13 yr olds need your help defending Christianity to atheist peers

[jinminn]

That would defeat the purpose of life - which is to choose for ourselves what to believe and how to live.

So, you believe what you do arbitrarily? This not the purpose of my life. I seek to know what I can based on rational truth and sound logic. I do ‘choose for myself’ but based on these criteria. The point is that if the ‘truth’ were certain in this area, there would be no debates just as there are no debates on flat vs. round earth theories. Is it a defeating principle that everyone is aligned on this since they didn’t choose for themselves whether they actually wanted to live by a round earth principle?

Universal love is a Jesus-only theme because He alone told us to love our enemies.

You have a point there. Does this form the basis of Catholic just-war theories?

He also told us that if we love His creatures we love Him.

Correct, which is why I believe that actions matter far more than mere beliefs.

Jesus is a historical person who can be obtained, studied, understood and perceived directly in His teaching, life, death and, above all, His love…

I agree that he is historical and can be studied. I am attempting that. The question is whether his bodily resurrection is the best explanation of what we know, which is, in fact, quite limited. What we know of him comes from those who want to evangelize you through their gospel accounts – anonymously written, disagreeing in key facts, written 30-60 years after his death, omitting most of his life… I realize you see a convincing picture; recognize that I don’t.

What is truth - or goodness, freedom, beauty or love? They are intangible aspects of the Ultimate Reality which are more important than anything else… and indestructible…

Are you able to step outside of our non-ultimate-reality to see that these are intangible aspects floating around in the cosmos and available as universal constants? Since god supposedly created these intangible aspect, couldn’t he destroy them and thus they are destructable? Also, according to theology, they only matter since they are on a scale in comparison to their negatives. Not that I’m a nihilist or something (far from it), I just want to point out that 1) not sure what you want to tell me via these points… and 2) that there’s some holes in your statement.

Are you trying to say that I don’t have any claims on these facts since I may not believe in your deity? Does Christianity have the monopoly on these concepts? I’m happy to find that these would be convincing proofs of Christianity, however since more people are non-Christians and they still apparently to function in alignment with these ‘intangible aspets’, I doubt that they are something only learned or observed or available through Christian eyes. They seem to be in our human nature which is not tied to your god except via a book.

 

[KindredSoul]

I am saying that there is no “true” Christianity - only a hodgepodge of widely different interpretations of what Christianity is “supposed to be”. And even the believers themselves cannot agree on a “true” Christianity.

My second and third paragraphs still apply, as I explicitly qualified them with an “even if” you were of the opinion you now indicate, but you seem to agree on that.

As for there being no true Christianity, of course I disagree. Just because hardly anyone, even believers themselves, agrees on what that one true Christianity is (although it is worth noting that agreement has only terribly broken down in the last five hundred years or so–before that this “hodgepodge”, as you call it, was much simpler), doesn’t mean that one truth doesn’t exist.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[KindredSoul]

I hear you, though you might be leaning toward a false dichotomy – either religious belief is universally accepted or nothing. Atheism doesn’t entail ‘one path’… it simply entails a lack of gods. From then would be discussions of epistemic methods, scientific theories, moral systems, etc.

I think you will find that even if the world was reduced to just one religion, these same discussions and debates would continue on. Though everyone would be Christian, the general denominations still disagree on morality, biblical interpretation, doctrines of concurrence (how free will + omniscience align), etc.

Hope that made sense.

Yeah, I understand.

I guess our disagreement there would be that I don’t even think the simple lack of gods could ever be proven to the satisfaction of even an overwhelming majority of the world. The “to the satisfaction” part is key, because even if Atheists, for example, think they’ve utterly proven Atheism (the lack of gods) and that everyone who disagrees is just in denial, that certainly doesn’t matter, pragmatically. For one, the Atheists cannot know that the religious people are simply “in denial” or if the two sides are in fact at an elaborate impasse in which the religious people are genuinely unconvinced and the Atheists just cannot comprehend why, and vice versa (My posts way way earlier in the thread in correspondence with R Daneel elaborate on this phenomenon).

