Answering an Atheist (2 points I want help with)

[Peter_Plato]

You’re darn tootin’ it’s reasonable. Everyone who classifies themselves as a Catholic is a representative of the church.

In other words, if Satan or the Anti-Christ “classifies themselves” as Catholics they “darn tootin’” are “representatives” of the Church, merely by making the claim.

Yep, sounds reasonable.

Otherwise what would you suggest? Only those who meet your criteria for what a Catholic actually is should be considered?

Another false dichotomy.

Why is it either self-appellation or some one random person’s criteria on the matter that are the only two possible?

Surely, as reasonable human beings we could arrive at a relatively decent set of criteria that would be an appropriately workable one.

That would be better, certainly, than your suggestion which leads us to the absurd place where the Anti-Christ becomes an ardent member of the Body of Christ merely by posturing as one, no?

 

[Rau]

How can you actually quote what I said and still misrepresent what I said? I am not proposing anything. I am not advocating anything. I am not encouraging anything. I am not even suggesting anything. I am simply pointing out how things are.

Commentary on what you judge the majority position is of limited interest.

Quite right. And can we assume that your views on what should and should not be done only apply to Catholics? I’d like to think that whatever I personally do, as long as it has no detrimental effect on you, is my business and mine alone. Likewise the rest of society. But if your views encompass literally everyone, then it seems a little churlish to complain if you are taken to task on your views.

You have taken the discussion in a circle Brad, for this has been answered. God calls everyone. You will routinely hear on this site about his calling. Your indignation on that point continues to amaze me. Noone seeks to get into “your business” - I only know anything about that because you’ve told us.

I judge the Catholic Church on the actions of all Catholics. The majority use contraception. The majority support SSM. Nearly a third actually have abortions and the majority have no problem with abortions being available. If all Catholics, or even the greater majority obeyed the Vatican on all matters then I would think: ‘Hey, these rules don’t apply to me, but good on the Catholic laity for sticking to their guns. Maybe they have a point’. But they don’t stick to their guns. They break the rules with impunity. They live their lives pretty much as I live mine. Their beliefs on sexual matters seem to match my own.

So it appears to me that the majority of Catholics think that what they are being told is either wrong or that they don’t consider it that important. I don’t judge the church on its rules or what the Vatican decides or what the pope says. I judge it on the actions of its members.

There are several separable items here when one refers to the “Catholic Church”, and upon which you have passed judgement. (1) the average behaviours of Catholics at large, where Catholics refers to all those who were baptised and self-identify in a survey, (2) the organisation called the Catholic Church and in particular its leadesrhip and finally (3) the Catholic Faith itself. Your statements appear generally to be directed at (1) - identifying the failure of the people in the surveys to live up to the ideals of (3). What can we say - many have fallen away and the rest of us are weak.

Are you telling me I shouldn’t have sex outside marriage, or just other Catholics? If you are telling me, then I reserve the right to tell you where to take your suggestion.

“Telling you”?? Noone is *pursuing *you to conform… but if you ask about the faith, expect to hear the same thing again. This has been answered. It’s a teaching of the Catholic Faith - it originates with God. Accept it or reject it. No hard feelings either way.

 

[Bradski]

Why is it either self-appellation or some one random person’s criteria on the matter that are the only two possible?

If I were to ask you if you were Catholic, would self-appellation be acceptable in your case? If yes, then I’ll feel free to use it for anyone else who describes themselves as such. If not, then please let me know how we determine your bona fides in this regard.

Commentary on what you judge the majority position is of limited interest.

On the contrary. You will be known by your fruits. I will repeat what I said earlier: If the vast majority of Catholics followed Catholic doctrine, then it might be reasonable to assume that they may be on to something. Let’s face it, you are all quite eager to use the numbers game when it suits (look how many Catholics there are – are you saying they are all wrong? See how many saw the miracle – were they all deceived?). But point out that the majority doesn’t follow the church in some of the most important aspects of the faith and all of a sudden it’s of limited interest.

No-one seeks to get into “your business” - I only know anything about that because you’ve told us.

