Pope Benedict XVI has lifted “the excommunication of a British bishop who denies that Jews were killed in Nazi gas chambers”:
Jewish officials in Israel and abroad are outraged….
The pope’s decree, issued Saturday, brings back into the Catholic Church’s fold Bishop Richard Williamson and three other bishops who belong to the Society of Saint Pius X.
“I believe that the historical evidence is strongly against — is hugely against — 6 million Jews having been deliberately gassed in gas chambers as a deliberate policy of Adolf Hitler,” he said in the interview…
“I believe there were no gas chambers,” he added…., ”I think that 200,000 to 300,000 Jews perished in Nazi concentration camps, but none of them by gas chambers.”
I’m sure this is unrelated, but did you know that Joseph Ratzinger (the Pope’s real name) was a member of Hitler Youth and fought in WWII for the Germans? Seriously. I didn’t know that until today. I’m not suggesting this means he is anti-semitic, but still, it’s interesting.
You didn’t know the Pope was a Nazi? Where have you been! Seriously though, most young children were forced to join the Hitler Youth, and as with most countries Germany had conscription, so most men fought as well – that doesn’t really say anything. I think his more recent actions of welcoming back into the church someone who claims that no Jews were gassed, and only 200,000 died, says more about the personal opinion of the Pope than any of his actions in WWII.
Seriously? You didn’t know?
It’s odd how little bits of information slip through the cracks; there was a buzz about it when he was ordained (or whatever happens when you become pope). He’s been up front about it, and that he was “never an enthusiastic member” of the Hitler youth, but it was still all over the interwebs. I’m genuinely surprised you hadn’t heard.
The other thing that makes this smell bad is that it happened the day before International Holocaust Memorial Day (as my diary assures me it is today).
It feels very much like this is a pointed statement. Perhaps catholics only enshrine memorials of their own persecution?
I’m not sure that this should come as any surprise to anyone. I assume that Williamson believes that Jesus is the son of God, that redemption is to be found only through the acceptance of Jesus’ love, and that in return he loves Jesus above all other things.
*Everything* else is detail. It doesn’t matter if he’s a child rapist, it doesn’t matter if he masturbates over pictures of the Pope dressed as Satan, and it certainly doesn’t matter if he thinks that some people who follow a false god died in one way or another. All of that may be evidence that he’s a bad person (except maybe the masturbation bit), but none of it reflects whether he has taken Jesus into his heart.
Why no, I’m not a Christian. How did you guess?
This is so scandalous!
But on the other hand the Catholic Church has been more or less openly anti-jewish/semitic for 2000 years …
Come on, dude, did you read the page you linked to?
* Joining the Hitler youth was compulsory
* He then refused to follow meetings
* One of his cousins was killed in the eugenics program
* He was conscripted
* And then deserted
We really don’t need to bend the truth. The facts are sufficiently on our side that it’s utterly unnecessary.
Thabk you Jivlan for bringing a little common sense back,
i hate it the pope as much as the nextman but he was never a nazi – my great grandfather was also in the hitler youth and fled germany to spain after it looked like he was about to be conscripted if you tried calling him a nazi you would have recieved a few choice comments (if you were lucky)
Its akin to saying Obama is a muslim just because his dad was
Jennifer is right, at that time being part of the nazi party was very comun.
I don’t criticize the pope for that. I am way more concern for the coverage he provides to all the child molester/abuser priests.
Legally the pope should be in jail now.
Has anyone seen the documental Deliver us from Evil?
http://www.deliverusfromevilthemovie.com/index_flash.php
This pope is only one on the long list of criminals, sex ofenders, killers, etc in tha catholic church jerarqui.
From first century until now the church has not provided a good man. They are all bad.
Whoa now, did nobody read the “I’m sure this is unrelated” and “I’m not suggesting this means he is anti-semitic”?
So @jivlain, I’m not bending the truth here. I did read the link. And I SAID it was unrelated and doesn’t mean he was anti-semitic. How is me saying he was a member of Hiter Youth and fought in WWII “bending the truth”? It’s fact. It may be unrelated, but it’s still fact.
@dead yeti:
Not sure about that. The pope DID fight for the Nazis, after all. I didn’t say anything false in this post. If I said Obama was a muslim, that would be false.
You didn’t know??
Just kidding. I didn’t know. I remember when he was elected there was some hubbub about something, but I couldn’t remember what.
It’s one thing for the Pope to overlook the fact that a bishop ignores the holocaust, but to excommunicate and then lift that action? That sends quite a message that can’t be ignored. It’s natural that you looked into his German past.
I’ve been trying to figure out what’s going on here, but a lot of it is arcane European Catholic politics. Somehow I never learned about any ot this when I was in Catholic High School.
To be even handed, the lifting of the excommunications doesn’t seem to have have any connection to the anti-semitism of some of the SSPX Bishops. And for what it’s worth, while they are no longer excommunicated, they are still suspended and not allowed to act as priests or bishops.
Damian Thompson over at his “Holy Smoke” blog is covering it. He’s the author or Counterknowledge, a jeremiad against pseudo-science and pseud-history. So if he’s not one of us, he’s at least an ally.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/damian_thompson/blog/2009/01/24/benedict_and_the_sspx_the_backlash_begins
That’s very interesting about the Pope. FYI, Christians don’t believe that crap about the Pope being the dude who decides your destination. He’s just some old guy who’s nice and friendly. This belief is some random thinking of Catholics and others. More power to them. Of course, that thinking may change after this truly interesting info.
Just to make things clear: these people were not excommunicated because of the holocaust denialism of one of them, but because they were illicitly consecrated. They are members of an organisation called “Society of St. Pius X” that makes the Catholic Church look moderate, modern and progressive.
And it is telling that the current pope wants them back.
@dr. R – “And it is telling that the current pope wants them back.”
Maybe. The Catholic church sometimes seems to have a fetish for unity. If Benedict can bring a famous schismatic sect back into the fold, it will be counted as a coup for him, regardless of their thinking.
@Stephen Webb -”He’s just some old guy who’s nice and friendly.”
That’s a pretty inaccurate description of Benedict. We are talking about John Paul II’s rottweiler here. The man who enforced doctrinal conformity for years.
This is my first visit. I found you off the botd.wordpress.com page.
Just curious, but I wonder how many comments you get that may be extreme due to your position(s)? Do you delete them? Or do you allow all comments? Maybe I need to read the blog a bit more to find out…
I don’t know much about the catholic church, but I can tell you that in my old church (the Baptidome as we lovingly referred to it), the anti-Semitism took the guise of praying that Jews be “completed.” I found this very offensive and it was, along with the demand that I go out and proselytize people in order to prove myself to be an A+ christian, the beginning of the end for me there. Ten years and a degree in philosophy and neuroscience later, I’m happy to say that I’ll never go back to any organized religion of any kind!
Religion breeds hate, not love.
Vorjack states “The Catholic church sometimes seems to have a fetish for….”
I think “fetish” pretty much sums up the Catholic church in general.
Bishop Richard Williamson – Gas Chambers Anti-Semitism and the Truth
“- Anti-Semitism can only be bad if it is against the truth. But if something is true, it cant be bad. I am not interested in the word anti-Semitism.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AezZLdBqXhg
I don’t understand why this is so surprising. The Catholic church has condoned, enabled, and outright promoted anti-semitism for more than a millennium.
I mean, this is an organization that until the 60′s maintained that the Jews were cursed for killing Jesus, that officially rejected but officiously accepted the blood libel for hundreds of years, and that took such a nebulous stance during the holocaust that historians are still debating which side they supported.
If it were anything but a religious organization, it would have been forcibly dismantled long ago for the various atrocities it has committed over the ages.
On a broader note, when your doctrine is that a class of people are not favored by some celestial deity, and that they will either be annihilated or suffer for eternity in the fires of hell, it’s no wonder that under the façade of tolerance that post-modern thought has forced you to reluctantly adopt boils a contemptuous disregard for the value of the lives of those people.
All these centuries of hatred are what religion brings.
I view the Nazis as the inevitable result of so many centuries of Catholic anti-Semitism. It didn’t begin with the Nazis and didn’t end there. Nuns where I grew up taught that Jews were ‘Christ killers’, and that was well after the war. The place was riddled with churches. The only argument with a chance of preventing another holocaust is a nuclear arsenal. A strong moral argument and 1000 nuclear-armed balistic missiles carries more weight than a strong moral argument alone.
As for Williamson (thanks for posting the link to that clip) I hope I never meet him. Because I really want to hurt him.
@Stephen Webb
So catholics aren’t christian? The only acceptable christian religion for 1400 years or so wasn’t christian?
Where did you get your education? Don’t you start to question how reliable they are if they taught you something to blatantly false?
@therealsouthkorea: I rarely delete comments, unless I find them offensive/insulting. Other viewpoints are welcome as long as the comments are civil.
I think centuries of Protestant anti-Semitism might have been a factor, too. I mean, to quote Martin Luther:
That is from On the Jews and their Lies, a book Hitler quoted from and referenced frequently.
“Catholic antisemitism …”
“I think centuries of Protestant anti-Semitism …”
Better to say “Christian Antisemitism” and be done with it. You can trace the roots back to Constantine and before. As long as Christians have insisted that Hebrew scripture predicted the coming of Jesus, and as long as Jews stubbornly resist conversion, you find Christian antisemitism.
Well, yes. My point was that it wasn’t limited to Catholicism.
Daniel
Well, this is something we can agree on. Anyone who rejects the events of the Holocaust should be put in a nut house. It’s ridiculous that this guy is ministering to people, it actually makes me a little sick to my stomach.
“Society of St. Pius X” Where have I heard of that before? Ah, yes. St. Mary’s Academy, which refused to allow a woman to referee a basketball game since the bible prohibits women from having authority over men(http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/preps/351219_ref14.html). As an added bit of interest, the woman was a retired cop (from the city I live in). So we have a high school that is teaching teenaged boys that they don’t have to obey a female cop that stops them for speeding. No wonder there is a correlation between religion and higher crime rates.
