P
PennitentMan
Guest
So, how is the catholic person the “hurt party”? If my assumption is false, do you mean they are not hurt, or do you mean that the catholic is the hurt one?
- Status
So, how is the catholic person the “hurt party”? If my assumption is false, do you mean they are not hurt, or do you mean that the catholic is the hurt one?
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
let’s all give one another a big internet hug 
J
josie_L
Guest
Hi PenitentMan, I was trying to make you understand that not all ex-Catholics who have been “hurt” by the Church are:
So, how is the catholic person the “hurt party”? If my assumption is false, do you mean they are not hurt, or do you mean that the catholic is the hurt one?
- Necessarily telling you the truth?
- Confusing hurt with not getting their way (think of liberal ex-Catholics) For example, I can think of one right off the top of my head, the infamous John Cornwell (you know the guy who wrote that atrocious book entitled "Hitler’s Pope).
- are not brainwashed by the lies spread by some proselytizers who twisted Catholic doctrines and historical facts (and trust me there a lot of those on CAF).
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
personally, as an ex-Catholic, all my experiences with the church were wonderful. Church was great (beautiful liturgy, music, and depending on the church mass can be quite a production). The priests were always great. Heck Catholic school wasn’t even that bad (and no I never had nuns slap me with a ruler or anything like that). Indeed I usually think of the church in a fond way with some amount of residual affection.
I just intellectually stopped believing in the bible. After that it obviously became pretty pointless (though I guess my objections to the social influence of religiosity have been sharpening over time). I’m absolutely sure in my mind none of the miracles or supernatural claims of the bible are true (even if there are bits of historical accuracy in the bible).
However, when I think of Jesus, and the stories of his life; I do still harbor some level of affection. It’s a great story, let’s face it (or else one third of the earth probably wouldn’t be Christian). Forgiveness, love, charity, etc. who can argue with the value of those virtues? However, at the same time I know no man cheated death, there was never really a god man who walked the earth, there’s no such thing as flying angels or talking snakes, etc.
The problem I have is that in many areas we still base public policy on these myths (in the United States anyway). We don’t stop at merely pulling the good virtues from the story, many churches (and indeed an entire religious right movement) seeks to infuse themselves into public policy – as a sort of self-created quasi-law making organism. They invade science, reproductive rights, criminal justice, and even immigration law. They do this all in the name of a series of events that never happened. In other words part of the basis for our public policy in this country is mythological fantasy & when you have a flawed premise at the root of anything it will most likely poison the entire tree.
I just intellectually stopped believing in the bible. After that it obviously became pretty pointless (though I guess my objections to the social influence of religiosity have been sharpening over time). I’m absolutely sure in my mind none of the miracles or supernatural claims of the bible are true (even if there are bits of historical accuracy in the bible).
However, when I think of Jesus, and the stories of his life; I do still harbor some level of affection. It’s a great story, let’s face it (or else one third of the earth probably wouldn’t be Christian). Forgiveness, love, charity, etc. who can argue with the value of those virtues? However, at the same time I know no man cheated death, there was never really a god man who walked the earth, there’s no such thing as flying angels or talking snakes, etc.
The problem I have is that in many areas we still base public policy on these myths (in the United States anyway). We don’t stop at merely pulling the good virtues from the story, many churches (and indeed an entire religious right movement) seeks to infuse themselves into public policy – as a sort of self-created quasi-law making organism. They invade science, reproductive rights, criminal justice, and even immigration law. They do this all in the name of a series of events that never happened. In other words part of the basis for our public policy in this country is mythological fantasy & when you have a flawed premise at the root of anything it will most likely poison the entire tree.
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
I’ve posted my proofs and detailed objections to religiosity so many times on this site I lost count. Not one single rebuttal. So deadheart no worries … even if you do post the most brilliant irrefutable objection to religiosity in history – everyone here will ignore it (because there is no good rebuttal to sound logic). Martin Luther said it best “reason is the whore of the devil” (and the enemy of faith). Yes indeed, reason is the enemy of mythology (unless that is you just enjoy reading or studying mythology for entertainment value & are astute enough to realize it’s not true).
J
josie_L
Guest
Excuse me, not one single rebuttal, how arrogant! And what do you think I’ve been doing for the last 2 months, making simple conversation?