I’m not sure you were involved in a recent discussion on those very same lines. That is, is it any of your business what I do in the privacy of my own home. There was almost universal agreement amongst all Catholic posters that indeed it was their business. Here’s confirmation of Catholic interest in my sex life:

Are you telling me I shouldn’t have sex outside marriage?

Yes…

Nuff said.

There are several separable items here when one refers to the “Catholic Church”, and upon which you have passed judgement…

I am not being the one who is judgemental. I am merely pointing out how the world works. Whether Catholics use contraception, have sex on the bus going home or are in gay relationships…well, frankly, as the man said, I don’t give a damn.

What can we say - many have fallen away and the rest of us are weak.

You will all be judged (by me) on how you live your life. Not by how you should do so.

 

[Rau]

…On the contrary. You will be known by your fruits. I will repeat what I said earlier: If the vast majority of Catholics followed Catholic doctrine, then it might be reasonable to assume that they may be on to something.

No, there’s no sense in that. All atheists attest to the view that there is no God. Does that mean they are on to something? I don’t think so. The extent to which tenets of the faith are lived is a measure of a number of things, but not the merit of the tenets themselves. We are frail humans Brad.

Let’s face it, you are all quite eager to use the numbers game when it suits (look how many Catholics there are – are you saying they are all wrong? See how many saw the miracle – were they all deceived?). But point out that the majority doesn’t follow the church in some of the most important aspects of the faith and all of a sudden it’s of limited interest.

A sweeping statement. But the extent of adherence to the tenets of the faith by those in surveys is a fact of limited relevance (see above.). There is a lot of venom in your words Brad. I don’t understand the source of it…

I’m not sure you were involved in a recent discussion on those very same lines. That is, is it any of your business what I do in the privacy of my own home. There was almost universal agreement amongst all Catholic posters that indeed it was their business.

I was not involved. Of course everyone can have a view on the merits of what you do in your home Brad. If you break the law, I’d be concerned that society takes an interest. If you don’t break the law but behave in a way I consider immoral, I can express that view when asked. But I won’t come over to your house and abuse you, or pursue through the streets. Yet your “perma-victim of Catholics” attitude you display here suggests that’s what you think is happening. It’s not.

 

[Bradski]

There is a lot of venom in your words Brad. I don’t understand the source of it…

I think that there is perhaps a fine line between being robust and being antagonistic. My apologies if you feel I have crossed it.

 

[Peter_Plato]

If I were to ask you if you were Catholic, would self-appellation be acceptable in your case? If yes, then I’ll feel free to use it for anyone else who describes themselves as such. If not, then please let me know how we determine your bona fides in this regard.

This is an interesting question. Note that I do not self-identify as Catholic in the religious affiliation field of the profile.

My most honest response would be that that determination is not one that a person can reasonably make for themselves. Ultimately, it is God who would best be in the position to do so precisely because “Catholic” means to be in full communion with the Body of Christ, the Church. We can work at it in various ways, agree to teachings, receive the sacraments and have a general notion that we are closer or farther from participating fully in the mystical Body, but to claim “I am Catholic” in the fullest sense of what it means to be united to Christ is about as accurate as claiming “I know the truth” or “I am good.”

It is quite presumptuous, and probably false, to make such a claim about oneself in the true sense of what it means to be “Catholic” or to be “one with Christ.”

However, I do think we can objectively identify what it means to be Catholic. Those qualities are spelled out in specific and exhaustive detail in the Gospels, Scripture and the teachings of the Church, and exemplified in the life of Christ and the saints through history.

Probably the only real answer one could give as to whether another person is actually a “Catholic” is “That is a determination best made by God. It’s above my paygrade.”

In short, the answer has three aspects:

1. Self-identification as Catholic - best not even thought about - forget about it and do everything you can to be one to the best of your ability realizing full dependence upon grace.
2. Objective what it means to be a Catholic - probably a good idea to read and study Scripture and the teachings of the Church, lives of the saints - do everything you can to work out your own salvation based upon everything you can ascertain from these.
3. Determining whether another person is Catholic - don’t waste your time - refer them and yourself to #2

 

[Jelrak_TB]

This is an interesting question. Note that I do not self-identify as Catholic in the religious affiliation field of the profile.