If Christianity is true, I wasn’t saying we’d ever have absolute unity in this life/age, but having it in the afterlife is better than never, and that’s a guarantee if our religion is true. In the Atheist scenario, this life is all there is, and because of the previous paragraph’s likelihood, that means there would not only never be total agreement in this life, but never in any life.

In either case, though, it sounds like neither of us will get his wish in this life.

Yeah, it really does seem that way.

I just add this to state that in terms of hope for universal alignment of a world view, I think there actually is an equal shot. Either god exists or he doesn’t. The evidence is present to all who want to stare it in the face and make a choice.

My own opinion, based upon what I observe and know of the world, is that universal alignment on a world view is probably not going to happen without divine intervention for any worldview, Atheism, Christianity, or otherwise. It’s true, it’s no more likely to happen naturally if Christianity is true than if Atheism is true. People have shown a strong capacity for being able to disagree, for being able to come to an impasse on almost every topic of this nature. The first paragraph in this post touches on why I think that is. The difference is that in Atheism, there is no such thing as divine intervention, so what would not happen naturally (as in, no divine intervention) simply won’t happen at all. That’s all I meant, not that Christianity was more likely to become universally embraced just by letting nature run its course than Atheism. When it comes to people coming to agree through their own devices, you’re right: Both probably have an equal shot, which is next to a zero chance, at least as a prediction based on how good humans are at agreeing on these topics so far (not at all).

CONTINUED…

 

[KindredSoul]

…CONTINUED (From Above)

Anyway, the point is that it’s another potential false dichotomy: religion = hope; atheism = less of that. I disagree and think it’s more what the believer perceives when imagining giving up the hope he currently has in his belief.

The dichotomy could be false, but only if I attempted to apply it universally, such as saying no one can ever find happiness and hope in Atheism. But that’s not my intention. The fact is that for many people the dichotomy is very real (just as for many, like yourself, it is false). For many people, religion does represent a lot more hope than Atheism ever could. This is a person to person thing, not universal. We cannot assume that these people are just “looking at it all wrong”, because this is a highly personal thing. Just as I cannot insist that every Atheist surely must feel hopeless and depressed (just because I know Atheists do exist who are most unhappy with their Atheism doesn’t mean they all will be), so too the Atheist cannot insist that surely I’m overexaggerating when I know that I could not find as much hope in Atheism as in religion (just because he’s happy as an Atheist doesn’t mean I will be). He can speak for himself, not for me. It would be just as hasty to say that anybody could be happy as an Atheist as it would be to say nobody could.

Basically, I agree it would likely set up a false dichotomy to assume that no one could be happy as an Atheist (in this life), but on the other hand I think it’s a false assurance to assume that everyone could be, and without that assurance I do not think Atheism is a belief I would want to spread if I was an Atheist. In fact, if I were an Atheist, I’d lose all interest in universal unity of belief. Instead, I’d want people to believe whatever made them happy in this life, rather than come to universal agreement, because if I were an Atheist then I would believe this life is all they have, and wouldn’t dare to infringe on whatever beliefs make it a happy one for them. If I want to believe in Atheism despite it making me miserable just because I, for whatever reason, (hypothetically speaking) find it most likely and value that likelihood over any potential hope I might find in religion, that’s my own matter. But I could not make that decision for others, nor would I want to, in a world where I could well be depriving them of [what is to them] the greater hope against their will, with no hope of next-life compensation for their lifelong despair, unlike with religious evangelization (at least as far as the one doing the evangelizing believes).

Keep in mind that you have the same confidence in your religion as others do in theirs. Though you may believe Christianity is more objectively true given a particular set of facts, believe me that apologetics is not a Christian invention!

True, but I cannot judge my own criteria for what I should believe by what others are convinced by. I can only go on my own analysis, my own findings. This is true for anyone. I do not therefore judge those who come to different conclusions than mine. God can read their hearts. I can only share my Faith, let them know that according to my beliefs this is the only place where salvation is. I can only let them know that in my beliefs the only way others can be saved is if somehow God brings them through Christ and the Church despite their lifelong (but apparently well meaning if such a chance is being given to them) unbelief. But I cannot say the last sentence is impossible, no matter how vastly better/safer it may be (according to my religion) if they would believe and practice throughout their lives, and so I cannot say who is or isn’t in Hell, aside from the saints whom I definitely know are not (again, in my religion). I can only let God judge the motives and sincerity of unbelievers should they appear to have an inability to believe.

