Should We Care That Pope Francis Said That Atheists, Too, Can Be Redeemed?

You have no concept of how modern science understands the creation and evolution of the Universe. That said, your entire argument falls because if you are unwilling to accept a natural universe because it seems too complex, it is logically impossible to accept an even more complex god that was somehow there to create it.

I don’t know what “authentic” Christianity is, but the reality is, a good many people who consider themselves Christian take a good chunk of their moral beliefs from the Old Testament (as the words of Jesus require). The morality of the Old Testament is very poor by modern standards, of course, but nowhere near as poor as those of the New Testament.

It was perhaps getting frustrating because someone is calling you out on your deceptive misrepresentations. Or is honesty an optional/negotiable value for atheists?

I repeat: I don’t expect you to agree with me and I have no problem with criticism. It does seem to me, however, that fairly representing the positions of your opponent is a reasonable request in any honest debate.

You seem to be quite blind to your own ad hominem insults and very arrogant tone. I am quite willing to admit that my replies have not all been the most well thought out, but I am doing my best. I would like to see you simultaneously debate something like 10 people at the same time. On the other hand, I am not aware of switching my own positions.

Very true: there are good atheists, and there are very bad Christians. As the saying goes, Christians are not perfect, they’re forgiven. You will find “false power that is routinely abused” wherever you will find human beings. It seems to me pretty hypocritical to just bash the Church in this respect. For every case of “abuse of power” you will find hundreds of humble priests, ministers and lay people who honestly strive to serve each other as Jesus commanded.

No organization has fed the hungry more than the Catholic Church. What do you do to feed the hungry?

Sweden used to be a Christian country. It’s prosperity has been on borrowed capital, and it is quickly going downhill now.

I don’t understand how you would expect Catholics and priests to be immune from the culture of promiscuity, pornography and self-indulgence that surrounds us? After all, they remain human, prone to temptations and to sin. Why would this call into question the divinity of the Church? Would your suggestion not require Catholics to be somehow magically turned into robots, unable to sin and thus deprived of free will? As awful as the scandals are in the Church (and let’s not forget, we are talking about 2-4% of priests), the are the consequence of the freedom that God gave us, the freedom we have to choose good and evil every day.

Yes, you are correct, Mary is the supreme example of someone who received the “fullness of grace” while retaining her free will. We can wish together and say that it would have been nice for God to bestow the same exceptional gift on everyone, but I suppose he was under no obligation to do so.

In reality, I think, humans have an inclination to abuse power. Think Obama, Jimmy Saville, your local school board, the nursing home down the road.

Yes I know, but I am speaking here for Catholicism. I was an evangelical in the past, so I understand well their position as well. Evangelicals rely only on the Bible as source of truth, and therefore you will find among them innumerable positions (some mutually conflicting). As Catholics we actually have a sure norm to distinguish established and official teachings on faith and morals, from varying customs and opinions. This is the Catechism of the Catholic Church. http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Such a question would require at the very least an essay or book, but in a nutshell:

All religions represent man’s attempt to find God.

Christianity tells the story of God who came to man.

Religions are chiefly about embracing a certain philosophy or code of conduct to please the divinity and find some form of “redemption” from the sufferings of this world.

While not excluding the above, Christianity is chiefly about entering into a living relationship with the One who loves us more than anything. It is a relationship more than it is a religion.

For an excellent answer to your question, I recommend CS Lewis’ “Mere Christianity”.

You cannot call someone out unless you provide proof that your conflicting view is true. And no, deeply feeling that your beliefs are true does not count.

And really, your honesty claim is laughable. Get back to me when Christians actually care about honesty, and then we can address your belief “This doesn’t match what I believe, so it must be false” issue.

Pretty much agree with you there. I’ve been reading and commenting on atheist blogs for a year or two, and as much as I enjoy it, and as much as it has made me a better Catholic – really, if this is the alternative to Catholicism; this stunted, angry, unimaginative, cloth-eared, broken-record, irrational worldview, I’m more convinced than ever that the Catholic religion makes the most sense of the world in which we live – I’m starting to feel that I’m banging my head against a wall. I’m going to try and meet real life atheists (of a Kiwi variety – we have less of “those heathen kind of folks” here in NZ, perhaps, than the States) and get to know them, work alongside them in some project for the good of society, sit down for a beer with them and talk these things over IRL.

I think that’s the sanest way forward here.

And my wife will stop telling me to “Leave those atheists alone, love, and give the baby a bath”.

“So much for atheist open-mindedness.”

Ah, now who is making unfair generalizations? ;D

jk. I do understand your frustration, but hope you don’t actually stereotype all atheists that way.

You don’t have to believe me, but I am sincerely interested in the truth and would like to know more about what makes Catholicism the most sensible worldview to you.

“this stunted, angry, unimaginative, cloth-eared, broken-record, irrational worldview”

What exactly are you referring to here? It sounds like you may have been looking in the wrong places.