My most honest response would be that that determination is not one that a person can reasonably make for themselves. Ultimately, it is God who would best be in the position to do so precisely because “Catholic” means to be in full communion with the Body of Christ, the Church. We can work at it in various ways, agree to teachings, receive the sacraments and have a general notion that we are closer or farther from participating fully in the mystical Body, but to claim “I am Catholic” in the fullest sense of what it means to be united to Christ is about as accurate as claiming “I know the truth” or “I am good.”

It is quite presumptuous, and probably false, to make such a claim about oneself in the true sense of what it means to be “Catholic” or to be “one with Christ.”

However, I do think we can objectively identify what it means to be Catholic. Those qualities are spelled out in specific and exhaustive detail in the Gospels, Scripture and the teachings of the Church, and exemplified in the life of Christ and the saints through history.

Probably the only real answer one could give as to whether another person is actually a “Catholic” is “That is a determination best made by God. It’s above my paygrade.”

In short, the answer has three aspects:

1. Self-identification as Catholic - best not even thought about - forget about it and do everything you can to be one to the best of your ability realizing full dependence upon grace.
2. Objective what it means to be a Catholic - probably a good idea to read and study Scripture and the teachings of the Church, lives of the saints - do everything you can to work out your own salvation based upon everything you can ascertain from these.
3. Determining whether another person is Catholic - don’t waste your time - refer them and yourself to #2

Perhaps…but is not my good Bradski then correct in being properly perplexed when given such disparate explanations of who may or may not be truly considered Catholic? For if even one such as yourself might espouse the basic precepts of Catholicism and yet fail to self-identify how is one such as myself, or Bradski, to fully understand what is meant by the Body of Christ here on Earth being comprised of Catholics?

Might I instead suggest a far simpler method of concerning ourselves with Bradki’s difficulty with understanding who might be so considered? For to imagine the difficulty in reverse, who might be accurately described as Atheist? Those who merely subscribe to atheistic podcasts? Those who state as much in a moment of anger to parents in order to excuse themselves from attending Mass? Those who have never encountered God in their day-to-day lives? Those who repeat such a claim on Catholic discussion boards?

Or must there needs be a certain base criteria that might properly exclude some who might make the claim, whilst perhaps even yet including others who might not even so identify, but who might nevertheless meet the conditions?

For if an atheist might be one who does not believe in (or lacks a belief in) God, then might all of those who do not consider God a serious enough matter to give Him any regard in this life be equally considered atheist by their [in]actions (assuming negative actions to be a more powerful indicator than positive words)? Or might only those who claim to lack a belief in God be considered properly atheist? Further, might atheism lay claim to those who might express a disbelief in God and yet continue to attend weekly Mass (positive action contrasted with a negative statement)?

Therefor to consider who or what might be considered Catholic, is it not far simpler to regard all of those whose intents lie within the scope of properly following the edicts of Rome to be Catholic? Would not then all others who self-label be mere pretenders? Much as a true rock-star might be identified as the one who might have the ability to motivate a thousand fans to congregate upon a given spot for a concert rather than the one who merely dresses the part while playing alone in his basement? Is it truly so difficult to distinguish between those who might wear a label for mere convenience or prestige against those who truly fit the part?

 

[Bradski]

This is an interesting question. Note that I do not self-identify as Catholic in the religious affiliation field of the profile.

My most honest response would be that that determination is not one that a person can reasonably make for themselves. Ultimately, it is God who would best be in the position to do so precisely because “Catholic” means to be in full communion with the Body of Christ, the Church. We can work at it in various ways, agree to teachings, receive the sacraments and have a general notion that we are closer or farther from participating fully in the mystical Body, but to claim “I am Catholic” in the fullest sense of what it means to be united to Christ is about as accurate as claiming “I know the truth” or “I am good.”