But regardless of all that, the point is that I know what I believe and find, and I think applying my criteria in my own decisions as to where to put my faith is therefore a sound decision.

Thanks for the continued discussion! I truly appreciate where we’ve been able to meet

Thank you too! It has been a very interesting discussion, and even more importantly it has settled into a very respectful discussion.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[R_Daneel]

My second and third paragraphs still apply, as I explicitly qualified them with an “even if” you were of the opinion you now indicate, but you seem to agree on that.

Yes, I did agree.

As for there being no true Christianity, of course I disagree. Just because hardly anyone, even believers themselves, agrees on what that one true Christianity is (although it is worth noting that agreement has only terribly broken down in the last five hundred years or so–before that this “hodgepodge”, as you call it, was much simpler), doesn’t mean that one truth doesn’t exist.

Unfortunately I am not sure what you mean by “one truth”. Christianity is a complex set of beliefs, and it contains many contradictions - which are the subject of “interpretations”. Some group will resolve the contradictions one way, some other group will resolve them differently. There is no objective “lithmus test” which can be applied to decide which one of the interpretations is the correct one. Each group claims that their interpretation is the “correct” one, and everyone else’s is in error. And that is the ongoing problem - which cannot be resolved. That is why I said that there is no “true Christianity” and that there are no “true Christians”.

 

[KindredSoul]

Unfortunately I am not sure what you mean by “one truth”. Christianity is a complex set of beliefs,

I don’t see the uncertainty about my meaning. It is clearly and logically possible even for a complex set of beliefs to have one authentic and correct interpretation, even if it is difficult (and in some people’s opinions, impossible) to determine which one that is. If I drew up a set of complex rules and beliefs, and after my death people argue about how to interpret them, that doesn’t mean that I didn’t have one intention, nor does it mean that none of those who interpret them after my death are right. Even in a sea of contradictory interpretations, one of them may be right, regardless of whether a given individual thinks he is capable of determining which one.

and it contains many contradictions - which are the subject of “interpretations”.Some group will resolve the contradictions one way, some other group will resolve them differently.

By the same token as which you dismiss any specific interpretation of Christianity from being “authentic Christianity”, I in turn have concluded that this “Christianity” in which you believe (as an outside observer, not a practicing believer), this hodgepodge of contradictions that are real and irreconcilable, is only one more interpretation of Christianity and not the true nature of Christianity as you interpret it to be. Whether you realize it or not, you are asserting the existence of a true Christianity, and your answer is as follows. When asked “What is the true version of Christianity”, your words constitute an answer (whether you realize you’re answering the question or not) that Christianity is “A hodgepodge of contradictory interpretations, none of which is the true one”. That is your answer as to what the true Christianity is, just as I would answer the same question: “Chrisitianity as taught by Catholicism.” I have not found your interpretation to be the true nature of the Fullness of what Christianity is, just as you have not found mine to be. Just as you have not let my (or any other Christian group’s) disagreeing with you change your opinion based on your findings and reasoning, your disagreeing with me does not change my opinion based on mine.

There is no objective “lithmus test” which can be applied to decide which one of the interpretations is the correct one. Each group claims that their interpretation is the “correct” one, and everyone else’s is in error. And that is the ongoing problem - which cannot be resolved. That is why I said that there is no “true Christianity” and that there are no “true Christians”.

That is your opinion, just as it is my opinion, after reflection upon the available data and arguments, that there is one true Christianity, Catholicism. Therefore, as far as I am concerned and can determine for myself, the ongoing problem has indeed been resolved to my own satisfaction, even if not to yours. That other sects disagree with me, and that you disagree with me, is not my concern in determining what I believe.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[stephe1987]

It looks like these particular Atheists are a bunch of spoilt brats. They grew up in a world of instant gratification. I think the new trend of atheist dogma™ is a direct result of the “me” generation.