The Holy Father’s parents were anti-Nazi and moved often when he and his brother we children to avoid the National Socialist regime. Bishop Williamson is a loon but that had nothoing to do with lifting the excommunications and it certainly doesn’t mean his is going to Heaven.
You need to get your facts right.
Also, I will be praying for you.
@ walter
“Also, I will be praying for you.”
mark: Walter are you Catholic.
Walter,
YOU need to get YOUR facts right.
First of all, you call your pope “holy”? That is blastphemous as no person, according to the bible, is holy with the exception of the supposedly divine Jesus.
Secondly, your church has allowed the cultural raping and pillaging of other groups for hundreds of years. Catholic missionaries destroyed the indigenous people of the Americas hand in hand with conquistadors and other settlers here, and they (and other missionaries) continue to try to “convert” people away from their cultures into a Western, industrialized, christian culture, causing much misery to these people who functioned just fine in their indigenous cultures before it was taken away from them by men who “know better.”
It was the same with the Jews, but they refused and became hated by the church. If you want to read more about this, just check out Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice.
Until the pope condemns missionary work as cultural genocide, until the pope officially apologizes for all the cultural genocides the church has committed over the years, until the church teaches tolerance of all people regardless of their beliefs, until the church stops terrorizing and guilt tripping its own people, until the church sells off its expensive art work and cathedrals to give that to the poor and actually follows the example of Jesus in whom you claim to profess, YOU have little room to talk.
Believe what you will, pray what you will, but your “excommunications” don’t scare me.
ps Walter,
If you want to see a religious leader who actually lives what he believes, check out the Dali Lama. The guy lives on less than $10 a day and practices radical nonviolence.
Now, not being a religious person myself, I’m not saying his philosophies are more correct than anyone else’s. I’m just saying he’s not a hypocrite the way, say, christian churches (both catholic and protestant) tend to be.
@ Walter
Walter do you believe that only Catholics are going to make it into heaven? Im specifically talking about Catholics not any other denomination of Christians. Please be as clear in your answer as you are able, Id like a straight answer.
Walter,
what about the cover up to all the sexual predators within the catholic church?
Benedict should be in jail.
Markbey,
Walter doesn’t closely monitor the comments on our blog, so he probably isn’t aware of your question.
As far as your other question, Catholics do not think that only Catholics are going to heaven.
Here’s a quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
CCC 847: “Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation.”
One of the odd things about living in a predominantly Protestant country is that people always assign (generally unfavorable) stereotypes about what some Protestant beliefs to Catholics.
Fortunately the information is out there concerning all these ‘legends’ of the Church wiping out indigenous populations to the sexual abuse scandal. Go ahead and Google it. You’ll be surprised to your disappointment.
I’m not going to sit here and answer point by point. I’ll quote two great men of the Church.
“There are not a hundred people in America who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions of people who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church— which is, of course, quite a different thing.”
— Archbishop Fulton Sheen
“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.”
— St. Thomas Aquinas
In Jesus, Mary, & Joseph,
Tito
@Walter: What facts are not correct in my post? Do you deny he was a member of Hitler Youth and did not fight for the Germans?
@John Henry: Yes, I agree that’s the official view of the Catholic church these days. But as I’m sure you know, that is a very recent change. Were all the Catholics and Popes wrong about this before the Second Vatican Council?
Tito – thanks for the advice, I did some googling, and read about the systematic way the Catholic church exported known pedophiles to out-of-the-way Alaskan churches. And how the church has paid out hundreds of millions of dollars for the systemic abuse of children in its care. The Crimen sollicitationis was news to me, but unsurprising. The fact that the Church itself estimates that up to 5,000 priests have been involved in the sexual abuse of children is disturbing, and seems to put the lie to the idea that this is a few ‘bad apples’.
The examples I chose above are all evidence that this wasn’t just individuals going against the teachings of the Church, but deeply vile practices of the Church itself. An organization that by its own claims should be more virtuous than average seems instead to be far worse.
Hate is a harsh word – I’ve certainly little space for it in my life – but in response to your quote from Sheen I could probably find 100 people already known to me who would be repulsed by the Catholic Church’s deeds, and I’m told that by their deeds (or fruits, if you prefer) you will know them.
@ john henry and tito
mark: Do you guys actually believe that people can be possed by demonic spirits. Do you believe that Catholic Clergy or any other christian clergy can cast out evil spirits that are in possesion of human bodies/flesh?
Paul,
I believe you are sincere and genuine in your thoughts and comments. The sexual abuse scandal is certainly the biggest hit the Chuch has taken in the United States thus far.
But one needs to seperate the deeds of a few sexual predators from the teachings of the Church. Less than 1/2 of 1% of the priests in the United States were involved in the sex scandal. Compare that to let’s say the California public school system which shows that 20% of public school teachers have engaged in sexual acts upon minors, the degree of these evil acts are put in context.
In and of themselves they are truly horrendous. But to paint the Pope or your average parish priest as a sexual predator goes a bit to far in any estimable opinion.
If you truly believe in your heart of hearts that the Church actively and progressively teaches, promotes, and executes acts of sexual depravity upon innocent children, then there’s nothing that I can say that will make you (or anyone else) change their mind.
I’ll pray for you.
In Jesus, Mary, & Joseph,
Tito
Markbey and et al.,
Considering that the post is about Bishop Williamson’s ugly anti-Semitic comments I’ll leave you all with two links to read through that will answer many of your questions concerning ‘exorcism’, the Church’s engagement with the world, and other popular topics:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/
In Jesus, Mary, & Joseph,
Tito
Tito – the Church’s estimate is up to 1% globally (hence the 5,000 figure). Can you point me to the source of your 20% figure for California schools?
I didn’t suggest that the Pope or an average parish priest is a sexual predator, but it does appear that a disturbing number of them put the reputation of their Church above the wellbeing of the children it cares for.
I’m glad that you think your opinion is estimable – can you explain why I should hold it in the esteem you seem to think is warranted?
I didn’t claim that the Church “actively and progressively teaches, promotes, and executes acts of sexual depravity upon innocent children”, because I strongly doubt that is the case, and I certainly have no evidence of it. But there is clear evidence that when it finds it, it deals with it by protecting the Church, not the child.
One final point – you made two assertions about what I might think, neither of them with any basis in what I said. Perhaps you might contain your disappointment at what you seem to think someone like me might say, and instead address what I actually say.
About the whole “letting someone back into Heaven”-thing.
I started writing a comment here, but it turned out to be a long text, and kind of a rant, so I made it a post on my blog instead. Linked here though ;)
“In 1208, Peter de Castelnau, an official representative of the Pope, was murdered by an Albigenses. Since they had been growing in number, becoming a threat, and would not convert to Christianity, Pope Innocent III ordered them to be wiped out. The persecution was fierce and the movement was stopped.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliver_Us_from_Evil_(2006_film)
Tito, you could also read Fernando Vallejo’s The Whore of Babylon.
In Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens
brian
Paul,
Simply by reading your posts you seek to paint the Church as an ‘evil’ institution.
Again, nothing I say or do will change your mind until you do your own research and convince yourself. Because I won’t be able to do it with your built in biases towards the Church.
I gave you three links to begin in earnest your research. The rest is up to you.
In Jesus, Mary, & Joseph,
Tito
Brian,
No atheist worth his salt would recite the names of an amateur, an incompetent, and an alcoholic. That’s 3rd grade playground apologists you cite.
Tito, At least I am reciting existing human beings. They are real.
Brian
@John Henry – “One of the odd things about living in a predominantly Protestant country is that people always assign (generally unfavorable) stereotypes about what some Protestant beliefs to Catholics.”
Having gone to Catholic school, I can tell you that I heard tell of several priests in the community who maintained that you had to be Catholic to be forgiven of your sins. The implication that I picked up from this was that non-Catholics were barred from heaven.
As an Episcopalian, I assure you I was thrilled. Fortunately, my Catholic schoolmates just rolled their eyes.
BTW, the Southern Poverty Law Center keeps tabs on the SSPX. They’ve got an article up at: http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?sid=397
It seems like the SSPX as a whole has a streak of antisemitism running through it.
Brian,
2000 years from now some guy will be mocking the U.S. Constitution and claiming that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin were mythical (invented) folk heroes created for context.
Some U.S. apologist will retort back and say that the existance of the U.S. government is proof enough of their existance and the many documents they left behind.
That mocking guy will say, yeah right, they weren’t real human beings.
Brian, let me introduce you to the Catholic Church that Jesus Himself established upon his most faithful apostle, St. Peter, the first Pope. Who today Pope Benedict XVI is the inheritor of this cathedra.
“…And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
— Holy Gospel of St. Matthew 16:18-19
In Jesus, true man and true God. Mary, ever virgin, Mother of God with Joseph, her most chaste spouse.
Tito
@ tito
mark: Dude Id really appreciate it if you would answer my question about excorcism. Thank you
Markbey,
I’m not sure what this has to do with this post, but to give you a short answer, yes.
For a better answer, I’ll quote the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1909 AD:
“Exorcism is (1) the act of driving out, or warding off, demons, or evil spirits, from persons, places, or things, which are believed to be possessed or infested by them, or are liable to become victims or instruments of their malice; (2) the means employed for this purpose, especially the solemn and authoritative adjuration of the demon, in the name of God, or any of the higher power in which he is subject.”
In Jesus, Mary, & Joseph,
Tito
@ tito
“Brian, let me introduce you to the Catholic Church that Jesus Himself established upon his most faithful apostle, St. Peter, the first Pope. Who today Pope Benedict XVI is the inheritor of this cathedra.”
mark bey: When did Jesus establish the Catholic chuch, when did Jesus ever call himself a catholic or call his work catholicism?
