Atheists vs the rest .

[mordan]

Henry who?

[NowVoyager]

Originally Posted by Twoolf

I listen to the news today, and there are a bunch of survivors of the shooting in Colorado praising god for saving them. You see the same thing after tornadoes, hurricanes or other natural disasters. Um Dude, your fine, but there are 12 people dead, 57 wounded including a 3 month old baby. Where was your God for them? Whats so friggin special about you that you were saved by your God. What did that baby do that your God felt it needed to be punished by pain and suffering, and the loss of its mother. Your God is a prick.

I do believe there is a Divine Creator. I don't believe they are entirely benevolent nor do I believe them malicious; more neutral. Filled with joy when we live in a way that affirms the gift of living, when we can show compassion and saddened when They see how some choose to unleash nightmares of unbelievable horror on their fellow man.

I believe They create and set into motion what we call life.

What we do with it is largely left to us; what we choose to do with our free will, what we chose to value, how we live and interact with those around us; but I believe that the greater design is beyond our control.

As far as why an innocent child would suffer such a horrible fate; I cannot fathom. But I don't 'blame' the Creator. I blame the deranged and hate filled killer, who plotted and planned to take lives.

For those who's lives were spared I believe it was simply not their fate to die this night. Why, I don't know; again, no more than I know or can understand why others in the cinema were the ones to die in what was just a madman shooting randomly at people.

I do not value another more for their spiritual beliefs nor less for lack of them. I value the person based on how they live from day to day. How they handle the floods and fires of life. Do they temper their strength, their anger with understanding and restraint? Do they defend those weaker than themselves or do they stand mute while the weak are exploited?

Pagan, Christian, Jew, Muslin, Buddhist, Atheist...... All bleed the same, tears just as salty, each just as capable of both good or evil, morality or depravity. It's a matter of choice of the individual; not their spiritual path, whatever direction it takes.

[flourbug]

Originally Posted by dharma

I know. What I am trying to convince you is that the common Catholic is just as aware of this as you are. That they are less willing to reject the idea of a Creator does not make them any less willing to reject the absolute authority of an old man in a big hat over their lives.

I'm typing in between flipping dinner so I may be more scatterbrained than usual.

They are rejecting the very things that MAKE them Catholic. The physical church is what separates Catholicism from the rest of Christianity.

Of course it is, and has been since the beginning. Christmas trees? Yule logs? Christ born on the winter solstice? All the way to evolution not heresy, but fact (and, implied, Adam and Eve a metaphor). The Church has been careful to follow the zeitgeist for a very long time, and they still are.

PARTIAL point to you...

Augustine had an interesting idea. God has revealed himself throughout history and to various cultures. People have tried to explain the Divine repeatedly, and many have come close. Thus he explained the similarities between Pagan Gods and the Christian God. But it wasn't until the story of Jesus that Man got it right. The story of Jesus is the most perfect revelation of Divine Will. So if something from last year's version of the God story worked better for the people, they just helped themselves.

Size, power, wealth, influence? You betcha. Expertise? In what? "Church doctrine" was made out of whole cloth. There are tens of thousands of guys who can speak Klingon and quote obscure passages from forty year old horror movies; do their numbers make their knowledge meaningful?

They KNOW it is a story, but they ACT as if it is real. Even in private. (Very much like Trekkies). A few posts back I said church logic is a lot like algebraic logic in that they have "givens". Indisputable "facts" that are facts because God revealed them to us. In the case of Catholicism they start with the Apostle's Creed. Then they derive everything else from those concepts. If A = B and B = C, then A = C. They build a magnificent house of cards all based on their own version of logic.

Talking to one of these multi-PhD educators is almost bizarre. Highly intelligent, articulate, educated individuals bring you down this rabbit's hole, where they have reasoned out everything about God and the nature of our existence - all based on a concept.

Of course it is. Medicine is hard science. It advances. What is any more empirical, testable, measurable about Church doctrine now than in the 15th Century?

Church doctrine advances in the same way Philosophy advances. It is measured by recognizing more fully the nature of the Divine, especially as spirituality relates to the Human experience.

I am fond of Catholicism, but maybe that is because I grew up in the American Southwest, where it has a decidedly pragmatic flavor. That same pragmatism has spread throughout the church in the last fifty years. The Pope doesn't like birth control? Let the Pope raise the babies!

I can send him a few.

If the Church doesn't believe those who bend a few rules are real Catholics, let the Pope excommunicate them. Of course, after he does so, the Church won't have enough members to fill St. Peter's Square any more. Better reconsider that idea, huh?

It's an honor system. A bum can walk in off the street, confess his sins in the confessional, attend Mass, go up and receive the Eucharist, light a candle, sing a song, collect all the pamphlets in the vestibule, go into the meeting room and eat donuts and drink coffee. No one will stop him. No one will ask to see his membership card or yell out, "Hey, YOU aren't a Catholic."