1. If God does exist, He must be a “meanie” because bad things happen to people every day.* God should always protect everyone who is innocent, so He cannot exist.** (This is pure arrogance; as if we know what God “should” do or have the right to tell Him what to do.)
2. I don’t know how to create a universe. I cannot explain how God made it. Therefore, God doesn’t exist.***
3. When I commanded that God show Himself to me, He did not. So God must not exist. The world I live in gives me whatever I want, whenever I ask for it. If I ask for a new TV or video game, I get it. Mom and Dad will get it for me (child), or I will buy it with my credit card (adult). God cannot exist because he did not show himself as a physical human person when I demanded it of Him. (We cannot command Him to do something we can measure for our own scientific purposes. God is not an Earthly object you can demand or order around – very strange concept for a person who has been given everything they asked for from birth.)
4. God cannot exist because religions are flawed, and there is more than one religion.****

*This life is a test of character. God is seeing how people act, and we will each face Him and be held accountable for everything we said and did on Judgment Day. Especially things we do not regret doing and did not atone for. Some things are intended to teach us a lesson about the world we live in. Don’t touch a hot stove or you’ll get burned. Don’t go out alone in a forest, dark alleyway, etc. Sometimes we are intented to learn something about love, kindness, compassion. The hungry people in the world need our help. Rape victims need counselling and comfort; rapists and criminals need to be punished, and this life is testing us on how we show compassion for people, as well as how we deal with people who have wronged ourselves and others. We should also thank God for everything we were blessed with, and remember those things like our family and friends during times of loss or sadness. We don’t know what God has planned for us in Heaven after we die. Maybe we will each be given special missions and need to use what we learned in this life to accomplish certain tasks.

**In a spiritual sense, we are all God’s children. However, we have the gift (and curse) of free will. Let’s take a look at our own children. Are we going to tie them up and force them to not do something we don’t like? We are creatures with our own thoughts and capable of doing our own actions. Humans are not puppets or inanimate objects we can control. If God wanted a puppet, he would have made a puppet, not an imperfect human being with free will.

***How can we explain how God created the universe, when we did not create it and lack the power to do so? Humans cannot create something out of nothing, but something did come out of nothing or we wouldn’t be here. The universe would still be dark and empty if God didn’t create it…

****The existence of God has nothing to do with religion. This argument is not about which religion is true, but rather, whether or not God exists. I know some “Goddists” who reject religion because of flaws and inconsistencies about where or from whom a piece of religious text came from, whether they wrote it on their own or were truly inspired by God, etc. But they still believe in God. Religion simply tries to explain what God wants and how to please Him. I think a lot of Atheists hate religion for the reasons mentioned above, and mistakenly think you cannot have God without religion, so they reject God and refuse to budge without tangible evidence.

I pray that these children and even adults will one day grow up and see the error of their ways. I do not know what God would say to an Atheist. The Atheist was given proofs and explanations but refused to believe them (cannot claim ignorance). They are not sorry for being Atheists, and are even trying to “convert” others to join them. How can they be forgiven? They are breaking their friendship with God. I guess, to an Atheist, rejecting God on this short Earth-life is worth being separated from God for eternity.

 

[greylorn]

So… let’s get this straight:

• you criticize my post (and not that of KindredSoul who was also helping ‘derail’ things with me – I’m grateful for that, actually).
• then I explain where the posting began, how it was pertinent and went from there
• I also point out that you did little to help the OP and were told so directly by others

And your response is some type of reverse psychology childish pouting tactic? I don’t understand a criticism of someone’s allies when you hardly paint the picture of an attractive alternative posse.

Religious forums are going to attract opponents. Atheist blogs I frequent have their healthy share of religious posters who help offer other opinions and correct poor atheistic arguments. It’s a good thing.

Would you rather have a false representation of the world and have only homogeneous viewpoints?

If you’d read anything I posted, even you might have figured out that mine was not a “homogeneous” viewpoint.

I requested only that the nits posting to this thread figure out that the OP had requested help. By my standards, in this case, that means some practical way of helping her kid deal with atheists. It doesn’t mean using her request as another excuse to show everyone how smart you are.

I picked on you because you are the best example of a mouth on, feet propped up poster (figuratively speaking, of course) on this thread. KS showed some as yet unrealized potential. Don’t take it personally unless doing so suits you better.

