and feathered!  Run out of town on a rail!  Scientific schism!  Oops.  Wait a minute.  The authors have called for other scientists to analyze their work critically.  It’s a very difficult measurement.  If they’re right, science as we know if it over!  You can get on a neutrino and travel 454 miles and arrive 60 nanoseconds before you are supposed to!  Oh noes!  Hilarious.
“Cold fusion!”  Science by press release!  Oops.  They are shunned.
“That’s why there are a number of different theories and views about all kinds of things.”
Completely irrelevant of course.  Nobody claims science is perfect like your god.  No schisms over science.
“Some atheists such as Sam Harris believes that objective morals can be known while others do not.”
Completely irrelevant to atheism.  Relevant to how societies decide questions of good an evil.  No atheist schisms over this either.  Just differences of opinion.  And it’s not a “pure science” question anyway.  It’s a “social science” question.

“My post was to show that your view and those that hold to it are just as inconsistent.”
Your opinion is noted and disregarded as incorrect.
“Atheism is a bankrupt belief-non belief system that offers nothing.”
Nothing except “freedom from silly religions” and a proper understanding of the natural world.  That’s enough.
“It doesn’t bring any new insights or knowledge to mankind”
Hilarious.  Religion brings “false knowledge” to mankind.  That’s worse than useless - that’s actually bad, not good.
“nor does it offer any hope to those who embrace it.”
Ok then.  Believe in your religion if you need it to cling to “hope”.  But don’t make any claims about knowledge, salvation, or eternal life.

You don’t even have freedom in atheism. If atheism were true then you would have no freewill since all that exist is atoms in motion. Everything you do is caused by something else i.e. cause and effect. Your thinking is just the result of the chemicals in your brain.

“Thinking is just the result of the chemicals in the brain.”
Well, at least we agree on something.
“If atheism were true then you would have no freewill since all that exist is atoms in motion.”
How would we know if we have free will or not?  What scientific experiment could be performed to determine the answer?

Hilarious.

I don’t know what kind of scientific test we could devise to determine freewill. If there is no freewill then no one is responsible for their thinking and actions since we are just like any other material object in the universe that is governed by cause and effect. Agreed?

“If there is no freewill then no one is responsible for their thinking and actions”
Of course there is a little problem with this.  Our concept of “justice” requires that we try to restrain someone that we think will be likely to commit a crime in the future.  So we can’t really operate under the theory that there is no free will even if it is true.  Or maybe it would be better to say that even if “retribution” should not be used to justify incarceration of someone, the probability that they might commit a crime in the future might justify their incarceration.  This is not a simple problem.
“it certainly appears we have freewill”
Actually there are now some scientific experiments that might tend to indicate that we do not have free will.
“our thinking is not the result of just chemicals in the brain.”
Oh really?  Our thinking also depends on what else?  Remove those chemicals and we stop thinking for sure.
“Our experience shows we have freewill.”
Hilarious.  Your experience shows you that there is some supernatural god out there.  Your experience is not a sufficient guide on either question.

mk:

(Please do not respond to this…)

Trust me…I know how hard it must be for you NOT to comment to all these asinine and outlandish comments made on this thread over the last few days.

Congratulations mk… you are doing so very well!!!  You are VERY strong!!!

Hopefully, now you can see why I said Proto1 was a student of Mike.  They work together… although in very different ways.
Please pay NO attention to all these recent back-and-forth comments between these (2) non-Catholics on this Catholic blog.  Funny… isn’t it?  Seems these two really NEED to post to a Catholic blog?

Hmmm-m…?

They are, of course, still trying to *goat* Catholics into more stupid discussions by their *staged* Q&A’s.   

Don’t do it!  No…no…no!  LOL

Let’s continue to let them slowly stop… or… slowly self-destruct on this thread totally UNCONTESTED!  It will be quite amusing.  *Quite* amusing indeed!  <wink>

ED-  I gotta agree with Proto1 on this one.  “Get lost!” and “Don’t respond!” hardly contribute.