Thank you for the reading suggestions, I will most certainly look into them. If you don’t mind, could I “bother” you for a general outline of your case? XD I’m sorry you feel I’m being disengenuous – I certainly don’t mean to be. True, I have heard of Christian frustrations before at having their specific doctrine misconstrued, but what I was asking was whether you were referring specific atheistic views or atheism in its entirety. Thank you answering that question with your last paragraph. I haven’t heard all of what you said before, your use of imagination and adventure is certainly a new argument to me.

I sincerely am primarily concerned with the truth and what we can know. That is why I have attempted this discussion with you – if Christianity truly is correct and true, then naturally that’s where I would want to be. It just so happens that with my current information, my specific form of atheism is most intellectually honest position to me. As a person with so much stated experience on the atheist/theist discussion, I thought I’d ask you for your case as so far the theists I have talked to have been unable to substantiate their religion beyond mere assertions and sentimental appeal. I do try to engage Christians elsewhere – I just happened to find you here.

“If blogs like this are “the wrong places” to look to see how atheism plays out in the 21st century, then why the hell do you people support them?”

One could also ask why you here since you are so tired of all the trash, but I am not particularly concerned with that. I have never stated nor implied that I necessarily support this blog. Just because there are atheists speaking on this blog does not automatically mean we support whatever is being promoted or whatever you believe is being promoted. I just happened upon this site through a link during some internet surfing :P. I don’t know about the rest of the articles on this blog, but this particular one doesn’t seem to particularly fit your objections. Personal opinion, it looks more like a reach across the isle from atheists to give Christians props for being placing an emphasis on lifestyle as the indicator of morality rather than purely one’s beliefs about the supernatural.

“Ah, I can’t be bothered.”

Yet here you are :). And thank you very much for discussing with me.

“Life requires imagination.”

I assume by “life” you mean sentient life.

“The idea of “do good and avoid evil” requires imagination and a view of something beyond ourselves. Why be good unless it leads to an outcome that we can visualise/imagine but can never know for sure before we do the good?”

I think this an essentially correct statement, but aren’t there also times when we do indeed know the primary outcome of doing good and avoiding evil and we act accordingly?

“Atheists have this idea as much as Christians – thinking Christians just run with it further. Saints run with it completely. What if…? ask the Christian and the atheist: the Christian is prepared to keep asking.””

Yet here I am, an atheist, continuing to ask as I have been for years. Here I am, asking you right now ;). There is a big difference between continuing to “keep asking” and actually “running with” something. That is the difference I think between many Christians and atheists – they both keeping asking questions but Christians see enough justification to run with certain answers while atheists naturally do not see enough justification to run with those answers but instead continue to search formulating their current positions based on knowledge available.

It really does depend on the Christian and the atheist. In religion, there is often a presumption of truth and perfection due to its claimed divine nature – thus many Christians may not be encouraged to “keep asking” as they are convinced the full truth is already before them. Some atheists also suffer the same problem of exaggerating science’s actual capabilities and rejecting theism absolutely. For myself, it is precisely because I don’t know everything that I am driven to keep searching. However, one cannot really know how valid or strong his/her worldview/case/position is nor improve or adapt it unless it is subjected and analysed by others – hence my questions to you. I keep asking the questions; I am just weary of many Christians who say they already have the answers. Naturally, we all must at least take an actual position when interacting in our world, but there is a big difference between having a firm position with an adaptable mindset and having a firm position one has convinced himself is complete and unequivocal.

Imagination, creativity, and adventure are all good and well – necessary for progress in fact – but there do need to guidelines and boundaries lest anyone justify anything he/she wishes based on whim. There needs to be an accurate measuring stick so to speak.

“‘Life requires imagination.’

I assume by ‘life’ you mean sentient life.”

The living of life I mean.

Well, apart from your having to make up something to try to criticize this group of people over, Christian sites are notorious for heavy moderation or even disabling comments entirely. (Psst! It’s because they can’t hold up under scrutiny.)

He wasn’t expecting deference to Catholicism – merely that you get you facts straight before pontificating. I think he’s helping you out, so you don’t come across as a blowhard merrily farting in the wind.

Have you even read the Catechism of the Catholic Church? There actually *is* such a thing as normative Catholicism that does not depend on the opinions of individual Catholics.

Your continued cliches, sweeping generalizations and double standards, fixations on anything bad coming out of the Church while seemingly completely ignoring all the good that has and continues to come out of it are further evidence of your bad will. Good luck. Just remember that God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.

You are in for a big surprise. I pray you will discover this in time.

Also just because you’re “praying for me” doesn’t mean you didn’t just threaten me. There’s the superiority masked as humility. I HAVE KNOWLEDGE THAT YOU DON’T BUT I WILL TALK TO MY GUY AND SEE IF HE CAN DO SOMETHING FOR YOU. JUST GIVE ME A MINUTE.

Seriously? I’m sorry that you only see “the Church” as an abstract thing that is inherently good. In reality it is a really shitty charity organization with problems everywhere you look and while it “gives” it also makes demands on people based on Bronze aged thinking. If you define “the Church” as “the good things done by Christianity and a the only true source of being good and morality” then of course you’re going to think that atheists are wrong. We deal in reality not in the ideal. Good grief indeed.