Yep, I picked up on the criticism. First time I’ve ever been criticized by guardians of the status quo, so it was a terrible shock. I’m in recovery now.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I agree that it would be unfair to blame the Catholics for the KKK’s interpretation of “Christianity”, each variant should be blamed for they believe. I am saying that there is no “true” Christianity - only a hodgepodge of widely different interpretations of what Christianity is “supposed to be”. And even the believers themselves cannot agree on a “true” Christianity.

You making another error. You are now saying that because there are many different versions claiming to be the true Christianity that therefore there is no true Christianity. I’m sorry but you reasoning is not sound.

 

[R_Daneel]

You making another error. You are now saying that because there are many different versions claiming to be the true Christianity that therefore there is no true Christianity. I’m sorry but you reasoning is not sound.

If I claimed that, then I would make an unsound reasoning. But that is not what I said. I merely pointed out that the impossibility of coming to an agreement is just another sign (or evidence) that there in no “true” Christianity. I am sure you see the difference. The problem is that the foundation of Christianity - the Bible - contains fully contradictory ideas and concepts, which render it to the same category of a “square circle”. Whatever rests on, or is derived from a contradictory set of principles is logically incorrect. I know that there are attempts to “rationalize” or “explain away” those contradictions, but these attempts are futile. When push comes to shove, all these attempts resort to “redefinition” of the questioned concepts. (Without going into this debate, I just present an example: when speaking of God’s “love”, this “love” has no resemblance to the “love” as we, humans use and understand it. But this debate does not belong to this thread.)

 

[MindOverMatter2]

The problem is that the foundation of Christianity - the Bible - contains fully contradictory ideas and concepts, which render it to the same category of a “square circle”. Whatever rests on, or is derived from a contradictory set of principles is logically incorrect. I know that there are attempts to “rationalize” or “explain away” those contradictions, but these attempts are futile. When push comes to shove, all these attempts resort to “redefinition” of the questioned concepts.

A redefinition is not false if the meaning behind it is sound. Besides, theology has its own set of meanings and definitions and they may use old words in a different context which are only relevant to that context. There are also many analogous concepts that are applied to God, such as infinity, which does not mean physical infinity, but means infinity just the same in that God is immaterial and thus has no limits. So a lot of theological definitions are contextual. There are many straw-man definitions of God because people assume that they don’t have to respect the definitions that the theologian has given to the word God or to to a particular word in reference to God. You accuse the theologian of evasion, but it seems to me that you are trying evade the definition being given by the theologian because you know that as soon as you accept their definition you have case.

(Without going into this debate, I just present an example: when speaking of God’s “love”, this “love” has no resemblance to the “love” as we, humans use and understand it. But this debate does not belong to this thread.)

It has an analogous resemblance to the nature of God, in that when human-beings fall in love they are compelled to share the good of each-others nature. Conflict and opposition arises when one or both persons in that relationship restrict the good which they are suppose to or have agreed to share, and that’s when the relationship breaks down. Thus we can see that both parties are being deprived of what ought to have been involved in that relationship in-order for there to be a truly loving relationship. Somebody was being selfish. The thing that was missing was the moral act of love.

Unless both persons are willing to express and accept that which is morally and perfectly good, the love that both parties desire will fail to be communicated, and the person that is being selfish will lose the emotional and spiritual security that love attempted to give him or her. The feeling of love might have been there, but the moral act was not. When a relationship is healthy, there is an aspect to this relationship that seeks to fulfil the greatest good; it is an act to fulfil the good of each-others nature.

There is another kind or aspect of love from which all created good originates and is analogous to; and that is a selfless act of being. It is a moral act. A perfectly moral act is an act that fulfils all moral good perfectly. A moral act is a selfless act of love; and an act of love is a perfection of being; since in love being is universally at its greatest. It is most perfect in love. Human relationship and the ideal of family have a natural or analogous similarity to the moral good of God in that both persons seek the good of each-others being and seek to preserve that good.

God is perfect objective love. Gods act is a timeless and perfect act of moral goodness. If God shares his being it is because Gods being, in its very act of existing, is objectively good, and true goodness is an expression of love, and not because there is something in a created being which compels God to create it, since you cannot be compelled by that which does not exist. Thus, the very act of Gods being is love.