“2000 years from now some guy will be mocking the U.S. Constitution and claiming that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin were mythical (invented) folk heroes created for context. ”
mark: Do you really want to have a debate about the existence of george washington as opposed to Jesus?
Are you really comparing the evidence for the existence of Jesus vs George washington?
Are you suggesting that there is an equivalent amount of evidence for the existence of Jesus vs George Washington?
If so present us with the type of evidence that proves the christianity over all other religions and please bring more than qoutes from the bible because every here could qoute from any religious document they want to.
The Koran, Torah ect.
I see my comments sparked a few questions. Forgive me for missing them and as I am in the middle of a city-to-city move I can’t answer them fully. Tito and others have done a good job anyway. I will say this about Daniel’s question on Benedict and his service during WW II; Ratzinger was finally forced to join the HY against his parents wishes and after years of them moving to avoid the German authorities. Like a lot of german youth (he was 17 i believe), he was conscripted near the end of the war and forced to man an anti-aricraft gun. He deserted before the war was over and was picked up by the Allies and sent to a POW camp as he was trying to walk the hundreds of miles home.
Do you wish to hold that against him? He was a child drafted by the Wehrmacht (the regular German army) and raised by anti-nazi (as most catholics in germany were) parents. Catholics from Schindler to Pope Pius XII to the man who tried to assinate Hitler, Claus Schenk von Stauffenberg, to the hundred of priests and nuns killed in concentration camps (at least two, Maximilliam Kolbe and Saint Teresa Benedicta of the Cross aka Edith Stein, are saints) Catholics were heroic in standing up to Nazism. Somewhere on my PC i have a map of the 1933 election results and the National Socialists did not win any areas with a majority Catholic population.
As for the other question i saw, I don’t know who is going to heaven. I am concerned about making sure I get there and helping my wife and child get there as well.
My question: since I think we can all agree that Nazism is an evil how can one subscribe to the belief system (atheism) that spawned it?
@ tito
““Exorcism is (1) the act of driving out, or warding off, demons, or evil spirits, from persons, places, or things, which are believed to be possessed or infested by them, or are liable to become victims or instruments of their malice; (2) the means employed for this purpose, especially the solemn and authoritative adjuration of the demon, in the name of God, or any of the higher power in which he is subject.””
mark: This really is not an answer as I asked if you believed in excorcism. A yes or no would have sufficed.
Exactly why would a god that loves his children allow demons (he created) to possess his children whom he loves so much?
Why did god create demons in the first place knowing full well that they would reak havock on this planet and to man.
Also if demons are evil, god is good and eternal then wouldnt that make god responsinble for all of the evil man has ever experienced?
Also, while while I am not a theologian and no expert, anyone here interested in knowing more about the Church founded by Christ and its beauty and truth, please know that i will always try to lead you in the right direction in finding answers.
I resisted Christ’s call for a long time and I love helping others who want that Christ shaped void in their life filled.
No one is surprised as I am that I, to use Mark Shea’s words, am Catholic and loving it!
Deo Gratias and God Bless.
Markbey,
2000 years from now you are going to have people saying that since George Washington isn’t found on DVD, tape recording, or whatever new high-tech device that is invented, he will be discounted as a myth. People will say that having a signature on a document is insufficient evidence.
As is today.
I suggest you contact your local parish priest and ask your questions.
Or go to the three links I left (as a good start).
In Jesus, Mary, & Joseph,
Tito
“My question: since I think we can all agree that Nazism is an evil how can one subscribe to the belief system (atheism) that spawned it?”
mark: Atheism is not a belief system it is a lack of belief in a god based on lack of evidence for a god. Check your history hitler was not an atheist.
Now my question is, since we can all agree that slavery and killing babies is evil how can one subscribe to a system condones killing babies and children and does not condone slavery.
” Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children. (Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT)
Or how about this god devinely inspire nugget of truth giving commentary about selling ones daughter into slavery
” When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)”
@Walter- “My question: since I think we can all agree that Nazism is an evil how can one subscribe to the belief system (atheism) that spawned it?”
This always baffles me. Adolf Hitler was born in the Catholic church – and still exists on some Church register somewhere, a fact which annoys many Catholics. He largely turned his back on Catholicism later, but his regime worked hand in glove with several protestant churches. The Nazi German government founded churches and its soldiers marched into battle with “God is with us” on their belt buckles. The tie between church and state was so tight that Karl Barth – perhaps the 20th centuries most influential conservative theologian – felt compelled to speak out against the connection.
So where on earth does this notion that atheism leads to Nazis come from?
Markbey,
I’ll try and answer your evolving questions, but to help you ahead of time, I adhere to the teachings of the Church completely.
Yes, I do believe people can be possesed by the devil. Some possible examples, Adolph Hitler, Napolean Bonaparte, and Nancy Pelosi.
God gave us ‘free will’. Just as we human’s, angels can choose to do good. So when Lucifer defied God he chose to, God didn’t make him to choose evil.
Just the same with humans, we choose to do either evil or good. If we all chose to be good, it would be heaven on earth, ie, perfect. But we aren’t perfect, we are fallen creatures.
VorJack,
The denial of God is atheism.
Adolph Hitler dealt in occultism as did many of his cohorts. “God with us” was remant of the previous regime which was Protestant not Catholic (and which is not a bad thing).
The 20th century killed more people than the previous 19 centuries combined. Nazism, Socialism, and Communism all believe the state is the utlimate source of its authority not God, ie, the denial of God. So that is why atheism has killed more peole than ‘religion’.
Relation between catholic church and nazis:
“In late 1999, the Vatican Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews established an international panel, composed of three Jewish and three Christian scholars from the U.S., Canada and Israel. They were given the task of trying to evaluate role of Pope Pius XII and the rest of the Vatican during the Holocaust. The panel was able to search 11 published volumes of wartime Vatican documents. They found that the Vatican had received reports of Nazi atrocities as early as 1941-JAN. However, “the pope’s responses to reports of atrocities were missing from the sources they examined.” 6
“In 2000-OCT, the panel issued a preliminary report, “The Vatican and the Holocaust,” asking 47 questions which can only be answered by consulting the unpublished Vatican files from the World War II era. They unanimously asked for access to the records. In 2001-JUN, the Vatican refused. Cardinal Walter Kasper wrote “in a letter to the group that they would be welcome to speak with the scholar who is heading the campaign for the beatification of Pius, but that post-1923 Vatican archives were not available for ‘technical reasons.’ ” It seems that the Vatican archives are only catalogued up to 1923. Only two staff members are actively involved in the activity. The panel has decided to temporarily abandon their work, without issuing a final report.”
Tito,
Chirst was a forgery conceived by Rome, centre of the empire and the helemic world, starting the year 100, mixing together parts taken from the myths of Atis of Frigia, Dionisis of Greece, Buddah of Nepal, Krihsna of India, Osiris and his son Horus of Egypt, Zoroastro and Mitra of Persia and more gods created by humans centuries and thousands of years before.
The mediterranean world knew this gods due to the Persian and India conquest by Alexander the Great.
Thanks to Constantine in the 3rd century and the roman empire you believe in that god.
What do you think jesus was born on Dec 25th?
The bible is a collection of writings that were adultered by the catholic church. The gospels writers make many geographical mistakes, they probably never visited Palestine, the land where jesus walk.
Brian. If you think constructing alternative historical narratives about the “Chirst” forgery, pantheistic deities, and bible corruption is persuasive to anyone with even a passing familiarity with the source documents, then you should probably try and broaden your reading list.
@John Henry – “persuasive to anyone with even a passing familiarity with the source documents,”
For better or worse, John, that’s not the way it’s going. Most of the Jesus Mythicists are more familiar with the source material than most other scholars. They pour over the documents looking for odd silences and contradictions that could reveal somthing hidden underneath. Men like Earl Doherty, G.A. Wells, Robert Price, and Richard Carrier might be cranks, but they’re not ignorant.
Vorjack,
I don’t deny that intelligent people searching through source documents can construct all sorts of alternative narratives. People are creative that way; in Russia they re-write the villains and heroes in their history every five to ten years. My claim is simply that listing a bunch of scattershot accusations in a blog comment thread is unlikely to persuade anyone, particularly if they are familiar with the relevant scholarship.
As to ‘odd silences and contradictions that could reveal something hidden underneath,’ well, it’s easy enough to find those in any historical documents. If you start out with the assumption that it’s all a forgery, then you can find ‘odd silences,’ and things ‘hidden underneath,’ but that might say more about you than it does about the documents.
I don’t intend to be persuasive. If it is an “alternative narrative” then, what is the true narrative?
No matter how you want to apply “scholarship” the end result, the bible, is a really bad and sick book. Ok, there are a few good things in it.
I don’t think there is one narrative in ‘history’ that can be described as ‘true’. There are facts (e.g. the events that occurred); and even these are often contested (e.g. by people looking for things ‘hidden underneath’).
People construct narratives explaining the facts/events, and these narratives can vary widely in plausibility based on the reliability of the facts in question, and how they are placed in the narrative. I happen to think the conventional narrative of Christ’s life, death, etc. is the most plausible, as it was witnessed by death in the form of martyrdom by most of the people who witnessed these events, as well as the remarkable accuracy of the translations we have of the Bible. But plausibility cannot be demonstrated empirically. We make our decisions based on the antecedent plausibility we assign to the events in question. And the antecedent plausibility assigned generally is a result of our education and background.
A religious conversion or experience often will change one’s disposition toward the facts and narratives. But it’s certainly not surprising that ‘experts’ with a pre-existing hostility to the conventional narrative can construct alternatives based on how they read the sources.
As to ‘bad’ and ‘sick’, it all depends on what standard you are using. They imply a value judgment that most atheists are ill-equipped to make.