Which is exactly why we have Cafeteria Catholics. There's no public penalty for thumbing your nose at the rules. It is all internal - by deliberately removing yourself from a state of Grace and knowingly remaining in a state of Sin, you separate yourself from God and your Church.

What confuses me is WHY someone would want to call themselves Catholic if they do not believe the Church teachings or want to follow them. It's like registering as a Democrat but speaking out against their policies and voting straight Republican. What's the point?

[dharma]

Donuts and coffee? Hell, sign me up.

[Toner]

Originally Posted by flourbug

If you ran across a herbalist or faith healer who said, "I consider myself a medical doctor." How long and how hard would you laugh?

It's exactly the same when I hear someone considers themselves Catholic and ALSO thinks they can pick and choose what they want to believe.

Originally Posted by flourbug

Do Christians not consider themselves Christian if they enjoy singing in the Yule or bringing evergreens into their home to welcome the arrival of the Winter Solstice - customs that have roots in Pagan religions?

It's you, not me, who laughs at people calling themselves Catholics when you know better. Using your type of rigidity for the other examples, those Christians probably couldn't be called Christians, nor atheists the atheists. The Catholic church hasn't made statements that extreme, though, so why are you correct to believe it to be the case when you're laughing? The church may say they're wrong but they don't go as far as you seem to.

---------- Post added at 08:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:28 PM ----------

and you still haven't answered if the same rigidity should be applied to you in your atheist beliefs

[Twoolf]

This book probably explains a lot:

http://store.richarddawkins.net/products/product

Also. Sean Faircloth, Attack of the Theocrats.

[flourbug]

Toner, I am not laughing.

Most people raised as Christians were taught a very narrow, sanitized, modernized version of their religion. That leaves us with a lot of adults who make assumptions based on what they THINK their religion dictates - not what it ACTUALLY says.

The Vatican's Catechism of the Catholic faith is available here: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

I also recommend newadvent.com for a fuller explanation of Church Doctrine.

http://forums.catholic.com/ are Catholics answering questions for Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

I admire much about Catholicism. There is a deeply thought out philosophy, intelligence, and logic that I find very attractive. While the history of Catholicism is ripe with malicious politicians and horrible practices, this stands in stark contrast to the doctrine and documents that reflect a breathtakingly generous love for God and Man. Unfortunately the most beautiful cathedral will not stand for me, if it is built on a faulty foundation. I do not believe in supernatural beings - including God - and I choose not to be a pretend Catholic.

Do I hold Christians and atheists to the same standards? Of course. Words have definitions. If you do not meet the definition, then the label does not apply. A proclaimed Christian who does not believe Jesus is God is not a Christian. A proclaimed atheist who professes belief in a theology is not an atheist. A proclaimed Catholic who has removed themselves from God and the Church through unrepentant Mortal Sin, is not a Catholic. They're likely still Christian - but if you don't follow Catholicism how can you call yourself Catholic?

[Mama Alanna]

Flourbug, you know a lot more about Catholic theology than I do. Maybe you can answer a question. IIRC, there are 3 things required before one can sin, but I can only remember 2 of them; one must know that an action is a sin and choose to do it anyway. What is the third? Knowledge of what sin is?

[flourbug]

There are many types of sin as there are cheese.

The three conditions of Mortal Sin are knowledge, free will, and grave matter.

1. Knowledge: You must know it is a sin.
2. Free Will: You must act voluntarily.
3. Grave Matter: Basically, the nature of the sin. It has to be serious for it to be a mortal sin. Saying you were sick to get a day off work to go fishing is a venial sin, falsely accusing your neighbor of murder would be a mortal sin.

[Mama Alanna]

My contention is that Adam and Eve could not have sinned in eating the fruit. Without the knowledge of Good and Evil, they did not know what "sin" was, nor why they should have refrained from eating it. A toddler who whacks another one with a toy truck because the second toddler has something he wants has not sinned. He has committed neither assault nor theft, because he does not know it's wrong.

So there WAS no "Original Sin", and therefore no need for Redemption. Did the followers of Yeshua ben Yussef believe that he was the Messiah? Whether or not he ever existed (and the Romans, bureaucratic record keepers that they were, have NO records of him) the words that are attributed to him are good stuff. It was his followers, particularly Paul of Tarsus, who created the "Redeeming Son of God" and twisted Yeshua's half-remembered words into the religion that Christianity is today.

[mordan]

As long as the Gods are remembered and discussed they will exist.
Keep up the good work.

[Twoolf]

Originally Posted by mordan

As long as the Gods are remembered and discussed they will exist.
Keep up the good work.

How's that working out for Thor, Zeus and their buddies?

[Coyote]

...but if you don't follow Catholicism how can you call yourself Catholic?