 

[R_Daneel]

A redefinition is not false if the meaning behind it is sound. Besides, theology has its own set of meanings and definitions and they may use old words in a different context which are only relevant to that context.

At the very least this method leads to confusion. To use a well-defined, everyday word in a brand new way, which does not even resemble the universally accepted meaning is usually called the “fallacy of the stolen concept”. The theologians really should come up with a brand new word, explain what it means, and then stick to that word. In such a case there would be no confusion.

There are also many analogous concepts that are applied to God, such as infinity, which does not mean physical infinity, but means infinity just the same in that God is immaterial and thus has no limits.

The so-called omnimax attributes are pretty much meaningless. The “omnipotence” had to be revised. Originally it meant that God can do literally anything and everything. Later on, this definition was discarded when people realized that it leads to logical contradictions. Even later it was revised again. Now it is said that God cannot commit “evil” (contrary to humans), but that fact does not reduce his “omnipotence”, since committing “evil” would go against “God’s nature”, whatever that is. Therefore, the word “omnipotence” is just a word without any meaning. To add insult to injury, if God cannot (as opposed to “could, but does not want”) commit “evil”, then God’s free will becomes meaningless.

People keep asserting that God is both perfectly just and merciful. They don’t realize that these two attributes are contradictory. If a judgment is “just”, then it cannot be “merciful”, and conversely, if a judgement is “merciful”, then it cannot be “just”. Sometimes they quote the phrase of “justice tempered by mercy” - which is sheer nonsense.

So a lot of theological definitions are contextual. There are many straw-man definitions of God because people assume that they don’t have to respect the definitions that the theologian has given to the word God or to to a particular word in reference to God. You accuse the theologian of evasion, but it seems to me that you are trying evade the definition being given by the theologian because you know that as soon as you accept their definition you have case.

Sorry, I cannot accept self-contradictory definitions, no matter what. A square circle remains nonsensical, unless the “square is no longer a square” and a “circle is no longer a circle”. And in that case, the words “square” and “circle” are not to be used. This is a fundamental problem, since there is no proper dictionary (compiled by the Catholic Church, hopefully) which would enumerate the problematic words, and their offical meaning. You cannot say that the Cathecism does that, because it does not. And so, the hide-and-seek continues. When pushed into a corner, the apologists will say: “oh, but we use the word in a different meaning”. When one points out a problem in the Bible, it is invariably asserted that the verses were “taken out of context”, or “they are not really applicable to this age”, etc… while asserting that the Bibke is the inerrant, unchanging word of the immutable God, who - by the way - issued a “new covenant”. Even the word “immutable” is twisted, when necessary.

 

[jinminn]

This life is a test of character. God is seeing how people act, and we will each face Him and be held accountable for everything we said and did on Judgment Day.

This does not do any justice to animals or infants with no character to build who suffer needlessly due to his omniscient creative act.

Maybe we will each be given special missions and need to use what we learned in this life to accomplish certain tasks.

Yes, maybe. Let’s postulate every possible afterlife scenario to make everyone feel better in the meantime even though we have no possible support of those theories. We do have evidence for needless suffering in the world. That’s the key issue, not hypothetical (not even scripture based) ways it will be mended in the future.

Let’s take a look at our own children. Are we going to tie them up and force them to not do something we don’t like?

Do I require a jump rope and a chair to prevent my child from walking out onto a busy street? Come on. You equivocate violating free will with some sort of enslavement. I can both allow my daughter complete freedom to enjoy my front yard and all of the flowers she loves to look at as well as run over and grab her back if she starts heading toward danger. The funny thing is that she barely even has to be cognizant of why I’m doing what I’m doing. She doesn’t know what I saved her from and thus she can hardly feel as though her free will was violated. She simply returns. Given god’s knowledge and our lack of it, we’ve very much children in his eyes (also supported biblically) and thus could afford some direct help.

How can we explain how God created the universe, when we did not create it and lack the power to do so?

HERE’s what science thinks about that. He even has evidence to support his view.