“still trying to *goat* Catholics”
I would have thought the correct word was “goad”.  But if “goat” works for you, ...
“*Quite* amusing indeed!”
Nah.  The “free will” question is not amusing.  The Wikipedia entry is quite extensive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
Here’s an interesting paragraph quoting a book by the atheist Dennett:
“Free will as unpredictability
In Elbow Room, Dennett presents an argument for a compatibilist theory of free will, which he further elaborated in the book Freedom Evolves.[32] The basic reasoning is that, if one excludes God, an infinitely powerful demon, and other such possibilities, then because of chaos and epistemic limits on the precision of our knowledge of the current state of the world, the future is ill-defined for all finite beings. The only well-defined things are “expectations”. The ability to do “otherwise” only makes sense when dealing with these expectations, and not with some unknown and unknowable future.”
There is a separate entry just for theology:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_in_theology
“In Christian theology, God is described as omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent; a notion which some people, Christians and non-Christians alike, believe implies that not only has God always known what choices individuals will make tomorrow, but has actually determined those choices. That is, they believe, by virtue of his foreknowledge he knows what will influence individual choices, and by virtue of his omnipotence he controls those factors. This becomes especially important for the doctrines relating to salvation and predestination.”
Hilarious.
Under Wikipedia Justice:
“Some apologists argue that Hell exists because of free will, and that hell is a choice rather than an imposed punishment.”
Riiiight.
“If we have no freewill then the idea of justice is a sham.”
Well, I don’t know about you, but I feel kind of “stuck” in my current reality and I an not going to go occupy Wall Street and claim that the current justice system needs to be reformed because of the unresolved problem of free will.
“Here you have an opportunity to engage an atheist and a protestant and you sit on the sidelines.”
When you could be advising us to read 10 or 20 books to get some idea of the range of Catholic thoughts on free will and justice and heaven and hell.  Hilarious.
“I know how hard it must be for you NOT to comment”
I think she told the truth when she promised to remove her bookmark to this silly page.
“why I said Proto1 was a student of Mike”
Well, he has learned nothing.  As a student, he has failed.  Or else your opinion is idiotic.  Did you note that he continues to spout the same thing over and over and he does not actually respond to anything I said?  These are not “back and forth” comments at all.
“Seems these two really NEED to post to a Catholic blog?”
Nah.  And you needed to provide a non-response to someone who is not even here because ...?  You are not even amusing in addition to being irrelevant.  Except for your “goat” comment.  That was amusing.
“I gotta agree with Proto1 on this one.”
What?  The other idiot is also still reading this nonsense.  Why?  Are you amused?

In addition to the living and true God of the Bible being the object of faith and obedience, a primary aspect of the Biblical gospel is that neither the sacrifices or good works of man (or church, etc.) can enable him to escape from his future just and eternal punishment in hell-fire, (Mk. 9:43-48; 25:41,46; Rv. 14:11; 20:10) or merit him eternal life with an infinitely holy and just God.(Rm. 4; Titus 3:5; 2Tim. 1:19) But that instead man must humble himself before God as a sinner, unable to justify himself, and then cast all his faith on the Son of God, Jesus Christ, whom God sent to be the perfect sacrifice for sin, and Savior of the world. (1Jn. 4:10,14) By so (truly) doing, one is choosing the Lord Jesus over sin, light over darkness. (Jn. 3:19-21) This faith decision is shown by being baptized in identification with the Lord Jesus.[1] (Mt. 28:19; Acts 2:41; 8:36,37; 10:47,48)

con o - I always wonder about that: nothing we can do merits eternal life.  However, how do you account for the following, so marvellously explained by you:

“But that instead man must humble himself before God as a sinner, unable to justify himself, and then cast all his faith on the Son of God, Jesus Christ, whom God sent to be the perfect sacrifice for sin, and Savior of the world. (1Jn. 4:10,14) By so (truly) doing, one is choosing the Lord Jesus over sin, light over darkness.”

But doesn’t this choice or decision to follow Jesus constitute a meritorious act?

Mike, once again the devil is in the details.  That natural thought processes are the result of chemical interactions within the brain everybody would agree on.  However, what specific chemicals are we talking about?  Some chemicals lead to clear rational thinking, while others distort and derange the brain.  Imagine religious practices as a method for refining and purifying brain chemisty; while atheism produces delusions, paranoia and blindness.  It depends on which fountain you drink from - the water of life, or the latte of Starbucks.

Matt B:

After all the asinine ups and downs of this ridiculous thread… why in heavens name have you decided to enter and *extend* this dying and fruitless dialogue?

Are you naive or just bored?

Proto - does that entail a negation of free will?  Is there some sort of paradox or mystery here?

OMG… is it possible?

Oh… please tell me no… oh please tell me no.

Could Matt B. be part of the same tag-team as ???  and ??? and ???... etc…etc.

Oh no…. please tell me no…. it’s absolutely unbelievable.  It can’t be true…

Could it actually be possible???

Oh no… it’s absolutely NOT possible!

NO WAY!!!

ED- Paranoid, much?

Craig = ???

I have been banned.

Proto - Thanks for your answers.  I have a more general question which I’ve been wrestling with for some time and maybe you can help me: what sort of writing are the epistles of St. Paul?  I know there are many ways to look at this question, but strictly in the context of biblical writings, how does St. Paul fit it?

In the OT, for example, there is the law, the prophets, historical and wisdom writing.  In the NT, we have gospels, a history (Acts) and apocalyptic literature, besides the various styles of epistle.

What shelf does St. Paul fit in in the biblical library?  I appreciate your help with this.

If I’ve learned anything from this blog, I’ve learned that this person “mk” is likely the most arrogant and condescending Catholic on the planet.

You’re judging, Lector at Mass.  I hope you’re not missing the warning label: “objects seen in the mirror may be closer than they appear.”

@Matt B.  We are not to “judge” another’s salvation, but Jesus did say “Ye shall know them by their fruit.”  Case closed.

Good answer, Mr. Shea. Here’s another: one can be effectively born again simply by desiring baptism. That desire naturally will lead to actually being baptised, but it is false to claim that one has to wait for baptism in order to receive faith and the sure hope of salvation. Also, our end goal - the end goal of all creation - is not to “get people saved,” but to give glory to God by becoming like Him, reflecting his glory through his grace - the salvation (and damnation, if I understand correctly) of people is important but instrumental to this larger purpose.