P.S. Did you purposely put “deadheart”? Cause if you did . . .
J
josie_L
Guest
Well I must say Francis, what we’ve said here just went in one ear and out the other. Even though in some instances it was more than apparent that you were in the wrong.
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
indeed not a single rebuttal to my core objections. However, I’ll post two of them and perhaps someone will rebut them point by point?Excuse me, not one single rebuttal, how arrogant! And what do you think I’ve been doing for the last 2 months, making simple conversation?
P.S. Did you purposely put “deadheart”? Cause if you did . . .
- The bible posits a god who performed profound miracles that no man on earth could mistake for anything but a manifestation of divine power. Working through Moses he split the red sea, he single handedly flooded the earth, destroyed Sodom, turned the Nile into blood, raised men from the dead, and countless other acts as reported by our ancient predecessors. Yet this alleged god has not performed a single such act in contemporary history, where it could be subjected to rigorous scientific scrutiny. Indeed there has not been a single verifiable profound manifestation of divine power in human history; and as mankind began quantifying natural phenomena through the prism of science claims of the supernatural have become exceedingly more rare (and the few claims that have been made in modern times have either not been subjected to rigorous study, or have been found to be false). Coincidence?
- The bible posits an all powerful god who created our entire universe, can move mountains, destroy planets, is present everywhere at all times (and even knows each of our thoughts). He can traverse through time, raise dead men, etc. In short according to the bible nothing is impossible with god; I guess with one notable exception. The only record we have of his revelations to mankind are copies upon copies of yet more copies of manuscripts that were written centuries after the alleged events they describe occurred. Couldn’t this god with such unimaginable power come up with a better way to relay his message to mankind? Additionally, why didn’t he ensure the consistency of his word? Coincidence?
J
josie_L
Guest
No, of course, you don’t use ad hom attacks. How many times do you call people bigot that you’ve neglected to see this as a personal attack?
P.S. I too solely critiqued atheism.
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
here we go again … side bar comments & no rebuttal? Gee … why am I not surprised
And yes when people attack atheists (without restricting their comments to critiquing atheism) it is bigotry (so why is it unfair for me to call it what it is?) At any rate I expect more of the same … no one will address my objections (because no one can).
J
josie_L
Guest
This question has been answered. You refuse to believe in the miracles and manifestations of God that surround us. If I mentioned the apparitions of Mary at Lourdes and Fatima, if I mentioned the dancing sun, if I mentioned the thousands (although only 67were catalogued as such due to rigorous standards set by an international medical bureau) of miracles that have occured at the Grotto, if I mentioned the tilma, if I mentioned the Shroud, if I mentioned the uncorrupted saints, if I mentioned the saints with their countless miracles, if I mentioned the eucharistic miracles, if I mention the daily lives that have been changed by Jesus Christ, if I mentioned my own life experiences, if I mentioned the beauty of our Universe, if I mentioned the implausibility of life happening by chance, if I mentioned the sheer joy and peace derived from loving God, if I mentioned the overpowering goodness of those who loved Jesus so much they gave everything they had to help others (people like blessed Mother Theresa, Saint Gianna Molla, Blessed Pier Giorgio, Saint Padre Pio, Saint Maximillian Kolbe, Saint Katherine Drexel), if I mentioned moral absolutes like freedom, justice, respect, equality (of which had to originate somewhere outside of ourselves), if I mentioned conscience, if I mentioned love and self-sacrifice, if I mentioned the power of prayer, if I mentioned the appearances of angels, if I mentioned near death experiences (of which the recipients were given a glimpse of the afterlife), if I mentioned Jesus Christ (who no human could possibly conceive of purely from imagination), if I mention the martyrs who died valiantly for truth, if I mention the survival of christianity despite the iron fist of communism to crush it, if I mention those who take a vow of poverty, chastity and obedience to walk in the ways of the Lord, if I mention famous atheist converts, or famous intellectual giants like Chesterton, Belloc, Dawson, Maritain, Muggeridge, Lewis, Augustine, Aquinas . . .would you bother to see God? Would you care enough to make an effort? Would you bother to humble yourself before God and pray? Would you be willing to give God another chance? Would you make excuses to disregard the above?