But the biggest problems all come from upper management. The same religious hierarchy that decided what catholicism is in the first place are the ones who keep making the catholic church a force for evil.

If the CEO of McDonald’s ordered his employees to sell poisoned food to the public your analogy might fit.

The priest “nicking money” is one of many priests engaging in similar or worse actions throughout the Church hierarchy. Aren’t all priests “ordained” and specially chosen by God? One would think God would be more discerning and active about who is allowed to act in his name. Certainly, most Catholics are not evil-intentioned people, the point being that the “divinity” being claimed ought to be questioned when supposedly “holy” or “special” individuals (chosen by God) turn out to be “secularists” using religion to satisfy their material needs/perversions.

As you are the Catholic and I clearly have misunderstood
priesthood and ordination, please do inform me – I don’t want to be misconstruing anyone’s doctrine. I wouldn’t call it “stunted thinking” lol, probably misinformation by high school theology teachers.

“On what do you base your claim that God magically guarantees that no priest is going to sin? Catholics don’t claim that – why do you?”

I think you have misunderstood my point. I never made the claim that God magically guaranteed that no priest would ever sin, nor did I make the claim that Catholics held those beliefs. Hence, the question form of the pertinent statements you referred to. So no I do not see it as the magical conferring of virtue. I suppose the question I’m asking is, why isn’t it? If God can grace someone like Mary so much that she is perfect yet retains free will, then why not confer similar grace to priests or even the entirety of the church? Would that not be in God’s, as well as humanity’s, best interests?

“That a priest is a drunk, or a thief, or a liar, doesn’t surprise me at all – I know the crappy things I’m capable of, why would I be surprised at the crappy things other people do?”

You forgot to add in child molester. Yes, while every human being is certainly capable of vice, the thing that truly differentiates us is whether or not we act upon those capabilities and to what degree. There is a great deal of difference between most people who usually make mistakes out of good intentions, and those that deliberately act on bad intentions. Are you not surprised that some priests molest children and that the hierarchy played a role in covering the misdeeds up?

Ah, but Catholic tradition also espouses supremacy of conscience – even by the former Pope himself. Thus, technically is possible for a Catholic to be a “true” Catholic yet disagree on some of the Church’s teachings. The Vatican naturally stands on certain positions with a presumption of truth in order to provide at least official position, but it is quite possible for there to be differences between “true” Catholics. Furthermore, there are always numerous interpretations and prioritizations with documents – the same holds true with the Catechism. Not saying that there is no clear position, just that you may want to allow for variations.

Fair enough. One point here though.

“I realize this will seem like subjective and circular reasoning to you, but this is more or less how it worked for me:”

There is no question about what “it seems like to me”, personal experience is subjective and faith is circular by definition. That isn’t to diminish the sincerity or impact of your experiences on you, but rather to point out its limited effectiveness to others. This doesn’t mean that personal experience is bad or ought to always be disregarded. In fact, subjective experience can be quite useful in making determinations in one’s life, one just has to remember that one’s own experiences are by no means indicative of everyone else’s experiences – a considering factor in the background.

My two sentences on creation were not an “argument”, just a thought that the emergence of a complex universe out of nothing is utterly irrational – certainly not more logical or intelligent than to posit an uncaused first Cause. Moreover, God is not complex at all – He is utterly simple. There is no logical fallacy in positing an eternal, simple, spiritual being. But it does seem to me inherently illogical to suggest that a world in constant flux which we know that had a beginning (whether we call it the “Big Bang” or anything else) just came into being as the result of a random explosion caused by nothing. (Of course I’m oversimplifying, but that is essentially the atheistic position, isn’t it?)

The moral standards of the New Testament are poor?

Sure, forgive and love one another, don’t lie, steal, or murder, honor your parents, honor and protect life, sanctify sexuality between husband and wife, sure sounds like barbarism and a recipe for social anarchy to me.

Much better to go with our modernist values: sleep around with whoever you want without any commitment, kill children in the womb if they come at an inconvenient time, etc…

OK, so more misrepresentations. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, but it is seriously getting hard to presume honesty on your part.

- men and women sat separately in synagogues (it’s still the case in orthodox synagogues today). Raising their voices with questions or comments would have disturbed the assembly (as is the case in any church assembly today). The passage you are referring to asking women to be silent is entirely time/culturally conditioned. The status of women in ancient societies was very low, and Christianity actually really raised this status. Just look at the important role of women in the gospels. As for your comment about women being “sluts” I don’t know where the heck you get that from.

-Paul about the Jews: “I am speaking the truth in Christ– I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit– that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen. (Rom 9:1-5)

-”Leave your father and mother” – a very common hyperbole, very typical of biblical literature, not to be taken literally (which no one does – except atheists obsessed with trying to knock down Christianity). The idea is that Christ should be first in our lives, yes, even above other earthly attachments which are good in of themselves.

-Final judgment: yes, this will indeed happen – the wicked will be judged at the end of times. However, we might be surprised as to who turns out to be on the side of truth and who is on the side of falsehood and wickedness.

“Mary had a baby after being raped by God.” -> distortion number xyz on your part. How am I supposed to take you seriously when you seem utterly unable to state a single Christian doctrine without grossly misrepresenting it?