My friends who wish to point out the flaws of the Roman Catholic Church to “true believers”.
As a former priest and seminary professor, now professional critic of that church, my advice to you is save your breath. By all means, point out the flaws – which may at least benefit non-Catholics and the rare open-minded Catholic. -
But beyond that you can claw your way through their erroneous arguments and even get them to finally admit that you are right. But in the end they will claim that the Son of God has guaranteed that “the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (and the meaning of “it” is obviously – in their minds – the “Roman Catholic Church”).
So it doesn’t matter how badly the highest official representatives of the Catholic Church have behaved in the past or behave in the future, Jesus PROMISED !!!
As for what Pope Innocent III did, here it is:
“In the year 1209, When the King of France refused to lead the pope’s Crusade, Pope Innocent III put his legate, Arnald-Amalric, the General of the Cistercian ( or “Trappist”) monks at Citeaux, in charge of the “Christian” forces. On their way to the Holy Land, they made a stop at the French town of Béziers.
Arnald called on the Catholics in the town, an Albigensian stronghold, to hand over the 200 or so known heretics. If they didn’t they would suffer with them. The townsfolk decided to stand together against these foreigners . . .
The townsfolk took refuge inside the cathedral and the great churches of St. Jude and St. Mary Magdalene. . . The command went out from Arnald: ‘Kill them all: the Lord will look after his own.’
Behind the locked doors of St. Mary Magdalene’s, the clergy tolled the bells, while celebrants vested in black for a requiem. The churches, places of sanctuary from time immemorial, were crammed. In that church alone there were 7000 women, children and the elderly. To the sound of priests chanting mass was added that of axes splitting the timber of the doors. When the doors gave way, the only noise and church was the Latin of the liturgy and the babble of babies in their mothers’ arms.
The invaders, singing lustily Veni Sancte Spiritus (Come, Holy Spirit) spared no one, not even the babies. The last to be cut down were two priests in the sanctuary. One held on high a crucifix, the other the chalice. With a clang, the chalice hit the stone floor, and Christ’s blood mingled with that of the people of Béziers. It was, said Lea, in his book The Inquisition in the Middle Ages, ‘a massacre almost without parallel in human history’.
The crusaders then destroyed everything in the town, including the cathedral. ‘All that was left of Béziers was a smouldering heap under which all the citizens lay dead.’
In the cool of the evening, the monk Arnald settled down to write to his superior. ‘Today, your Highness, 20,000 citizens were put to the sword, regardless of age or sex.’ That is unusual. After a siege, women and children were spared, and especially clergy who had immunity. Slaughtering babies was bad enough, but it was an unspeakable crime to cut priests down as they celebrated the ritual sacrifice of Calvary. Blood-lust had taken hold of the Pope’s crusade and was never to relax its grip. It has been reckoned that in the last and most savage persecution under Emperor Diocletian, about 2,000 Christians perished, throughout the empire. (Yet) In the first vicious incident of Pope Innocent III’s crusade, ten times that number of people were slaughtered. Not all were Albigensians, by any means. It comes as a shock to discover that, at a stroke, a pope killed far more Christians than (the pagan emperor) Diocletian.
(Pope) Innocent was deeply moved by Arnald’s letter. He thanked God for His great mercy. Never once did he question the legitimacy of a monk slaughtering heretics and the Catholics who harboured them.” (Vicars of Christ, by Peter DeRosa (one time Jesuit professor at Rome’s prestigious Gregorian University), pp. 158 – 160)
one of many examples of what you can find at my http://JesusWouldBeFurious.Org/PopesvsChrist.html .
Brian,
I don’t know where you got those ridiculous anti-Christian talking points, but they are utterly wrong. History can not prove definitively that Jesus of Nazereth was God, but it certainly proves His existence in Israel during the reign
As a starting point I highly recommend considering the testimony of a non-Christian historian of that time:
Josephus
There is a great book that compiles the testimony of Christian and non-Christian sources written in the early 4th century by Eusebius of Cæsarea, it’s available in print as well.
I highly recommend you educate yourself a little, and then we can perhaps discuss the proofs of God by Aristotle, and St. Thomas Aquinas.
Matt
ps. no Christian really insists that Christ was born on December 25th, it’s a day fixed by the Church to celebrate, there are historical documents proving this. Here’s an interesting discussion on the convergence of astronomy and history which suggests late December of 2 BC as the Birth of Christ. It really isn’t critical.
Matt McDonald
Josephus is actually a fairly common topic around here. My guess is anyone who doesn’t think Jesus existed at all is probably familiar with the issue.
As for proofs of god, there are none. If there was proof, there would be no faith.
Aor,
Read my St. Thomas Aquinas quote.
In Jesus, Mary, & Joseph,
Tito
Aor,
actually Aristotle first demonstrated the existence of God, more than 300 years before the birth of Christ. I’m surprised a person of “reason” is not aware of that. Faith does not need proofs, but it doesn’t preclude them. Now, if God made his presence so manifest as to be impossible to ignore that would be “vision”, which would not preclude Faith, but it would eliminate free will.
Have your read Francis Collins, Language of God? It’s a very interesting book.
If someone is familiar with Josephus, how could they deny that there was Jesus? Or do they deny the authenticity of his histories? He was, after all not sympathetic to Christianity.
Brian,
From first century until now the church has not provided a good man. They are all bad.
I think your hatred has made you delusional… you really are quite mad. Like it or not, virtually everything that is good about western civilizations had it’s origins or were vastly advanced by the Church…. Hospitals, Universities, Scientific Method, Astronomy, Mathematics (about 10% of the top mathematicians in history were members of a single religious order), Art, Architecture, Engineering, Seismology (known as the Jesuit science), International Law, the list goes on and on.
Why do you hate so much? It really blinds you from all reason…
Tito – I don’t have any prejudice against the Catholic Church. The only interaction I’ve had with it was when their parishioners would park in front of my driveway from time to time, and amazingly enough I don’t hold that against the Pope. Even if I did, I think my prejudice would pale compared to that of the Church itself, which believes that most of the peolpe who have ever lived deserve to burn in eternal hell fire. Fortunately I don’t hate them for that, in part because it’s not in my nature to hate, and partly because they’re wrong anyway.
Matt – I don’t think using Josephus as proof will convince anyone here. He makes two references to Jesus, one of which is widely questioned as a later insertion, and the whole document is of difficult provenance.
Actually Matt, if there is a proof, even the slightest proof, then no faith is required. That is a critical thing to realize. If you have proof, you don’t need faith. You can find the evidence of this in a dictionary. Do that right now, before you respond to me. Look up the definition of Faith.
Furthermore, Aristotle didn’t prove what you claim. You really should start getting your information from neutral sources because yours are definitely not giving you accurate information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover
Paul,
Josephus is accepted as an accurate historian for all secular purposes, and yet not good enough to demonstrate that a man existed in the 1st century who founded a movement. The movement exists, it’s history can easily be traced to the time, and unrelated sources acknowledge it’s existence as his. Let’s talk about the existence of Homer… there is far less extant evidence of his existence than Jesus, and yet, still people will argue about his existence.
Aor,
the contemporary dictionary definition of “faith” is of no consequence in discussing the theological virtue of religious faith. Faith as understood by the Church does not deny that we can know by reason what we know by faith.
Faith
Aristotle developed a proof of God. The prime mover, he did this without the aid of revelation, and despite his milieu of paganism. Surely you are familiar with it? While it is a reasoned proof, it is entirely possible to disagree with it without abandoning reason, yet is entirely possible to agree with it and also not abandon reason. Virtually all of the great thinkers since Aristotle’s time agreed with it, I think it’s fair to say I’m in good company there. The first thinkers to reject it (since it was rediscovered by Averroes and Aquinas) inspired the horrors of Nazism and Communism… way to go atheists… you’ve killed more people in one century than all of the religions in all of history combined.
By neutral sources you mean atheists? Hardly neutral. The greatest proof of Christ’s existence is Christianity itself. I don’t believe in Islam, but I have absolutely no doubt Mohammad existed.
Matt – I haven’t denied at all that Jesus existed, here or anywhere else (though his status as the son of a god is a different matter). I just find it interesting that the link *you* provided to what I assume you consider is strong evidence in his favor has so much to say about the unreliability of the text.
Paul,
I agree, Josephus is no proof that Christ is God, and I think the key question as to authenticity was no regarding the fact of a reference to Jesus, but in the exact wording of that reference, as to whether it apparently acknowledged that He was the Christ, which it’s pretty clear that Josephus did not believe.
I don’t know that “proving” Christ is God is at all possible in this environment, or really any other… it is in fact a matter of Faith, unless He touches your heart, how could you believe? This goes back to the question of Faith and reason. The Church makes a distinction between those things we can know by reason (God’s existence), and those things that we can know only by revelation or Faith (Jesus Christ).
By the way, I am aghast at the statements of Bp. Williamson, and hope that he is strongly censured. The question of his excommunication though is completely unrelated, and is a matter of delicate diplomacy in seeking to heal a schism in the Church. In no way was the Holy Father accepting his position or even acknowledging any personal piety on his part. Here is the Pope’s statement from today:
While I renew with affection the expression of my full and unquestionable solidarity with our brothers receivers of the First Covenant, I hope that the memory of the Shoah leads mankind to reflect on the unpredictable power of evil when it conquers the heart of man.
May the Shoah be for all a warning against forgetfulness, against denial or reductionism, because the violence against a single human being is violence against all. No man is an island, a famous poet write. The Shoah particularly teaches, both old an the new generations, that only the tiresome path of listening and dialogue, of love and of forgiveness lead the peoples, the cultures, and the religions of the world to the hoped-for goal of fraternity and peace in truth. May violence never again crush the dignity of man!