To me, this comes across as a plea to the effect of: ‘I am unworthy’. Which I would understand and with which I would even have some sympathy. I think the bar that is set by the Vatican is impossibly high. Hence my (probably by now tiresome) repetition of the fact that so many Catholics are blazingly obviously failing to even come close to reaching it.

Surely you would then understand my frustration when constantly being told by a group of people who would undoubtedly take the same stand as do you (we all fail, we all succumb to sin, none of us are perfect) that what I personally do and what I personally believe is a problem for society at large. That I (and like-minded people) are the cause of so many problems. Good grief, you feel that you are not even in a morally secure enough position to class yourself as a Catholic and that God is the only one to determine if you are living or have lived a good life. Yet you (and so many others) have no problem whatsoever in telling me how I should live mine.

I don’t expect abject humility or hair shirts. I expect you to stand your ground on what you believe. But there is some breathtaking hypocrisy in the air when I am being told, and when other member of society are being told, that our business is your business. That we must live our lives in accordance with how your church dictates when you cannot even proclaim yourself a member of that church in the first place.

 

[frangiuliano115]

To me, this comes across as a plea to the effect of: ‘I am unworthy’. Which I would understand and with which I would even have some sympathy. I think the bar that is set by the Vatican is impossibly high. Hence my (probably by now tiresome) repetition of the fact that so many Catholics are blazingly obviously failing to even come close to reaching it.

Surely you would then understand my frustration when constantly being told by a group of people who would undoubtedly take the same stand as do you (we all fail, we all succumb to sin, none of us are perfect) that what I personally do and what I personally believe is a problem for society at large. That I (and like-minded people) are the cause of so many problems. Good grief, you feel that you are not even in a morally secure enough position to class yourself as a Catholic and that God is the only one to determine if you are living or have lived a good life. Yet you (and so many others) have no problem whatsoever in telling me how I should live mine.

I don’t expect abject humility or hair shirts. I expect you to stand your ground on what you believe. But there is some breathtaking hypocrisy in the air when I am being told, and when other member of society are being told, that our business is your business. That we must live our lives in accordance with how your church dictates when you cannot even proclaim yourself a member of that church in the first place.

I’ve been here Bradski.

But you guys are driving armoured vehicles and I’m driving a Nissan Maxima.
Not to mention the territory you’ve been treading!

But, seriously, a question for you. Do you have a problem with christianity in general or just with catholics??

Fran

 

[Bradski]

But, seriously, a question for you. Do you have a problem with christianity in general or just with catholics??

Neither. Excepts where it impacts negatively on me or mine.

Edit: Maybe I should expand that to say when it impacts negatively on society as a whole.

 

[Rau]

…But there is some breathtaking hypocrisy in the air when I am being told, and when other member of society are being told, that our business is your business. That we must live our lives in accordance with how your church dictates when you cannot even proclaim yourself a member of that church in the first place.

I don’t think you are being directed (in the sense of “told”) at all Brad. Is there some compulsion, or arm-twisting involved? Or are you simply being informed of a set of teachings that many believe are right, many fail to live up to, and that you are entirely free to ignore. Perhaps some have become a bit over-zealous in the “sharing”?

Your private business is just that. Take it to the streets, (or to a discussion forum!), and then it’s no longer private. But I sense we are both repeating ourselves.

 

[Rau]

Neither. Excepts where it impacts negatively on me or mine.

Edit: Maybe I should expand that to say when it impacts negatively on society as a whole.

Does the mere sharing of Catholic beliefs, which you may freely ignore, impact negatively on you and yours? Or do you mean the substance of the belief, eg. “No fornication”, would impact negatively (by denying pleasures), so you resent that one, having judged it bad for you. Either way, you don’t have to comply, so why does there need to be such angst?

 

[frangiuliano115]

Neither. Excepts where it impacts negatively on me or mine.

Edit: Maybe I should expand that to say when it impacts negatively on society as a whole.

How does what christians believe impact negatively on society as a whole?

Fran

 

[Bradski]

How does what christians believe impact negatively on society as a whole?