Generally, you seem to read and understand the Bible like a fundamentalist. Catholics don’t read it like that. Yes, the Bible is the word of God, but it was also written by men, and so certainly it has some passages that are culturally conditioned and not to be taken as binding commandments for all time.

The idea that the NT is antisemitic has been refuted often enough. Since John and Paul and all the other writers (except Luke) were Jews, they could hardly be “antisemitic”. Certainly one feels a polemical tone in the Gospel of John, but since John was a Jew it’s generally recognized that the term “the Jews” in John refers to the Judeans who opposed Jesus.

So who reads the “family breakup” passages as literal truth. Can you give me some examples? It seems to me that even the most fundamentalist literalists don’t read them that way.

I don’t know why the final judgment is such a hard one to swallow. We all see that there is evil in the world, and we all long for this evil to disappear one day, and for righteousness and justice to reign on earth, don’t we?

Mary’s response to the angel Gabriel “behold the handmaiden of the Lord, be it done to me according to thy will” is commonly and universally understood as a declaration of consent. You are projecting the anti-God and anti-life mentality of our secularist age back unto the most pro-life woman who ever lived, and the most open to God’s salvific will.

“How do you decide which passages are culturally mediated and which are not?” This is the role of the Church’s magisterium (ecumenical councils, and the pope in communion with the bishops). There is a growth in the understanding of revelation over time. Some issues can remain fuzzy for a time, but once doctrines are officially defined, they never change. Also, sometimes it takes a while for a Church teaching to be applied in the lives of all believers (in fact, this is never fully accomplished – there is obviously a difference between the ideal and its application).

John, a Samaritan? I have never head this idea before. Where did you get it from?

Again, your question on which Bible passages are to be taken literally and which are to be taken figuratively reflects a fundamentalist understanding of the Scriptures. I recommend you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. This is our primary source for knowing the Church’s systematic teachings on faith and morals, not the Bible actually.

Your last question is a good and difficult one. I’m not sure how well I can answer it . Basically, there are the two aspects of God’s mercy and God’s judgment. He will judge sin, but this judgment is very often self-inflicted by humans (e.g. wars). Yes, God allows them to happen, but at the same time it’s not quite fair to blame him for the destruction that humans are able to inflict upon each other. Yes, technically the final judgment could happen right now. Bottom line, I don’t know the answer to these questions, but I do know that every day is an opportunity to do good, and that God can turn the worst of evils of this world into good.

1) again, you are projecting your anti-life and anti-God views back onto Mary in a perverse way. God did not have sex with her. Your analogy is ridiculous. Can you not imagine that a young, devout woman might actually be *glad* and *honored* to be God’s instrument to bring salvation into the world?

2) you show total confusion as to the development of doctrines. Infallible, unchangeable doctrines regard only faith and morals, not scientific matters (the Earth’s place in the universe), disciplines (celibacy) or customs. There has not been any change as far as whether Jews or any non-Christians can be saved – the Church has always affirmed this, though it has become more strongly emphasized since Vatican II.

3) a lot of scholarship (Jewish, Christian, secular) does not accept these conclusions. As I said, the term Jews (ioudaioi) in the Gospel of John likely refers to Judeans. All the first Christians were Jews. Why in the world would they be anti-Semitic?

4) Yes, the whole Bible is the word of God, but this does not mean that every verse is to be interpreted in a literalist way. Morality does not change over time, though yes there was definitely a shift going from the Old Law to the law of the New Testament. It is kind of like if you have a 5 year old child you will have certain house rules, but when the child is 15 some of these rules will have become irrelevant while some new ones will become necessary.

5) as difficult, incomprehensible and heart wrenching as the sufferings in this life can be (not positively willed by God, but somehow permitted by Him because we live in a fallen world), they will all be but a pale shadow in light of eternity. God will turn all evil and suffering into good. This is what He did with the injustice and unspeakable suffering of Jesus on the cross. He turned the greatest of injustices into His instrument of salvation and life.

2) The Church teaches that the death penalty is an option – a last resort – still. The thinking is, though, that there will be very little call for it in today’s world with the technology we have. See here, 2267: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

Celibacy isn’t “doctrinally required” – you’re aware that some Catholic priests are married? The much-loved and always-atheist-friendly Fr Longenecker, on Patheos, for example? Celibacy is a changeable discipline, not an unchangeable doctrine.

5) See my points above. If a person wants to go to Hell – ie their choices in life reflect a desire to put themself first in everything, who is God to stand in their way? Isn’t it just, and fair, to give a person what they want?

An idea of hell as a state of “nothingness” or of “separation from God” might help to get that idea more than an idea of hell as a place of eternal flames and sulphur and red demons with pitchforks.

Your writing is lucid and thoughtful to a point but can you see that you’re not starting from solid ground? Backtrack a bit – be sure that what you’re criticising in the Church is actually in the Church.

1) once again, it’s widely accepted belief that Mary’s “be it done to me according to thy will” was a humble, joyful expression of her consent to God that she may bring the Savior into the world. I’m just reading a book about that. What an unbelievable privilege not only to give birth to the Messiah, but also to raise him and spend 30 with him during his “hidden years.” Why do you keep seeing this in a negative light?