Easy, ask any priest.

I'd dare say that no one except maybe the pope and a few others follow the Church rules 100%. Most people just aren't that extreme.

It's kind of like, you don't have to believe in everything the Republican party stands for to be a Republican.

[Mama Alanna]

Originally Posted by Twoolf

How's that working out for Thor, Zeus and their buddies?

About 20,000 worshipers, Twoolf. Like a lot of Neopaganism, heathen numbers are hard to pin down, largely because pagans/heathen tend to fly under the radar, answering 'none' on polls like the OP. There were a number of them at the wedding of DD#1 and her husband, four of them being the bride, the groom, the bride's son, and the minister. Most of the rest were neopagans of some sort or another.

[mordan]

I am the 5th.

[flourbug]

I'd dare say that no one except maybe the pope and a few others follow the Church rules 100%. Most people just aren't that extreme.

Is that true?

The Catholics I have known wholeheartedly believe the Church is the Voice of God. They don't thumb their nose at Christ.

[Potemkin]

Originally Posted by Mama Alanna

My contention is that Adam and Eve could not have sinned in eating the fruit. Without the knowledge of Good and Evil, they did not know what "sin" was, nor why they should have refrained from eating it. A toddler who whacks another one with a toy truck because the second toddler has something he wants has not sinned. He has committed neither assault nor theft, because he does not know it's wrong.

So there WAS no "Original Sin", and therefore no need for Redemption. Did the followers of Yeshua ben Yussef believe that he was the Messiah? Whether or not he ever existed (and the Romans, bureaucratic record keepers that they were, have NO records of him) the words that are attributed to him are good stuff. It was his followers, particularly Paul of Tarsus, who created the "Redeeming Son of God" and twisted Yeshua's half-remembered words into the religion that Christianity is today.

The sin was to disobey G-d,

"You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."
~ Genesis 2:16-17

[Samen]

Originally Posted by Potemkin

The sin was to disobey G-d,

"You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."
~ Genesis 2:16-17

This makes me wonder... With the knowledge we gained we are now humans, without eating the apple we would be dumb animal like creatures living in paradise without emotions for an eternity?

[flourbug]

Originally Posted by Samen

This makes me wonder... With the knowledge we gained we are now humans, without eating the apple we would be dumb animal like creatures living in paradise without emotions for an eternity?

Good question, Samen. Adam and Eve were just as intelligent as we are, but did not know evil, pain, hunger, death, jealousy, greed, lust, shame, malice, or any of the other miseries of man because they had never experienced those things. They had only known perfect love, the comforts of Paradise, and full health. I am sure that would have some effect on emotions... but maybe not in a bad way.

[Mama Alanna]

Originally Posted by Potemkin

The sin was to disobey G-d,

"You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."
~ Genesis 2:16-17

But without the ability to understand right from wrong, obeying/disobeying have equal weight. In a place without death, what does "die" mean? It's a word-sound without a referent. If I say "The next time you blink, you have earned tlalocox" you have no idea if that means I will give you a million dollars or a punch in the snoot.

[flourbug]

MA - http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_cs...m/p1s2c1p7.htm

[NowVoyager]

Originally Posted by flourbug

Good question, Samen. Adam and Eve were just as intelligent as we are, but did not know evil, pain, hunger, death, jealousy, greed, lust, shame, malice, or any of the other miseries of man because they had never experienced those things. They had only known perfect love, the comforts of Paradise, and full health. I am sure that would have some effect on emotions... but maybe not in a bad way.

But if one never knows loss, sadness, pain, wanting; how would they know appreciation for what they had or compassion for those suffering?

Not trying to be contentious, just thinking that every emotion has its opposite and without it there could be no balance.

[flourbug]

God provided Paradise internally and externally for his creations. Innocence did not mean dumb and animal like... animals know pain, jealousy, greed. Innocence was living a life where these things simply did not exist.

The original sin was Adam turning away from God. Eve was innocent. She didn't know what she was doing. But she told Adam what would happen. Adam knew he was sinning, a grievous sin against God, and he did it anyway.

Then the floodgates opened. Without that communion with God, the world was no longer good, and safe, and plentiful. Evil was let loose, man knew pain and death. He had to scrape the earth for food, women would experience pain in childbirth, they would "return to the earth" from whence they came.

^^ All this is midrash. Salvation is within the Church/God. Sin and you break the communion you have with God. You are "cast out" and suffer as you are no longer protected by God.

God suffered and was sorrowful.... and after watching many generations kill each other, decided to send his alter ego/son down to "wash away" original sin. Christ offers a way to be Saved, to be reconciled with God, through his Church, Magisterium, and Sacraments.

[Potemkin]

4 Things Both Atheists and Believers Need to Stop Saying
http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-things...o-stop-saying/