Fran

Gay marriage in particular and gay rights in general. Closer to home, attempts to ban ethics classes in New South Wales. Attempts to have Creationism taught in schools in a few countries. Attempts to restrict access to contraception. Teaching young children that they could go to hell.

Those don’t include all Christians of course. Some would back my stance on all those points. But I’m far from being anti Christian or even anti Catholic. We sent both our children to Catholic schools. I’d hardly do that if I felt you guys were an evil influence…

 

[frangiuliano115]

Gay marriage in particular and gay rights in general. Closer to home, attempts to ban ethics classes in New South Wales. Attempts to have Creationism taught in schools in a few countries. Attempts to restrict access to contraception. Teaching young children that they could go to hell.

Those don’t include all Christians of course. Some would back my stance on all those points. But I’m far from being anti Christian or even anti Catholic. We sent both our children to Catholic schools. I’d hardly do that if I felt you guys were an evil influence…

Won’t be checking in until this evening - the world awaits.

I have aquaintences in Perth and I understand that christianity is not very widespread there. Maybe by widespread I really mean accepted. Is it different in other parts of Australia?

Plus, I see some contradiction in your reply. Please help.
Attempts to ban ethics classes. Secular? This is bad?

Creationism. Okay. But why should only evolution be taught? Are we so sure how things came about? Scientists are now beginning to believe that evolution might not be a good theory after all. (I don’t mean evolution in an existing species). Can we not teach both and let the individual make up their own mind?

Restriction to contraception. Is this in the catholic school? Maybe it’s due to the HIV/Aids problem?

Teaching young children they could go to hell. This is a problem for you since I guess you’re an atheist and don’t believe in an afterlife. I’ve taught catechism, as you know, I think, and it’s not said in so many words. We try to be gentle. But it’s kind of like teaching a person to drive and forgetting to tell them why they shouldn’t pass a red light.
If you believe in an afterlife, you do want everyone to go to heaven - sounds simplistic but that’s how it is.

Regarding the gay issue. You know how I feel. I’m all for gay rights. I think they’re human, after all! But I have to disagree with the marriage issue and I think we’ve discussed why so no use getting into it again. So are you saying Australia is AGAINST SSM?

Lata…

Fran

 

[Bradski]

The Christian Democrats in NSW want ethics classes denied to children who opt out of religious study classes.

Creationism is an attempt to portray religious allegorical stories as scientific fact. Morons like Ken Ham should be treated with contempt.

The aids epidemic in Africa is not helped by Catholic attitudes to condoms. That’s putting it mildly.

Telling children that they are in danger of eternal punishment is abuse.

The majority of Australians are for gay rights and for SSM. I agree with them. I object to those who would deny rights to others on religious grounds.

 

[You]

The Christian Democrats in NSW want ethics classes denied to children who opt out of religious study classes.

Creationism is an attempt to portray religious allegorical stories as scientific fact. Morons like Ken Ham should be treated with contempt.

The aids epidemic in Africa is not helped by Catholic attitudes to condoms. That’s putting it mildly.

Telling children that they are in danger of eternal punishment is abuse.

The majority of Australians are for gay rights and for SSM. I agree with them. I object to those who would deny rights to others on religious grounds.

Creationism is an attempt to portray religious allegorical stories as scientific fact.

Creationism as is is a generally protestant idea supported by protestant bishop usher’s idea of a 6000 year old earth.
I think its unfair to exclude all ideas surrounding creation because of one protestant idea.
I hardly need to say that the big bang was a catholic priests idea. Space-time was a jewish mans idea and so on.

I don’t believe that science knows how life started. I don’t believe they can reproduce life. And I don’t believe that life has started again and is continuing to start again. No new created life has ever been found as far as I know even though conditions are the same now as they generally had to be at the start of life.

I don’t see why a cold atheistic approach is better than a creation approach on a subject which is a real mystery.

Telling children that they are in danger of eternal punishment is abuse.

Not telling them that the fire is hot is abuse, not that they always listen. I think its important to do something rather than sit and observe and do nothing as they head towards the fire.