2) again, celibacy is not a doctrine, it’s a discipline. The Church tends to oppose the death penalty, but there remains some leeway and room for prudential judgment (it’s not an absolute like abortion – how could the killing by the state of a few criminals each year be equated with the killing of about 1.5 innocents in the womb in the same period of time?). I have already answered your question: unchangeable doctrine regards faith and morals; but disciplines, customs and traditions can change over time. The distinction between them is not arbitrary. Read the Catechism if you want to understand the faith and moral teachings proposed by the Church.

3) Yes, Gentiles started joining the Church fairly soon, beginning with Cornelius in the book of Acts, chapter 10. But if you read Acts 15, you see the Jewish leaders of an entirely Jewish Church discussing and arguing over whether it is acceptable at all to receive Gentiles in the Church.

4) morality definitely DID change between the Old and New Covenants. Jesus himself explained that many precepts of the Old Covenant (such as the permission for men to divorce their wives, cf. Mat 19:1-9) were concessions and compromises due to man’s “hardness of heart.” The same with rules regarding warfare and polygamy.

From the Catechism (paragraphs 1962-65)
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c3a1.htm#II
(click link for more explanations re. the relationship between Old and New Laws)

The Old Law is the first stage of revealed Law. Its moral prescriptions are summed up in the Ten Commandments. The precepts of the Decalogue lay the foundations for the vocation of man fashioned in the image of God; they prohibit what is contrary to the love of God and neighbor and prescribe what is essential to it. The Decalogue is a light offered to the conscience of every man to make God’s call and ways known to him and to protect him against evil…

1963 According to Christian tradition, the Law is holy, spiritual, and good, yet still imperfect. Like a tutor it shows what must be done, but does not of itself give the strength, the grace of the Spirit, to fulfill it. Because of sin, which it cannot remove, it remains a law of bondage. According to St. Paul, its special function is to denounce and disclose sin, which constitutes a “law of concupiscence” in the human heart. However, the Law remains the first stage on the way to the kingdom. It prepares and disposes the chosen people and each Christian for conversion and faith in the Savior God. It provides a teaching which endures for ever, like the Word of God.

1964 The Old Law is a preparation for the Gospel. “The Law is a pedagogy and a prophecy of things to come.” It prophesies and presages the work of liberation from sin which will be fulfilled in Christ…

5) again, people choose to go to hell by stubbornly rejecting truth and goodness, persistently choosing evil, and refusing to repent from it until their last breath.

I will ask you this: If it happens to be true that we have been created with immortal souls and with the freedom to choose good and evil, what is the other option to hell? Would you like to spend eternity together with an unrepentant Hitler, Stalin, or (insert name of mass murderer of your choice)? Would such a “heaven” not turn out to be just a repeat of the world of evil and injustices that we find here on earth?

If you really, sincerely and persistently choose good, then you are in a true sense moving “towards” God. Since God is the source of all truth and goodness He will not require you to believe something that is nonsensical, or unjust, or that violates your conscience. Finding the true faith is like a homecoming; it’s like arriving at a place where you always belonged.

I am not equating Hitchens with Hitler, though I am not optimistic for Hitchens’ soul. It’s one thing to be a sincere atheist; it’s another to spend your life leading people away from God (Jesus did reserve some of his harshest words for hypocrites and for those who cause scandal, i.e. lead other to stumble in their faith).

Yes perhaps Hitler repented, but from what is known of his last days I am not aware of any indication that this may have been the case.

ABC of excommunication: the Church very rarely issues formal decrees of excommunication. This would not only be completely impractical but also completely redundant, because any mortal sin is a de facto self-excommunication. Hitler was ABSOLUTELY NOT a “Catholic in good standing” but a great enemy of the Church. Your statement “If he’s in Hell, it’s for suicide, not for mass murder” is completely wrong.

If the “whole structure” of the faith doesn’t make sense to you – fair enough. The point of departure and goal, not just for Jesus but for the rabbis of his time (Hillel, etc…) is to love God with all your heart and soul, and to love your neighbor as yourself. The rest of the law is a commentary on those two precepts. (I realize you have a problem with the first, so then focus on the second while not definitely excluding the possibility of reaching the first one day).

Orthodox Jews don’t believe women are inferior. Ancient Near Eastern cultures believed that women were inferior (as Islam continues to do today).

And of course that is totally unrelated to god (the same god you are trying to absolve from responsibility for these trends) (also the same god who is Jesus later in the story) explicitly commanding the jews to believe women are inferior.

Are there any christians anywhere who have actually read the bible?

Where do people get that idea from today? Faulty thinking?

The passage you are referring to asking women to be silent is entirely time/culturally conditioned.

Your dishonest apologetics are noted.

From a Catholic perspective, the determinative norm for faith and morals is the Catechism of the Catholic Church: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

No, not arbitrary at all. According to Catholicism, truth is revealed in the threefold structure of Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium of the Church.