He said this as part of his Wednesday audience spoken before thousands of visitors to the Vatican, and widely read throughout the Catholic world. He takes this matter very seriously.
Tito
Did you really say that Mary and Joseph were chaste? Are you JOKING?
Read the new testament! Jesus had brothers (and presumably sisters, too, since the bible doesn’t bother to mention sisters).
Where do you think they came from?
Secondly, the catholic church was founded four hundred years after Jesus lived. You adhere to a church that had systematically ignored the gospels for at least 1600 years now. You all follow Paul’s teachings (and other people who came later).
Further, you have no defense against the extravagance of the catholic church. Jesus gave away all of his belongings (supposedly). You all own multi- billions in art an property. How many poor people could you take care of if you got rid of those extravagances?
You all are HYPOCRITES.
But don’t worry Tito. Protestants are hypocrites too!
That’s why I don’t belong to religion anymore. I belong to rationality. I believe in thinking for yourself. YOU’RE RIGHT! That doesn’t exactly lend itself to faith, but faith is a FLAWED and ridiculous system. You could ask me to believe in a god of poo all day long, you could give me religious arguments as to why I should (such as pooing is a natural part of being human, so why wouldn’t a god endorse it?) I still wouldn’t believe!!!!
I could never believe in a religious god. Now a rational god, that’s another matter. I at least leave room for the possibility of a rational god, but I listen when other people say they just can’t make that leap.
None of us has any certainty, so don’t talk like you do.
And REALLY, do read the bible before you go spouting off doctrine that is *supposedly* based on it.
@Matt McDonald
Selective redefinition of terms is an attempt to deceive. There is no other interpretation. If you aren’t willing to use the proper definition of the word then you shouldn’t use it. If you insist on using a self serving definition then you aren’t speaking communicating honestly.
I provided a link on the prime mover argument. It falls flat. Not proof. Did you click on the link I provided? Did you read it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover
Its not proof. Period. Direct conflict with observable phenomena. Proven false. Sources provided.
I may have mentioned how commonly theists refuse to concede points. Hopefully you can rise above the common level of believers and admit that this prime mover argument conflicts with measurable events. When something has been so firmly and definitively disproved an intellectually honest person will admit it. Please, show us you are above the rank and file believer by admitting that the prime mover argument is wrong.
Matt – We shouldn’t forget that when the Pope talks about “the hoped-for goal of fraternity and peace in truth” he means becoming Catholic (and it must be Catholic, not just Christian, otherwise why would he bother specifically being a Catholic?). And those who don’t become Catholic will and should burn in eternal hell fire. Does that sound like a basis for dialogue to you?
I’m reminded of a joke. A rabbi, an imam and a priest are talking about their journey in faith. The rabbi explains his own experience, and and the imam says “well that’s great – I don’t believe what you believe, but it’s great that you find such comfort in your beliefs”. The imam then explains how he came to his calling, and the rabbi says “well that’s great – I don’t believe what you believe, but it’s great that you find such comfort in your beliefs”. The priest then talks about how he came to Christ, and the rabbi and imam say “well that’s great – I don’t believe what you believe, but it’s great that you find such comfort in your beliefs”. And the priest says “They’re not my ‘beliefs’, they’re the direct word of God, and you’re both going to burn in hell!”
Of course I’m being unfair – the same story works with the imam as the punchline, and a more toned down version with the rabbi.
Matt, Tito,
You have to educate yourself more, Josephus was a crock. That is not a validate source for jesus proof of existence.
Muhammad did exist, and he created an even more criminal religion. The coran is as bad as the bible, no matter how you look at it.
Have you been blinded to the church criminal record? Have you ever read history?
For centuries people HAD to be members of religion so they were not burn to stake. Imagine an atheist living in the XIII century.
Of course I hate the catholic church, after all the did to my southamerican ancestors without even apologizing. They forced their stupid belief system into our Indians, force them to slavery and kill them in very horrible ways if they refused.
The vatican is not more than a dirty money laundry house of whores. No wonder they are called The whore of Babylon.
aor,
Selective redefinition of terms is an attempt to deceive. There is no other interpretation.
It is indeed. THat’s why I was clear in my definition of Faith so that you could avoid the error.
If you aren’t willing to use the proper definition of the word then you shouldn’t use it. If you insist on using a self serving definition then you aren’t speaking communicating honestly.
YOU used the word faith to suggest that being able to prove God eliminates faith, which would be contrary to religious understanding. YOU used the word faith in a religious context but based on a secular definition which is not how religious understand it THAT IS DISHONEST. It is YOU who redefined the word based on a faulty context. If you insist on the secular definition of faith, then I accept that being able to prove God does eliminate (secular definition) faith, but that it is in no way problemetic for religious, because when we insist that (religious definition) faith is necessary we mean something different than you. Frankly, though… the Latin “fides” meant religious faith before the English language existed, so I don’t think it’s unreasonable to accept that as a valid definition ESPECIALLY when YOU use it in a religious context.
I provided a link on the prime mover argument. It falls flat. Not proof. Did you click on the link I provided? Did you read it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover
Its not proof. Period. Direct conflict with observable phenomena. Proven false. Sources provided.
Wrong…. not possible to refute it with observable phenomena. Not proven false. Wiki is not authoritative in Aristotelian philosophy. Now, in so far as various phenomena APPEAR to move without a mover, the fact is that the energy within them came from a source… the uncaused cause. Everything has a cause… what caused the big bang? I’m not suggesting that this proof is compelling for everyone, I’m suggesting, as has always been the position, that it points to a reasonable conclusion which I accept.
how commonly atheists refuse to concede points. Hopefully you can rise above the common level of nonbelievers…
Paul,
We shouldn’t forget that when the Pope talks about “the hoped-for goal of fraternity and peace in truth” he means becoming Catholic (and it must be Catholic, not just Christian, otherwise why would he bother specifically being a Catholic?).
Well that’s not entirely true. Certainly it is the stated mission of the Church to make disciples of all nations, however, he also means to be friendly with, maintain peaceful relations, and foster the truth in dialogue with those not yet ready to receive the Word.
And those who don’t become Catholic will and should burn in eternal hell fire.
Yes, the Church is triumphal. How can one believe a Church that denies it’s basis? This would violate the laws of non-contradiction. If God created a religion that is true, all other religions which differ, in so far as they differ must be false, wouldn’t you agree? Eternal damnation is permanent separation from God, it is always a personal choice to separate yourself from God. The Church has always taught, that if one fails to find the truth of the Catholic Church through no fault of one’s own , and yet, seeks to follow the law “written on his heart” then he will be judged on that basis.
Does that sound like a basis for dialogue to you?
That’s not really the basis for dialogue, but it has to be considered, and it is important in dialogue to be frank.
Brian,
stupid belief system? have you seen Apocalypto?
The Church didn’t do anything you say, in fact the Church attempted to restrain the Spanish in their immoral actions against the Indians. The entire basis for international law began when Catholic priests excommunicated local leaders for their mistreatment of the natives.
….”The Inquisition was an institution within Roman Catholicism charged with preserving the purity of Church doctrine. It was started in the 13th century, and reached its heights in the 16th century. In the early 16th century the kings of Portugal and Spain expelled all people of Jewish faith from the Iberian Peninsula (Spain and Portugal) and their colonial holdings in the New World and Asia. The Inquisition was used to root out Jews who hastily converted to Christianity in an attempt to avoid detection and oppression. These converted Jews, or conversos, suffered torture and even execution throughout Latin America. The House of Inquisition shown in this photo was the site of over five hundred religious executions and was only closed late in the 18th century. It is now a museum and memorial to the victims of the Inquisition.
Cartagena is a large seaport town on Colombia’s northern coast. It was settled in 1533 by Spanish conquistadors and was an important seaport during the colonial period”
Museum Spanish Inquisition, Cartagena, Colombia.
Not only Indians were abused in the name of god, but also slaves brought from Africa.
Matt:
it is always a personal choice to separate yourself from God
I’ve heard that a lot, but never seen it justified. I have never chosen to separate myself from God – does that mean I’m a Christian, even though I don’t happen to believe that Jesus can be the son of a god?
“it is important in dialogue to be frank.”
Very true – does that mean the Catholic ‘negotiators’ will remind their interlocutors from time to time that they’re all going to hell, and deservedly so? It is, after all, one of the fundamental ideas in Catholicism, so it wouldn’t pay not to be frank about it.
Brian,
….”The Inquisition was an institution within Roman Catholicism charged with preserving the purity of Church doctrine. It was started in the 13th century, and reached its heights in the 16th century. In the early 16th century the kings of Portugal and Spain expelled all people of Jewish faith from the Iberian Peninsula (Spain and Portugal) and their colonial holdings in the New World and Asia. The Inquisition was used to root out Jews who hastily converted to Christianityin an attempt to avoid detection and oppression. These converted Jews, or conversos, suffered torture and even execution throughout Latin America. The House of Inquisition shown in this photo was the site of over five hundred religious executions and was only closed late in the 18th century. It is now a museum and memorial to the victims of the Inquisition.
Cartagena is a large seaport town on Colombia’s northern coast. It was settled in 1533 by Spanish conquistadors and was an important seaport during the colonial period”
I’m not going to defend the inquisition, but some distinctions need to be made between the actions of secular Kings who are Catholic (or even individual members of the Church) and the actions of the Church. The Spanish Inquisition was operated by Spain, not the Church. It was done for dual purposes, political and religious. It was never permitted to operate against non-Catholics, in order to achieve conversion (the Church had forbidden such use explicitly). Keep in mind that Spain had just been restored after ejecting the mohammedans who had invaded it, so the new King found himself in particularly dire circumstances and needed to know the loyalty of his subjects. Again, I do not justify it. Furthermore, the entire inquisition lasted about 300 years and approximately 3000 people were executed. By comparison 25,000 were executed in England in one year after Church was suppressed there.