The existence of God has nothing to do with religion. This argument is not about which religion is true, but rather, whether or not God exists. I think a lot of Atheists hate religion for the reasons mentioned above, and mistakenly think you cannot have God without religion, so they reject God and refuse to budge without tangible evidence.

I’m actually very open to this and think that if god exists, he or she or it is almost certainly not described by any religion around today. That, to me, is the humble path: he/she/it may exist but we know absolutely nothing of what we say we do.

The problem is that even a deist or agnostic lives a certain type of practical atheism. Is there a need to pray to a being or energy who has no desire to intercede with the human race? How do we know what it is and what it wants in order to do its will? What’s your evidence for its existence?

I pray that these children and even adults will one day grow up and see the error of their ways. I do not know what God would say to an Atheist. The Atheist was given proofs and explanations but refused to believe them (cannot claim ignorance). They are not sorry for being Atheists, and are even trying to “convert” others to join them. How can they be forgiven?

Indeed:

• god knows my heart, my criteria for belief, etc. The same arguments and evidence are not going to work for everyone in the same way that if I told you a crazily improbable story you may or may not believe me without seeing some evidence. We’re all different and different evidence is needed by each of us to clear our skeptical threshold.
• I agree: ‘How can I be forgiven?’ Here’s what Aquinas would have said:

With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.

n the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but “after the first and second admonition,” as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death. (Summa, II-II, Q.11, art.3.)

Is this what you would like as well? I’m glad we’re still not living by those rules.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

The theologians really should come up with a brand new word, explain what it means, and then stick to that word. In such a case there would be no confusion.

So long as they explain what they mean, there is nothing wrong with it. Also you have given me no evidence that the words they use are completely alien to their original usage. Even if you could find one, you can only blame them of not giving a proper explanation of what they mean.To say that they are trying to deceive people only shows me your desire to undermine Catholic belief, rather than learn from it.

The so-called omnimax attributes are pretty much meaningless. The “omnipotence” had to be revised. Originally it meant that God can do literally anything and everything. Later on, this definition was discarded when people realized that it leads to logical contradictions. Even later it was revised again. Now it is said that God cannot commit “evil” (contrary to humans), but that fact does not reduce his “omnipotence”, since committing “evil” would go against “God’s nature”, whatever that is. Therefore, the word “omnipotence” is just a word without any meaning. To add insult to injury, if God cannot (as opposed to “could, but does not want”) commit “evil”, then God’s free will becomes meaningless.

Are you saying that people cannot misinterpret what omnipotence is? Are you saying that people cannot develop over time in their understanding of revelation? I think you are making assumptions and shouting conspiracy. St. Anselm and St. Aquinas would have had something to say about this. Omnipotence, as theologians and metaphysicians understand it today, does have a meaning, and its meaning is consistent with logic; rather than your straw-man magical version of omnipotence that can do contradictory things. No such thing is implied by Gods nature, and you can only draw that conclusion by twisting the meaning of what faithful theologians are saying out of context in regards to experiential limits. You keep confusing logical limits with artificial limits. You keep calling a duck a goose. You refuse to accept that it is your failure to understand which undermines you, because if you do, then your whole fallacious argument goes down the drain with your straw-man.

Your understanding of freewill and freedom is a straw-man that you have accepted. You refuse to accept or understand what it means to say that “God” is free, (as opposed to the temporal context of that which represents human freewill) because the theologians definition undermines your excuse to disbelief. You assume that human freewill is “freedom”, is the rule, rather than that which allows one to attain freedom (this is why you must understand the metaphysics of Gods being; but you don’t want to). You also assume that free choices cannot take place under any other context other than that which pertains to temporal events. Once you understand Gods freedom within the context of perfection, you will see that it is your straw-man that is flawed and not the concept of God. But you do not want to understand.

People keep asserting that God is both perfectly just and merciful. They don’t realize that these two attributes are contradictory. If a judgment is “just”, then it cannot be “merciful”, and conversely, if a judgement is “merciful”, then it cannot be “just”. Sometimes they quote the phrase of “justice tempered by mercy” - which is sheer nonsense.

According to your strawman version of justice.

Sorry, I cannot accept self-contradictory definitions, no matter what. A square circle remains nonsensical, unless the “square is no longer a square” and a “circle is no longer a circle”.