“men and women sat separately in synagogues (it’s still the case in orthodox synagogues today). Raising their voices with questions or comments would have disturbed the assembly (as is the case in any church assembly today). The passage you are referring to asking women to be silent is entirely time/culturally conditioned.”

Is God’s perfect morality not above petty cultural standards and is not within God’s ability to communicate and empower his followers to that perfect morality? Is it not within the Christian God’s best interests and goals to properly communicate true morality in a clear and undeniable form rather than by texts tainted by unacceptable cultural standards? If the Christian God does exist, then should such silly cultural standards not be ignored outright?

“You misunderstand divine revelation.”

Misunderstood the Catholic definition of divine revelation it seems. What exactly is it then?

“Sure, God could have thrown down from heaven a crystal
clear list of commandments, rules and dogmas, but I doubt humanity as a whole would have accepted them any more than they accept revelation in its present form.”

Well, that seems to be quite a big assumption – unfortunately since God has done no such thing we will never know. If God had provided a perfect morality from the start I think I myself would be much more inclined towards Christianity. Even were it the case that most of humanity would have largely rejected God’s perfect morality, it seems somewhat contradictory to God’s nature to not give people the chance at all, even if he knows some or most of them will reject his perfect morality. If the effect is more or less going to be the same whether God reveals his perfect morality or not, why not just come clear from the beginning?

The Bible and official Church teaching seem to ultimately base their legitimacy upon the presumption of truth that the Christian God does indeed exist and has made said revelation available. I didn’t mean to presuppose a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible, but rather to point out the strange lack of an accurate and complete text from a religion claiming a benevolent, all-powerful, and all-knowing god. An inerrant word of God would do quite well I think as a perfect morality in a clear and undeniable form.

It isn’t suggested that the Universe arose from nothing. It started as a very dense point (or near point) of energy. That it evolved complexity from that is fully consistent with the most basic laws of thermodynamics. No guidance was required.

Your god is simple? Well, I’d have to agree, although not quite in the way you mean. But if your god is simpler than the Universe, than there is no need to invoke it in the creation of that universe. Your logic is weak.

Don’t lie, steal, or murder are not NT morals, they are stated in the OT, and go back much further than that, being natural human morals.

Your idea of morality around sexual issues sounds to me like a form of dysfunction, and nothing to do with morality at all. Society’s growing recognition that sexual behavior is varied and not associated with morality is a big part of the improved overall morality and health of society in the last 50 years.

Well it’s MAGIC damage, you see. It only shows up on your blue meter, not the green one.

Your being too incompetent to know what a false dichotomy is, or that the Bible is loaded with God-sanctioned rape, child-rape, and murder, is noted.

The OT is not irrelevant to the NT. That is THE SAME GOD in both texts. This only makes sense in the context of it being a myth that was built upon later, something we have thousands of incidents of precedence for.

You’re continuing to demonstrate that you know nothing about the science behind the Big Bang, and yet are stupidly repeating yourself despite having been informed of such.

How in the hell do you determine what is “divinely sanctioned” and what is not? Answer: you make it up as you learn that some positions are untenable.

“just a thought that the emergence of a complex universe out of nothing is utterly irrational – certainly not more logical or intelligent than to posit an uncaused first Cause.”

My friend, you have essentially compared nearly the exact same things – God supposedly created the universe out of nothing. I assume you meant the emergence of a complex universe at random. If that is the case, then yes the Christian worldview would be on even grounds with that.

However, that is not the technical atheist position. I understand your frustration at having your doctrine misconstrued, but you also ought to take care not to misconstrue your opponent’s position. Atheism is a very broad label that describes only one thing about an individual’s worldview – that the individual does not live as though any god exists. Beyond that, there is no doctrinal requirement in order for one to be considered “atheist”. Naturally though for ease of communication the word “atheist” is probably best, but I thought I’d let you know just in case.

The atheist position in general is one of suspending belief – certainly there are atheists who adopt a position absolutely rejecting theism – but in general there is a suspension of belief due to lack of empirical evidence (obviously in functionality both positions are more or less the same). So therefore technically is no official atheist position on the ultimate origins of existence as there is no evidence on the matter thus “requiring” the atheist to suspend his or her belief on the matter. In other words, there really isn’t anything to make the Christian account of the ultimate origins of existence any more legitimate or credible than any other theory currently available – it’s all guess work. Thus, it is best to continue to search for the answers (an impossible ideal sure, but the only path in order to progress), and not assume off the bat whatever may seem to be best answer – humbly recognizing our limited intellect (which goes for both theists and atheists).

“The moral standards of the New Testament are poor?

Sure, forgive and love one another, don’t lie, steal, or murder, honor your parents, honor and protect life, sanctify sexuality between husband and wife, sure sounds like barbarism and a recipe for social anarchy to me.”

You are correct in saying that the New Testament does indeed promote various admirable ethical values. However, you must also acknowledge the problems as well – “women having to cover their heads in church”, God intentionally damning people contrary to his redemptive goals, lack of any actual condemnation of the principle of slavery (though the implementation of it proposed by Paul in Philemon certainly was an improvement), Jesus talking about bringing the sword instead of peace, Jesus talking about hating one’s parents as a prerequisite, and technical cannabalism if you believe in transubstantiation within the Eucharist, etc I would agree with you however that claiming that the New Testament morals are poor would not be a fair assessment.