 

[zz912]

You’re darn tootin’ it’s reasonable. Everyone who classifies themselves as a Catholic is a representative of the church. Otherwise what would you suggest? Only those who meet your criteria for what a Catholic actually is should be considered?

Well, let’s take out of the equation all those Catholics who have had an abortion. And all those who think that abortion should be allowed. Then take out all those who have used contraception. And those who have sex outside of marriage. And all those who support SSM . Plus all those who think there’s no problem in the ordination of women. And have no problem with homosexuality. How are we doing? Is there anyone left? If you don’t fulfil all the requirements, then should anyone listen to you?

So you’re saying we couldn’t even limit it to those who actually GO to Mass regularly? That doesn’t sound reasonable to you?

The thing is zz, you are making blanket rules to cover every person in all circumstances and at all times. If you want to suggest that sleeping around with multiple partners is not a good idea, then I’d agree with you. If you want to suggest that having an abortion as a form of contraception is a bad idea, then I’d agree with you. If you want to suggest that the number of abortions should be reduced, then I’d agree with you. If you want to suggest that young people should be taught to treat sex responsibly, then I would agree with you.

But what you say IS ‘YOU MUST NOT HAVE SEX OUTSIDE MARRIAGE! EVER! AND NO CONTRACEPTION!’

Yes, the Church teaches this. It is for your own good. Just as parents teach their children not to touch a hot stove or run in traffic.

Now I know that that’s not going to work.

You know nothing of the sort. You FEEL it won’t work. And empirical evidence shows your feelings are wrong.

Personally speaking, having sex outside of marriage carried zero risk, there was zero harm to anyone else and using contraception worked perfectly in enabling my partner and I to plan a family. So in my case, for you to say; ‘You shouldn’t have done it’, is a nonsensical proposition. Not to mention rather impertinent. As it would be for most people.

It didn’t carry zero risk, and it certainly had negative consequences. You are just ignoring them or are unaware of them. Unintended outcomes happen. In this instance you offended your Creator, and each of you used the other person for your own selfish desires and disrespected their human dignity.

Telling someone that they shouldn’t have sex is sometimes a good idea. In some circumstances and at some times. Telling them that they should treat their partner with respect is always a good idea.

Agreed, that’s why we say not to have sex outside marriage, because you are not treating the other person with the respect they deserve based upon the dignity God has given us all.

Telling everyone that they shouldn’t be doing it at all at any time whatsoever because it offends God…?

Strawman argument. We highly encourage married couples to have sex. And we always warn against behaviors that offend God, which is completely reasonable thing to do. It would be ghastly not to warn people against behaviors which offend God.

Do you really think an attitude like that is going to make the world a better place? When even members of your own church ignore it?

Yes, telling people the truth will make the world a better place. And yes, even if some or most Catholics don’t follow particular teachings is no excuse not to proclaim truth.

The Pope seems like a guy who has a practical sense of how the world works. A step in the right direction.

Lots of people have created this false version of the Pope in their mind where they believe he agrees with their particular sin or vice and encourages them in it.

 

[zz912]

To me, this comes across as a plea to the effect of: ‘I am unworthy’. Which I would understand and with which I would even have some sympathy. I think the bar that is set by the Vatican is impossibly high.

Only in our current sex-obsessed and narcissistic culture. It was the norm not that long ago.

 

[zz912]

The aids epidemic in Africa is not helped by Catholic attitudes to condoms. That’s putting it mildly.

Actually where abstinence has been promoted has seen far greater improvements than where condoms have been distributed.

Telling children that they are in danger of eternal punishment is abuse.

Your mere subjective opinion. Hell is a teaching all over the world, and children understand the concept of good/bad just fine. There’s simply no evidence whatsoever that teaching on hell is abuse. Your over-emotional reaction and hatred to Christianity doesn’t constitute evidence of abuse.

The majority of Australians are for gay rights and for SSM. I agree with them. I object to those who would deny rights to others on religious grounds.

You aren’t denying rights to something that doesn’t exist. There’s no such thing as same sex “marriage”. There are ZERO people who are the result of homosexual unions, and society is under no compulsion to pretend otherwise.