You haven’t shown me anything to make me think that the concept of God is a square triangle. You have only shown me what you want to think about God and you have applied your arguments to what you think. You have given a false representation of what educated faithful Catholic theologians believe. This is called a strawman.

And in that case, the words “square” and “circle” are not to be used. This is a fundamental problem, since there is no proper dictionary (compiled by the Catholic Church, hopefully) which would enumerate the problematic words, and their offical meaning. You cannot say that the Cathecism does that, because it does not. And so, the hide-and-seek continues. When pushed into a corner, the apologists will say: “oh, but we use the word in a different meaning”. When one points out a problem in the Bible, it is invariably asserted that the verses were “taken out of context”, or “they are not really applicable to this age”, etc… while asserting that the Bibke is the inerrant, unchanging word of the immutable God, who - by the way - issued a “new covenant”. Even the word “immutable” is twisted, when necessary.

It is twisted according to your desired point of view of a faith that isn’t yours, and you certainly do not want it. You have already decided that there can be no answers, so who can help you or teach you. You have decided that your cup is already full. You haven’t told me anything which compels me to agree with you. Its mostly just assertions and the rest is strawman after strawman, which shows no real understanding of what educated faithful Catholics really believe. For anybody to try labor in explaining their faith to you will only be a wasted effort because you are quite comfortable with your strawman.

 

[Lazarette]

If The problem is that the foundation of Christianity - the Bible - contains fully contradictory ideas and concepts, which render it to the same category of a “square circle”. …
(Without going into this debate, I just present an example: when speaking of God’s “love”, this “love” has no resemblance to the “love” as we, humans use and understand it. But this debate does not belong to this thread.)

Some clarifications:
The foundation of Christianity is the incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus.

The Bible is a collection of books relating the story of God’s relationship with His people.

What specifically are you referring to when you claim the Bible “contains fully contradictory ideas and concepts.”

Do you know the differences between eros, philia, and agape?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

jinminn

*Is this what you would like as well? I’m glad we’re still not living by those rules. *

Ah yes, as opposed to those godless societies in which the rule is to kill Christians and Jews, as in Germany and the Soviet Union?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

As to the theme of this thread, is there a manual of Catholic apologetics for high school students?

If not, we are overdue for one. The devil is having a field day with our young. And not least of all on the Internet!

 

[R_Daneel]

Some clarifications:
The foundation of Christianity is the incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus.

The Bible is a collection of books relating the story of God’s relationship with His people.

Ok… more clarifications, then. The Bible is a collection of stories, written by human beings, selected by other human beings by putting them to vote. Some books “made it” by one vote. Others were discarded by votes (the apocripha). It is **the **foundation of the Judeo-Christian beliefs.

What specifically are you referring to when you claim the Bible “contains fully contradictory ideas and concepts.”

Lots of things. But that would belong to a different thread.

Do you know the differences between eros, philia, and agape?

Don’t forget “storge”. I started a thread specifically about agape. You are welcome to give your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[R_Daneel]

To say that they are trying to deceive people only shows me your desire to undermine Catholic belief, rather than learn from it.

Well, then your perception is wrong. I did not say they are trying to “deceive”. I said that the usage is confusing.

As for the rest of your post… your “strawman” argument is meaningless. If you cannot answer the actual points, you cry “strawman”. Happens all the time.

 

[jinminn]

Ah yes, as opposed to those godless societies in which the rule is to kill Christians and Jews, as in Germany and the Soviet Union?

Send me some news quotes where this is happening. I had no idea that this was the current rule in Germany and the Soviet Union.

• We’re less violent today, not more, despite what you think. See HERE.
• Less religious countries are better by every measure of societal health than religious ones.
  — See HERE
  — Quote: “In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies (Figures 1-9). The most theistic prosperous democracy, the U.S., is exceptional, but not in the manner Franklin predicted. The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developed democracies, sometimes spectacularly so, and almost always scores poorly.”
• Just for fun, let’s play ‘who-said-it?’: “Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross.”
  — Any guesses?
  — Adolf Hitler, 1922

So, yes. I suppose I’d rather be in a ‘godless’ nation than the US.