Paul,
it is always a personal choice to separate yourself from God. I’ve heard that a lot, but never seen it justified.
I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying.
I have never chosen to separate myself from God – does that mean I’m a Christian, even though I don’t happen to believe that Jesus can be the son of a god?
No, it doesn’t mean you are Christian. I can’t answer if you have made the choice to separate yourself from God by culpably rejecting His Church, or whether you live according to the law that He has written on your heart. That is entirely God’s judgement.
“it is important in dialogue to be frank.”
Very true – does that mean the Catholic ‘negotiators’ will remind their interlocutors from time to time that they’re all going to hell, and deservedly so? It is, after all, one of the fundamental ideas in Catholicism, so it wouldn’t pay not to be frank about it.
Of course not, such would not be fruitful. Have your Christian interlocutors done that here? If so, then shame on them. If you ask though, then we must be truthful, but in as gentle terms as the circumstances dictate…. when you are asking a girl on a date, do you walk up to her and announce your final intentions for your relationship in direct terms? Do you constantly remind her what they are? Dialogue is like dating.
Matt: I’m sorry, I thought you said that it was a personal choice to separate yourself from God. I have made no such choice, at least not according to the secular definition of the word choice. Does the Catholic church have another definition?
It’s been a long time since I asked a girl on a date, but yes, I would tell her what I had in mind. And I suppose I would remind her often what those intentions were; in fact just my presence in her life would do that. Why, would you hide your intentions when dating?
Paul
Paul,
I’m sorry, I thought you said that it was a personal choice to separate yourself from God. I have made no such choice, at least not according to the secular definition of the word choice. Does the Catholic church have another definition?
I’m not saying you have. The word “choice” as I am using it is not necessarily like ordering a baloney sandwich on the menu, it may be that way or it may be far more subtle. Nobody chooses to be poor, but sometimes people’s bad choices ultimately lead to poverty, is it not their choice nonetheless?
There are times when the Church does not have precise answers to such difficult questions from reason or revelation, and in such cases it will leave the question open.
It’s been a long time since I asked a girl on a date, but yes, I would tell her what I had in mind. And I suppose I would remind her often what those intentions were; in fact
So it went like this: Hi Susie, I want to marry you, let’s go on a date tonight? I had fun, I’d like to marry you, let’s get together again next Friday? etc. etc.
You know I didn’t say anything about hiding intentions, only that we sometimes leave them unsaid until the APPROPRIATE time.
just my presence in her life would do that. Why, would you hide your intentions when dating?
Perhaps sitting in a room with a papal envoy is similar.
@Matt McDonald
I provided a refutation, with sources. Simple and clear, isn’t it? If you want to deal with the issue, you have those sources to consider. You did not, you only try to squirm out of it again.
The prime mover argument is destroyed. With sources.
Proven false. Why do you insist on this being true when it conflicts with observable data, and why pretend it is a fault with Wikipedia when it has sources? Are you ignoring those sources? Willfully? Are you familiar with the phrase willful ignorance?
From Wikipedia,
See that? Many examples. Reputable sources. Observable by normal people. Accept it, man. Denying observable phenomena is foolish. When reality conflicts with your beliefs in the supernatural, reality wins. Change your beliefs to match the data.
So while you chose a self serving definition and exclude others, I insist on using the proper general definition. Your response is that because it conflicts with a religious definition it is wrong. Sorry, that is plainly wrong. If you want to speak english, you use an english dictionary. This is not open to discussion. If you want honest debate you MUST use shared definitions of terms. Your resistance to this implies that you think you can benefit by misdefining words. When a point is proved, an intellectually honest person will admit it. You have not admitted that the prime mover argument fails the test of observation. You should, but to do so would weaken your religious beliefs. Rather than speak truthfully you knowingly discard verifiable and observable facts in order to let your belief in one particular version of the supernatural go unchallenged.
So while you chose a self serving definition and exclude others, I insist on using the proper general definition. Your response is that because it conflicts with a religious definition it is wrong. Sorry, that is plainly wrong. If you want to speak english, you use an english dictionary. This is not open to discussion. If you want honest debate you MUST use shared definitions of terms. Your resistance to this implies that you think you can benefit by misdefining words. When a point is proved, an intellectually honest person will admit it. You have not admitted that the prime mover argument fails the test of observation. You should, but to do so would weaken your religious beliefs. Rather than speak truthfully you knowingly discard verifiable and observable facts in order to let your belief in one particular version of the supernatural go unchallenged.
My faith in God in no way is diminished by any refutation of the arguments of a 3rd century Before Christ pagan philosopher. I just don’t find your arguments (or the one’s you pasted from Wikipedia) to be compelling.
Rant all you want, as I STATED CLEARLY if we accept the secular definition of faith (#2 below) then it is clearly not necessary when we can conclude by reason. That doesn’t hurt religion, nor does eliminate the need for religious faith (#1,3,6,7,8 below), whatever label you would chose.
By the way:
Random House Dictionary
faith
/feɪθ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [feyth] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another’s ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one’s promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
which of these 8 definitions do you DEMAND we use in our discussion? And what word may I use to describe the other definitions?
Finally the Latin origin is from a word that means “to trust” which in no way excludes a certainty.
Here endeth the lesson.
ps. what caused the big bang? You keep ignoring that question, as if perhaps, there is not a wikipedia answer to it.
@ matt
“If you insist on the secular definition of faith, then I accept that being able to prove God does eliminate (secular definition) faith, but that it is in no way problemetic for religious, because when we insist that (religious definition) faith is necessary we mean something different than you. ”
mark bey: Matt I have a few questions for you out of curiousity.
1) Were does your religious deffinition of faith come from?
2) If your religious deffinition of faith comes from your biblical worldview, then exactly what bible or scritpture should be used for the deffinition of faith you are claiming.
While I have my dictionary open, which of these definitions of “proof” do you demand me to use? I like some of the highlighted ones, but I wouldn’t want to pick the wrong one. When I first introduced the proof of Aristotle it was clearly not in the context of a definitive proof, but of a proof sufficient to produce belief, an evidence, or having probative weight. The fact, that on a particular level, it does not (apparently) hold to be true, does not mean that it is false on all levels, or that it does not provide evidence as to it’s premise. There are plenty of successful refutations of Darwinian Evolution, that doesn’t mean that they destroy your faith in it, only that it is in imperfect theory, which I would certainly concede that Aristotle’s prime mover is an imperfect proof of God. It is much better developed by Aquinas (who has 5 proofs) with the benefit of 1000 years of scientific development.
proof
/pruf/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [proof] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
2. anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?
3. the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof.
4. the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration.
5. Law. (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight.
6. the effect of evidence in convincing the mind.
7. an arithmetical operation serving to check the correctness of a calculation.
8. Mathematics, Logic. a sequence of steps, statements, or demonstrations that leads to a valid conclusion.
9. a test to determine the quality, durability, etc., of materials used in manufacture.
10. Distilling.
a. the arbitrary standard strength, as of an alcoholic liquor.
b. strength with reference to this standard: “100 proof” signifies a proof spirit, usually 50% alcohol.
11. Photography. a trial print from a negative.
12. Printing.
a. a trial impression, as of composed type, taken to correct errors and make alterations.
b. one of a number of early and superior impressions taken before the printing of the ordinary issue: to pull a proof.
13. (in printmaking) an impression taken from a plate or the like to show the quality or condition of work during the process of execution; a print pulled for examination while working on a plate, block, stone, etc.
14. Numismatics. one of a limited number of coins of a new issue struck from polished dies on a blank having a polished or matte surface.
15. the state of having been tested and approved.
16. proved strength, as of armor.
17. Scots Law. the trial of a case by a judge alone, without a jury.
markbey,
1) Were does your religious deffinition of faith come from?
The Church provides it through Tradition and Scripture.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c3a1.htm#III
2) If your religious deffinition of faith comes from your biblical worldview, then exactly what bible or scritpture should be used for the deffinition of faith you are claiming.
While it is not exclusively through Scripture (not being a Sola Scriptura type of Christian) here are some references (see the link above for context):
Mt 16:17;
Gal 1:15;
Mt 11:25.
Mk 16 20;
Heb 2:4.
Eph 1:18.
Jn 18:37; 12:32.
Mk 16:16;
Jn 3:36; 6:40
Mt 10:22; 24: 13
Heb 11:6
1 Tim 1:18-19.
Mk 9:24;
Lk 17:5
Gal 5:6;
Rom 15:13;
Jas 2:14-26
1 Cor 13:12;
I Jn 3:2.
2 Cor 5:7
l Cor 13:12.
Rom 4:18.
Heb 12:1-2
Matt,
have you read “Perché non possiamo essere cristiani (E meno che mai cattolici)” by Piergiorgio Odifreddi.?
or “The whore of Babylon” by Fernando Vallejo? (la puta de babilonia)
You might like them.
Brian,
have you read the Summa Theologica by Thomas Aquinas? How about War and Peace?
Matt,
No I have not. But I will next month.
Hey, not only religion committed atrocities to Latin-American Indians but also to Canadian aboriginals.
Since we are citing check this:
http://www.hiddenfromhistory.org/
By the way, thank you for your smart and civilized responses.
Brian
@Matt McDonald
Tough. If the validity of repeatable experiments isn’t convincing to you then you haven’t got a leg to stand on in any rational discussion. You cannot participate in this conversation if you insist that reality, observable repeatable measurable phenomena, does not have meaning. Those are real sources. If you want to ignore what they say then you have to do some serious work to refute their claims. Have you found sources that contradict those claims? Real sources? I have to assume you haven’t, which explains your attempts to move the goalposts. This is a bad sign as far as your honesty goes. When you insist that reality has to take second place to your particular religious fantasy then you are making an obvious and ridiculous mistake. I think that your reluctance to accept proofs in this way says a great deal about how unconcerned you are with intellectual honesty. More precisely, it says that you don’t care about the truth if that truth conflicts with your fantasy. I assume you can see how flawed that approach is.
