Psy’s answer merely proves my point. I am eternally grateful for these examples that, in their attempt to issue a shorthanded pretense of wit that is actually a display of abject idiocy, help me highlight precisely what I’m talking about. Note also that I gave appraisal to atheists who do not think this way, so this is merely about those who are stripped of the capacity to competently think.
If Psy, or any one like Psy, actually reads the Catechism, which is ubiquitously inundated with pretty much nothing but reason and love utterly opposed to anything of the nature of bigotry, it would become obvious that there is nothing bigoted whatsoever about Catholicism. I understand actually taking the trouble to learn the Catholic Faith before acting like you know it is quite a task. After all, it’s 2,000 years and we are what… 20, 30, 40, 50, 80-100 years old at most? But, let’s not confuse bigots with the facts.
Zeke, I appreciate your intentions and input regarding discussion. I receive these well as intended. However, there is nothing wrong with taking even a slightly polemical approach to these kinds of discussion. The cultural demand to be “civil” in this way is actually just an extension of the politically correct agenda. It is often (though I’m not stating this is the case with you right now) simply an obfuscation tactic designed to filter down the vigor of the opposition, and perhaps disarm it if possible of those deliberate statements that often need to be said. True civility means not disrespecting the personhood of someone, i.e. not disparaging their name or debasing their dignity as persons.
Ideas in and of themselves, however, are not persons. Ideas that are defunct need to be vigorously opposed. Sometimes a polemical approach is appropriate for this. I am merely following the example of Jesus and the Saints, who on several occasions used a polemical approach. Just look at Jesus’ scolding of the Pharisees (Matthew 23), or St. James calling certain individuals fools (James 2:20). And these examples go on in both the Bible and throughout history. In both cases they were actually verbally harsher than I have been here, and with right reason.
Where arrogance and pretension exist like a tower, discussion must assess like an uncompromising wrecking ball.
There is nothing ridiculous about Matthew’s statement. The point is, given the intricately complex order and cohesion with which our reality is forged, it actually does take a greater leap of faith to say this happened for no reason at all without any tinge of deliberation whatsoever from chance event after chance event after chance event (all of which just happened to develop for no reason at all into copious amounts of species and organisms, weather patterns, profound planet orbits and a moon carefully prospecting the direction of tides, precise pressure designations making it conveniently possible for life to exist and for lungs to breathe, etc for absolutely no reason with no initial intelligent impetus by an intelligent designer whatsoever) than it does to say that it is likely this was deliberately designed, and thus, God more likely exists than doesn’t.
Notice how I don’t state this either proves God or refutes atheism, but rather, that it more strongly suggests a worldview of some sort of intelligent design that demands reasonable and honest analysis. Not disparagement and ridicule when actually those doing the disparaging are the ones who are not quite so sharp themselves. Again, they’ve just hopped on atheism’s false hegemony on reason and are hiding behind what has already been conveniently established for them for decades and possibly more by now at the behest of much of popular academia (and media); that is, that atheism is somehow automatically reasonable and religion automatically unreasonable. This is far from the case. It is actually intellectual cowardice and they only have a voice because the “intellectual” elite have conveniently paved a paradigm for them to do so. It’s much easier to be an atheist these days than it is to be a theist. No rules to order yourself toward and a comfortable artificially established paradigm so that you don’t have to spend a lifetime refuting the nonsense of what is accepted by much of the intellectual mainstream everywhere you go. I know, I once was an atheist. But again, let’s not confuse bigots with the facts.
Notice also how nowhere did I say atheists were stupid, rather, that to say Matthew’s statement is ridiculous (merely a reflection of a host of these false intellectual hegemonies superficially placed against otherwise thought provoking ideas by vitriolic atheists that actually do have merit if one bothers to think deeply enough about it, which they don’t because they don’t actually care about truth) is far off track.
By the way, it is NOT the Christian position that homosexuals deserve death. The sin of using a condom, likewise, is tied into a profound sexual economy of self-giving and total relinquishing of self to the spouse including an openness to life which is impossible in a sexual act which is by its nature deliberately closed to life and utterly hedonistic in its end. This is also one reason why masturbation is wrong. This is also connected to the dignity of marriage between a man and a woman (since all homosexual acts are deliberately closed to life and contrary to natural law, and all heterosexual “contraceptive” acts are likewise hostile to life).
Now that we are on that note, to slightly divert into a phenomenon similarly connected, Catholic sexual teaching has nothing to do with arbitrary bigotry and whimsically singling out groups of people. All of it is interconnected in a very profound way for those who actually bother to learn more about it. More on that in… the Catechism (which no one appears to read). The idea, for example, that we are merely bigoted against homosexual people because we teach against homosexual actions, which often gets touted (though it was not touted by Zeke), is also utterly stupid. Following that logic we also hate alcoholics, drug addicts, thieves, and criminals because we teach against the sin of all these groups of people. How that figures with the fact that a deluge of Catholic religious orders, priests, nuns, and laymen dedicate their lives to serving precisely these people is beyond me.
This [misinterpreting and misunderstanding Christianity] is exactly the kind of stuff I’m talking about. We also need to read the entire Bible, not just one part. Remember that Christian means followers of Christ not followers of the Mosaic law. We are not Mosaitians. You cannot interpret the Bible correctly without arriving at Jesus and the subsequent New Covenant established by Him (where death penalty for sin is NOWHERE espoused anywhere in the New Testament, and under which we currently live). Christ, who was God, was Himself a victim of the Mosaic death penalty. The Mosaic law was a mere archetype, comprised of many judicial laws (which demand specific legislation for nothing more than a specific time and circumstance only) reflecting what is the eternal moral law for all time that cannot change (i.e. Ten Commandments), of the greater Covenant to come.