“Much better to go with our modernist values: sleep around with whoever you want without any commitment, kill children in the womb if they come at an inconvenient time, etc…”

Again, you seem to be making the same generalizations and judgments you yourself have deplored. The various principles, or lack thereof, you mentioned are products relavitism and materialism – not necessarily atheism. I myself an atheist/secularist agree with you that what you listed there are non-desireable behaviors – and I don’t need to believe in any God or his alleged texts or doctrine to justify or come to that position.

haha yes, it is true I would describe my position as more agnostic in principle – which kind of necessitates being atheist/secularist in function. The term atheism is the most recognizable label I can attach to my beliefs, but unfortunately it doesn’t really say much about my actual beliefs XD. I guess agnostic, secular rationalist might fit better.

I wouldn’t want to assume, but this site might not be the best or most representative place for the kind of discussion you seem to be looking for – I was fortunate enough to come across you so no complaints from me. Regardless of how prevalent relativism and materialism or any other undesirable traits you find commonly among atheists, this doesn’t really reflect upon the actual legitimacy of atheism itself. lol, technically there isn’t really a unified “institution” to reflect upon. Like I said before, in actuality it really is a very broad characteristic which probably gets used too much as the label of an institution, religion, and/or philosophy.

Thanks again for discussing all these things with me – I realize I am one of many, many people you are attempting to speak to simultaneously haha XD. Appreciate the sincerity and thought you have put into the discussion.

hahaha, certainly if you put it that way He doesn’t sound very simple. Simple is not easy..

Let’s try to break up the difficulty: the Incarnation happened in time. God chose to become flesh and to become one of us some 2,000 years ago. This happened in time, in the economy of salvation. The Eucharist, receiving the Lord’s flesh and blood, derives from the Incarnation, so let’s leave all these aside for now.

When we consider God as Spirit, we remain with the following characteristics: infinite, perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent. These traits are rather vast, rather ungraspable for our finite minds, but not inherently or logically impossible. (we’ll get back to the three-in-one in a minute).

(For a simple presentation of this argument in PowerPoint format, see here: http://goo.gl/fodlw)

Now if the world owes its existence to such an infinite, eternal being, and we see in the world evidence of intelligence, goodness and love, then it is not unreasonable that the originator of created intelligence, goodness and love would also possess these characteristics. In other words, if we observe personhood in the world (beings endowed with intelligence and will, and a desire for truth and goodness), it would make sense that their creator would possess the same attributes, and probably in much greater measure. If we are able to think and love, then God can most probably do the same.

Now regarding the Trinity. I will defer to Frank Sheed, one of my favorite authors. (In a nutshell: God the Son = God’s thought, God’s word, God’s self-reflection; God the Spirit = God’s love):

“An idea is… the mental double or image of the object we are contemplating; it expresses as much of that object as we can manage to get into it. Because of the limitation of our powers, the idea we form is never the perfect double or image, never totally expresses the object, in plain words is never totally adequate. But if God does, as we know from Himself that He does, generate an idea of Himself, this idea must be totally adequate, in no way less than the Being of which it is the Idea, lacking nothing that that Being has. The Idea must contain all the perfection of the Being of which it is the Idea. There can be nothing in the Thinker that is not in His Thought of Himself, otherwise the Thinker would be thinking of Himself inadequately, which is impossible for the Infinite. Thus the Idea, the Word that God generates, is Infinite, Eternal, living, a Person, equal in all things to Him who generates It – Someone as He is, conscious of Himself as he is, God as He is.” (Frank Sheed, Theology and Sanity, pg 66).

“The First Person knows Himself; His act of knowing Himself produces and Idea, a Word; and this Idea, this Word, is the Second Person. The First Person and the Second combine in an act of love – love of one another, love of the glory of the Godhead which is their own; and just as the act of knowing produces an Idea within the Divine Nature, the act of loving produces a state of Lovingness within the Divine Nature. Into this Lovingness, Father and Son pour all that They have and all that They are, with no diminution, nothing held back. Thus this Lovingness within the Godhead is utterly equal to the Father and the Son, for They have poured Their all into it. There is nothing They have which their Lovingness does not have. Thus Their Lovingness too is Infinite, Eternal, Living, Someone, a Person, God. Observe that here again we are still within the Divine Nature. For love is wholly within the nature of the lover. But this love wholly contains the Divine Nature, for God puts the whole of Himself into love.”

Your last paragraph is why I hate religion. Lots of “sane civilizations” thought that: witchcraft was real, slavery was just fine, poor people shouldn’t be able to vote, nobody should be able to vote, the world is flat, the world is the center of the universe, etc. The thing is we gather knowledge and cast off the shackles of our ignorance. I care nothing for what sane civilizations have done in the past because they knew less than we do now. This is a fact. Studies are actually starting to show that homosexual couples have better families based on equality and void of presuppositions stemming from Victorian sensibilities. Grow up and realize that your views can be wrong and that the studies are actually showing that they are indeed wrong.