You brought up this pagan philosopher. Now you don’t care because he was a pagan? You are not only moving the goalposts, you are moving your own goalposts! How can you even pretend to be honest? Your actions are clearly deceptive. You chose to use Aristotle to defend your beliefs, now that his point has been refuted (despite your denials) you want to pretend it doesn’t matter. Take a position and stick to it! If you didn’t find his claims convincing you would not have mentioned him at all. Stop taking positions that contradict each other.
So, if we accept that faith is belief that is not based on proof, then {it is clearly not necessary when we can conclude by reason}. I’m not sure what you mean by that, I had to paraphrase it to get any sense of your meaning at all and it still sounds off to me. I have to assume you mean that by this definition, reason is not proof. Maybe I am interpreting your words wrong. Perhaps you can rephrase that. My point can be summed up as ‘Faith that has been proven cannot be faith.’
I’m not ignoring this, I’m trying to get you to take a firm position on the other issues that relate to this. A common tactic from theists is to change the topic only to later return to points that have been previously refuted. I would prefer to lock you into firm and precise positions so that you don’t ever feel tempted to return to a position that has been refuted. You are clearly reluctant to do so, unsurprisingly. Deceptive people often have to use those methods. But if you insist on my answering the question, it is rather simple: I don’t know. I don’t pretend to know. I don’t claim to know. I don’t claim it is knowable or unknowable. I don’t claim the answer comes in a book from one particular version of one particular cultic god figure from 3000 years ago. Simple, isn’t it?
I demand we use the entire definition of Faith and any and all other words that come up in this conversation. Based on context some of those definitions can be eliminated. I don’t accept the right you claim to have to redefine words whenever you choose. I don’t think you even mean that, so if you could clarify that also that would be great. It would be nice to think that I am talking to someone who won’t redefine ‘the’ or ‘of’ or ‘zombie’ as something that doesn’t match the dictionary.
aor,
My faith in God in no way is diminished by any refutation of the arguments of a 3rd century Before Christ pagan philosopher. I just don’t find your arguments (or the one’s you pasted from Wikipedia) to be compelling.
Tough. If the validity of repeatable experiments isn’t convincing to you then you haven’t got a leg to stand on in any rational discussion. You cannot participate in this conversation if you insist that reality, observable repeatable measurable phenomena, does not have meaning. Those are real sources. If you want to ignore what they say then you have to do some serious work to refute their claims. Have you found sources that contradict those claims? Real sources? I have to assume you haven’t, which explains your attempts to move the goalposts. This is a bad sign as far as your honesty goes. When you insist that reality has to take second place to your particular religious fantasy then you are making an obvious and ridiculous mistake. I think that your reluctance to accept proofs in this way says a great deal about how unconcerned you are with intellectual honesty. More precisely, it says that you don’t care about the truth if that truth conflicts with your fantasy. I assume you can see how flawed that approach is.
Is it not possible, where a great philosopher like Aristotle or Aquinas were here, they might suggest that the person setting up the experiments which are repeatable, be the cause of the results which they observe? I don’t know.
I’ve perused the arguments you posted from Wikipedia, and I have neither the time, nor the inclination to study them and verify their authenticity, and that they are properly applied to refute Aristotle. It is just not that important to me to defend in detail Aristotle’s proofs. I’m sorry if that is uncomfortable to you, however, I have presented many arguments here which you do not respond to substantially, can I assume you concede on ALL of them? Or just that you didn’t find them compelling enough to research and refute in detail? I will give YOU the benefit of the doubt.
Maybe if I spoke more loudly then you would be able to understand these words I am saying to you. My faith in God in no way is diminished by any refutation of the arguments of a 3rd century Before Christ pagan philosopher. What part of that sentence is it that you do not understand?
You brought up this pagan philosopher. Now you don’t care because he was a pagan? You are not only moving the goalposts, you are moving your own goalposts! How can you even pretend to be honest? Your actions are clearly deceptive. You chose to use Aristotle to defend your beliefs, now that his point has been refuted (despite your denials) you want to pretend it doesn’t matter. Take a position and stick to it! If you didn’t find his claims convincing you would not have mentioned him at all. Stop taking positions that contradict each other.
It is your actions that are deceptive, just like an atheist. Here is my original context “I highly recommend you educate yourself a little, and then we can perhaps discuss the proofs of God by Aristotle, and St. Thomas Aquinas.” How can you in intellectual honesty suggest that I used Aristotle to defend my beliefs.
‘Faith that has been proven cannot be faith.’
Is true based on definition #2 from the previously cited secular dictionary. However, it says absolutely nothing, it’s moot… so what? Who cares? It is not related in any way to theology Christian or otherwise.
I don’t accept the right you claim to have to redefine words whenever you choose.
I think you need to be honest and accept that I posted and accepted the definition in the dictionary, just not the one of nine definitions that would make your statement accurate, and the one that would render your point moot. So, yes, I concede that you are not in error, you just didn’t say anything meaningful to the discussion? Feel better now?
If Aristotle’s position wasn’t important to you then you would not have brought it up. You chose it because you thought it defended your position, and when you found that to be false you chose to deceive rather than admit it. This does not make me uncomfortable, it is merely an indication of your willful ignorance.
I explained why I did not respond to your attempts to change the topic. You showed yourself as yet another believer who is unwilling to concede a point even when it is proven conclusively with repeatable experiments. Ask yourself a question.. if you are unwilling to concede a point, why would you expect anyone to discuss things with you rationally? You don’t intend to accept the consequences of evidence, dening the validity of science! You won’t speak honestly, you won’t accept the consequences of rational debate.
You deny you used Aristotle to defend your beliefs? Then who said these words?
Before I forget, more evidence of sexual abuse in public schools vs. Catholic Churches:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/dave-pierre/2009/01/30/lat-minimizes-school-sex-scandals-trumpets-flimsy-story-cardinal-mahony
Enjoy.
@Tito – that seems more like evidence of poor reporting. Though technically that’s the first piece of ‘evidence’ you’ve provided, so I’m not sure it counts as more evidence at all. I’m still very interested to see your justification for saying that “20% of public school teachers have engaged in sexual acts upon minors”.
@Matt – No, the conversation would be more like “Hi Susie, I think you’re smart/funny/attractive (usually the former), would you like to go out with me?” Follow-ups might include “I had fun last night, and thought it would be fun to go out again tonight” or “This band are playing tomorrow night and I’d love to go with you”. I’ve never dated someone because I wanted to marry them, I’ve only ever wanted to marry someone once I’ve dated them.
Back to choice. I’ve never made a conscious or unconscious choice to reject any god. I’ve never chosen to associate with atheists (even here – I probably spend as much time on faith-based sites as atheism-based ones). I live a good life, looking after my (extended) family as best I can, supporting charities, etc. I’m certainly a flawed person, though I hope little more than the next man. But I don’t believe that Jesus was the son of a god (nor do I believe that it is possible so to be), and therefore I’m going to burn in the eternal fires of hell, because it doesn’t matter what I’ve *done*, it only matters what I *believe*.
addendum @Tito – when I said “I’ve only ever wanted to marry someone once I’ve dated them” that naturally does not include Salma Hayek ;)
Tito: When you cite 20% of school teachers being involved in sexual abuse of their students, what proportion of those cases involve teachers having consensual relationships with students at or near the age of consent? Even including that, I’d be surprised if it’s anywhere near 1 in 5, but the model of abuse that happens in schools is very different from that which happens in churches.
In neither case is this intended to describe all cases of course, but as a general rule, teachers get involved with pupils of the opposite sex who understand sex and are old enough to make informed decisions. There is rarely any coercion. Priests more often get involved with young, impressionable children who are told that the priest is the representative of God, and they’ll go to hell, if they tell anyone what happened.
Both are bad, yes. Both involve an abuse of authority. But one is far worse than the other.
aor,
I’m sorry, if you want to dictate my intent and misrepresent my positions, there’s no point in talking to you.
wintermute,
teachers get involved with pupils of the opposite sex who understand sex and are old enough to make informed decisions
Are you schoolteacher? It’s frightening to me to hear someone justify a schoolteacher having sex with a student. This is just sick.
Paul,
you never told Susie your ultimate intentions, only your proximate ones. When I engage someone for evangelism, my ultimate intention is the salvation of their soul, the proximate one is to visit with and talk with them, to understand their point of view, to learn about common interests etc
I’m going to burn in the eternal fires of hell, because it doesn’t matter what I’ve *done*, it only matters what I *believe*.
You’re arguing against a position which I do not hold. Remember, the Church never, ever taught that belief alone is the requirement for salvation. It is always based on acts, and never through no fault of one’s own. I don’t presume to judge your state. I can’t speak in defense of evangelicals who might teach something more along the lines you are opposing, I believe them to be in error, and perhaps culpably so.
I’m not a schoolteacher. And I’m not justifying it. I specifically ended my comment by saying that a teacher having sex with their pupils is wrong, and is a clear abuse of authority. Did you miss that last line?
My point is solely that the abuses made by teachers tend, on average, to be less egregious than those made by priests. Equally, if I say that mugging is a less serious crime than murder, I don’t expect people to think that I’m making excuses for muggers, or that I approve of people getting mugged.
@ matt
matt:”Are you schoolteacher? It’s frightening to me to hear someone justify a schoolteacher having sex with a student. This is just sick.”
mark: I read his statement by about wintermutes and it appears to me matt that you are mistated what wintermute said, so I posted the full paragraph that statement.
wintermute:”In neither case is this intended to describe all cases of course, but as a general rule, teachers get involved with pupils of the opposite sex who understand sex and are old enough to make informed decisions. There is rarely any coercion. Priests more often get involved with young, impressionable children who are told that the priest is the representative of God, and they’ll go to hell, if they tell anyone what happened.
Both are bad, yes. Both involve an abuse of authority. But one is far worse than the other.”
mark: I think you are playing games matt. Nowhere did wintermute justity sex between students and teachers. Public school Teachers who have sex with students who are 14-18 is not right especially when your if the student is closer to 14, but when a Priest or Clergy from any religion engages in sexual acts with adolescents there is a difference because a priest has supposedly been called by god lead peoples souls to the heaven.
Priest have been annointed by god (supposedly) this is what they claim when they put on the cloth so to engage in sinful acts with children is worse in my oppinion.
@ matt
Is thier anywhere in the bible that says it is sin for a Priest to get married.
Im asking this because one of the things I respect about the Catholic church is the belief that Priest arent allowed to have sex.
I think the fact that these men have to suppress thier sex drive is one of the biggest motivating factors in the sex abuse scandal going on in the church. These priest who are adult men also most likely have adult sexual urges just like most other adults on the planet. Asking adults to be responsible when having sex is something I can understand and i believe in, but asking adults to not to have sex for thier entire life is retarded and backwards. The fact that the Catholic chuch still inists that priest remain virgins just goes to show how backwards religion in general is.
This is also one of the reasons why I reject christianity and any other religion that claims it is a sin to have sex before marraige. From what I understand over 80 percent of the american population has had premarital sex.
Who does the Catholic church think it is fooling?
I meant to say
Im asking this because one of the things I respect least about the Catholic church is the belief that Priest arent allowed to have sex.
@Matt McDonald
You were caught, so you run away rather than defend your own words. Its typical.
For future reference, honest people don’t behave that way.
@Matt – You’re wrong, I *did* tell Susie my ultimate intentions. I’ve never once started dating someone with a view to marrying them, nor have I continued dating them to see if I wanted to marry them. That’s true of my current relationship, which is with the woman I actually married.
You’re also wrong about my going to hell – I haven’t been baptized, and couldn’t in good conscience be baptized now (because to be baptized into a faith I happen not to believe in would, I think, be a lie that wouldn’t ‘work’). As I understand it that means that I can’t go heaven. I guess I might qualify for purgatory – that level of theological parsing is beyond me.
And finally, you’re wrong about what wintermute said. I’m not a schoolteacher, but I am a member of the governing board at a school, and I can tell you that I would do everything in my power to get a teacher fired if he or she had a relationship with a student who was above the age of consent, and would push for much greater punishment if the student wsa younger. It’s blatantly obvious that wintermute holds a similar opinion, even while he and I also believe that what Catholic priests in several countries have done is worse. That you tried to spin what he said speaks terribly of your intellectual honesty.
Paul,
Now you’re telling me I’m wrong about what my faith teaches? Now that is the height of arrogance. I may be tempted to concede to you that you are going to he’ll as you seem to insist, but that is for God alone to judge.
I’m sorry Matt, I was just taking my cue from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which says:
“The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.” (http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm#VI)
I am always ready to learn, though, so if you could just explain why I should take your word on matters of faith over that of the Vatican, I’m listening.
You can see why I would jump to the conclusion that you were wrong though, when you were so wrong in the other things I mentioned in my reply. Are you feeling the desire to apologize to wintermute yet?
@Matt McDonald
Your religion preaches that all other religions are wrong. Is that also the height of arrogance, or are you a hypocrite? You seem to want to be above criticism. This is actually the arrogant position. I hope you can see that, although I am certain that you could never admit it publicly.
Paul,
Apparently, to arrogancewe must add poor English comprehension.
That paragraph clearly has a qualifier: “for those who have had the Gospel proclaimed, and had the possibility of asking for this the sacrament”
This leaves the possibility that you are “invincibly ignorant”. Again, I leave that to God’s judgement.
Aor,
Do you accept the immutable law of noncontradiction? Something can’t be true and not true at the same time?
If the Catholic Church is true, atheism and all other religions must be false. If atheism is true, all religions must be false. Not all belef systems acknowledge this, but it doesn’t change reality. In point of face overwhelming majority of people are much closer in their beliefs to Catholicism than atheism… Isn’t it particularly arrogant, for a tiny minority to call the vast majority totally wrong? Especially when this view is in it’s infancy relative to theism? There really are very few great thinkers who have adhered to your world view compared to ours….
@Matt – My English comprehension is fine, but perhaps we need to work on your memory skills. We’re talking about *me*, remember? I’ve had the Gospel proclaimed (by Protestants and Catholics) and have had the possibility of asking for the sacrement. Hence the qualifier doesn’t apply to me. Therefore I will go to hell.
I’m surprised you’re still on about my arrogance, when I’ve explained that it’s not my opinion I’m quoting, but that of the Vatican. I can only assume that you have tested your knowledge against the Catechism, and found the Catechism wanting. Perhaps that explains your fixation on arrogance.
The “immutable law of noncontradiction” – you mean like “X is the son of a god, and hence X cannot be human”? I don’t know if it’s true or not in all senses – I accept the trivial level such as “I am human, I am not not human”, but quantum mechanics means I can’t say it’s yet proven to be immutable (there’s that language thing again).
I’d disagree with your assertion that the majority of people are closer to Catholicism than atheism, at least by Catholicism’s definition, or that of most other religions. At the end of life Catholicism doesn’t take a gradated view of belief; ultimately you believe the right thing and go to heaven, or you believe the wrong thing and go to hell (I’m ignoring purgatory for expediency’s sake – once Catholicism has decided who goes and who doesn’t I’ll be happy to revisit that). Now I don’t know enough to say whether a Protestant would go to hell by that test, but I’m pretty sure everyone who has or would specifically deny the divinity of Christ is going to hell. And historically that’s the majority of people.
@Matt McDonald
I merely took your position and extrapolated it, Matt. Your religion is based on being the one true path to whatever, and claiming that others are arrogant for saying your faith is wrong merely points out your own arrogance and hypocrisy. Your religion is a tiny minority, Matt. Are you admitting your own arrogance? Are you somehow immune to your own accusations? You can see the contradiction in your own position, but to admit it would be to concede a point and that seems to be beyond the ability of most of the theists that come here. By your own reasoning you are arrogant, so either admit it or stop pretending that is an issue at all.
Atheism in its infancy? Have you forgotten Epicurus or are you just ignorant of history? Atheism is certainly older than christianity. We can find sources for this. Perhaps, assuming you want to be seen as an honest person, you should admit to this simple fact. Honest people don’t have trouble admitting those things. Please respond to this point, it is very important that you show the ability to learn from your own mistakes.
The arrogance in these issues comes from claiming that one irrational belief system with no basis is better than any other irrational belief system with no basis. Atheism however is merely the lack of a belief in gods. There is nothing arrogant about being skeptical.
Appeals to authority, appeals to ignorance, appeals to any fallacy you can think of…. don’t bother. If those fallacies were at all convincing, they would not be fallacies. The simple fact that theists require those fallacies to defend their position should tell you a great deal about how well thought out their position is.
Paul,
Did you read my post… “invincible ignorance”? How daft can you be to think you have a better understanding of Catholic moral theology? Did you even try looking up the expression? The Catechism is a teaching document which brings together the fundamental and important aspects of the Church’s doctrines and dogmas. It is by no means the entire deposit of faith, impossible to gather that into a single document.
Ignorance
It is not for me to judge, but, it’s possible that your pride and arrogance are so overwhelming that your intellect is not capable of recognizing what is true, despite having access to the Gospel. I’m not saying I believe that to be true in your case or that it’s even possible today, many Catholics doubt this, but it is just not ours to judge.
If you would like to know more about what the Catholic Church ACTUALLY teaches, you should find a good and orthodox priest convenient to you, put your questions to him and discuss the matters that concern you.
Aor,
and claiming that others are arrogant for saying your faith is wrong
you are lying about my statement. Surely this is unethical, even for atheists? I am accusing Paul of arrogance for suggesting he understands my faith better than I, not for his belief that my faith is in error. I wouldn’t expect him to believe otherwise as an honest atheist.
@Matt – So to summarize, your understanding of Catholicism is greater than the Vatican’s ability to write down it’s understanding, and my belief that the opposite is true is a sign of *my* arrogance. Wow.
If that’s true, why are we even discussing this? And what’s the point of my speaking to a priest? If language is such a poor communicator of the Catholic faith that it can’t even measure up to the inate understanding of an ‘average’ Catholic, what could I possibly learn via language?
As it happens I have spoken to a priest. He was unable to explain why a god who so loved his creation that he sent his only son to die for humanity was content to culpably let most of the people who have ever lived burn in hell forever. I don’t expect you’ll be able to explain it better; after all, if he couldn’t explain it in person then if you write it down I’ve got no chance of understanding it.
Can I assume you’re content to insult wintermute without apologizing?
@Matt McDonald
It is true that you didn’t use that specific phrase. What you actually said may even have been worse. You called Paul arrogant because he told you that you were wrong about what your faith teaches. He never claimed to know your faith better than you. You put those words in his mouth. He then provided sources. Rather than accept that he was right and you were wrong, you chose to squirm around. A further point, Matt, is the difference between a lie and a mistake. I was mistaken in my description of your actions. I was less accurate than I like to be. I should perhaps rephrase it to “claiming that others are arrogant for contradicting you while providing sources.”
It is also true that of my entire comment you found only that to disagree with. No mention of Epicurus? No response to anything else?
wow, before I tought the catholic church dogma was BS, now I think it is a lot of BS.
Thank you Matt, I am more convinced of my atheism.
Thank you Paul, Aor, winterminute and markbey for the debate. I don’t think I need to read summa theologica now.
… and for the Pope’s next trick:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/02/pope-controversial-austrian-bishop
Yep the one who claims divine rebtribution for the likes of New Orleans.