Christianity has no problem in accepting any genuine scientific evidence that is out there. What am I deriding? I am only saying that it is no more “hoodoo” to accept the fact that an eternal, simple, spiritual and intelligent being is at the origin of creation, than to think that it emerged on its own out of nothing.

And if you are unable to see any intelligence, beauty or love in this world, you are really missing out.

People of good will? You mean bigoted brutes who want homosexuals in Africa to serve prison sentences? People of good will? You mean like Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who believes in executing homosexuals because homosexuality is not “natural”? People of good will? You mean like the former governor of the Mexican state of Chiapas who used the military to assassinate homosexuals? Fu)k you. If you want to bray on about the “natural” argument, then take on birth control which is just as “unnatural” as homosexuality. Verily I say unto thee, the wacky road of “natural” leads to women who are disallowed from using contraception because the purpose of a soggy Christoholic “marriage” (One man, One woman, ONE fucking time) is for the female to open her legs and squirt out a massive pile of crotch droppings, a mewling pile of semen demons, due to the “natural” god-ordained abuse of her uterus which is hysterical breeding using nothing but a hydraulic pump and a revolving door. Bottom line: Don’t understand gay people? Sexuality make you rashy? Don’t like abortion? Think Harry Potter teaches kids evil and witchcraft? Then don’t marry a sexy gay witch abortionist. But don’t you dare, based on your limited understanding of life, of human sexuality, and of “people of good will” make laws declaring that I can’t. Now, Mass has ended. You’ve earned a mouthful of Savior. Praise!

No, abortion is not “obviously murder,” unless you think that (for instance) science would declare the use of antibiotics to be murder. Science doesn’t make pronouncements about ethics or legality.

When in the word did “my god” order abortion?

Please do a google search of the word “abortion”, look carefully at the pictures, and then come back and tell me that it’s not murder.

Or, listen to the testimony of this former abortionist who describes the abortion procedure:

http://www.lifenews.com/2013/05/23/doctor-who-did-1200-abortions-tells-congress-to-ban-them/

Lastly, I also want nothing to do with the kind of divine being you describe. This being certainly has nothing to do with the Judeo-Christian God.

It’s not an appeal to emotion. It’s an appeal to right reason and to conscience. Anyone whose conscience has not been seared can see that abortion is the direct killing of a human life. Birth control is not a solution to abortion, it’s one of its main causes. http://onemoresoul.com/contraception-abortion/risks-consequences/the-connection-between-contraception-and-abortion.html

As for what God is like: He is good, merciful, loving, patient, forgiving, just, and holy. Read the Gospels and the Catechism. http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

(I actually have other things to do today than pursue these conversations).

Marriage is not about “parts fitting together,” FFS. And I’d like to remind you of Paul’s words in I Corinthians 13: “When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me.” Maybe that should give you pause before you start appealing to the way that children see the world.

I don’t doubt my replies have lacked accuracy or rigor in a few places, but I certainly did not say any lies. As for “veiled insults”, I apologize if any statements came out giving this impression, but do realize that it is very annoying to discuss with people who constantly misrepresent at every turn what you hold dear. As I said before, I have no problem that you disagree with Christianity, just represent it fairly before you critique it.

As if you don’t also project your personal views onto the entire world. A bit of a double standard there… “Reality” according to your definition of reality I suppose…

I have replied to many of these objections in other posts. Just a word here about the alleged problem of an infinite regression applied to God, who would “now requires his own creator who requires his own creator on to infinity.”

Your reasoning is seriously flawed. Why is an infinite regression of the material world around us logically impossible? because the world is in constant flux and movement. You come from your parents, they come from theirs, etc…, etc… The same can be said about a rabbit, or a tree (even allowing for evolution in whatever form you like). A chain of infinite regress is impossible because all beings here on earth are contingent upon some other being. This means that there ultimately has to be some “uncaused cause” that initiated the whole process.

But then, you say, this begs the question: who, then, created God? So we apparently have a new chain of infinite regress, of one creator creating the next, etc…

However, this is a fallacy. This just doesn’t work for God. The question “who created God” is irrelevant because there is logically no need for a spiritual, simple, non-changing, non-evolving, non-contingent being to be created. Such a spiritual, non-contingent being could very well and very logically have existed for all eternity.

“You may find the Christian approach to homosexuality “bigoted” but the fact is that all sane civilizations, most religions, and most people of good will have always understood that there is a certain compatibility (sexual, emotional, etc…) between man and woman that “makes” marriage in a way that is not possible with same-sex couples. ”

1) Quite a broad and conclusive statement to make, do you have actual substantiation for that? Even granting that the statistic or conclusion is true, what then was the actual substantiation behind the claims made by these civilizations, peoples, and religions? I think we need to be weary of accepting certain ethics as true primarily or solely based upon the opinions or standards of cultures – i.e. slavery, gender-equality, etc.

2) What are these “sane” civilizations? To my knowledge, there have never been any civilizations, religions, or peoples that didn’t have their own hypocrisy and moral failings.

I understand your exhaustion completely and you have my sympathies ;D – had similar experiences before. Thank you for providing a link. Rest well.