If I look at all of this I know there is a God, and I know that God came in the form of Jesus Christ.
J
josie_L
Guest
I have never attacked atheists. Ever. Now prove it?here we go again … side bar comments & no rebuttal? Gee … why am I not surprised
And yes when people attack atheists (without restricting their comments to critiquing atheism) it is bigotry (so why is it unfair for me to call it what it is?) At any rate I expect more of the same … no one will address my objections (because no one can).
P.S. Why am I not surprised by your refusal to see the obvious?
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
If you can’t control your emotions and not personalize the argument then why bother engaging in a debate with a non-theist (since it seems to anger you up so much)?
J
josie_L
Guest
My emotions are as much a part of me as my rational mind is.
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
they detract from the argument … but anyways, how can you compare flooding the earth, turning a river into blood, etc. with alleged miracles that could have just as easily been a normal statistical occurrence – like a small percentage of sick visitors to the Lourdes religious shrine recovering from their illnesses, or an obscure atmospheric event where its so called prophecy didn’t materialize until after the event took place (and where there were numerous different accounts of what happened that day).
As far as uncorrupted saints … have you seen pictures of those so called uncorrupted saints? In most cases they’re half decayed corpses (I’ve seen them). As for the rest of it … it’s rhetoric (not empirical evidence). The peace and joy one derives from loving god can just as easily be obtained from loving anything. Our amazement at the wonders of the universe doesn’t prove a god exists … indeed it was Durkheim who said man believes in god or gods because we’re in awe of ourselves and the world around us.
None of this qualifies as anything of real empirical value.
S
SHW
Guest
God is not bound by “contemporary” time. The Incarnation of the Word of God as Jesus Christ is “the” miraculous historical event and it is for “all times.” There is no greater miracle than this nor can there ever be! “God in His divine nature also takes on human nature as Man!”
How many men will die for something or someone they did not see with their own eyes? Yet, many martyrs back then and also today still believe the testimony of these first Scripture writers who claimed that Jesus was indeed the Son of God because they saw Him die and they saw Him again after He rose from the dead and they saw Him ascend into heaven.
God demands Faith as a prerequisite for enjoying eternal life with Him. His test for admittance; we either pass or fail, we do not get to make the “rules” since He created us, we did not create Him.
He does ensure the consistency of His Word. He built His Church upon Peter and the prophets and the apostles, and He gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven to Peter alone. He promised to lead His Church, the one with the person who has the keys of the kingdom of heaven, into all Truth and He promised that the gates of Hades would never prevail against His one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church and He promised that He would be with His one Church which He built upon Peter until He returns again at His Second Coming. It does not need to be any better than this.
L
latin_rite
Guest
Atheist say. the proof is on you, prove it. That is just a cop out. God is not a being that a normal person can prove excist. hence the word Faith. A Christian will say. ’ i believe in God. with all my heart. even to the point that i will die for him." Now that Christian can’t go and actually touch God. But he has faith to such an extent that he doesn’t need to. Now atheist in their warped little blogged washed mind. Think they have gotten the better of a chirstian when he says well the burden is on you, prove it.And the Christian says that he can’t actually prove his excistence…But he still goes on believing, and the idiot err i mean athiest gets all worked up over that. It seems to me that athiest cannot understand the meaning of faith. It’s like its beyond their feeble understanding. I say to athiest. I believe in God because i have faith. Now if you want to try and make me believe that he doesn’t excist you want to come up with something a little better than a stupid old argument that makes no sence. Or state that you don’t beleive in God because you “just don’t”.
p.s i was wondering how long it would take before the famous "Flying Spaghetti Monster " would appear. Good grief can’t athiest come up with something a little more original?
p.s i was wondering how long it would take before the famous "Flying Spaghetti Monster " would appear. Good grief can’t athiest come up with something a little more original?
M
marshallp
Guest
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is actually a good point though, it defeated and kept the Kansas State Board of education from teaching intelligent design. Someone had to think it a good idea or else it would have failed. As to being a little more original, would you like us to use Russell’s Teapot, or even, the Invisible Pink Unicorn?
L
latin_rite
Guest
Well that would do the sheeple’s (athiest) no good. because i happen to know that both russells tea pot and pink unicorns excist. And as far as the flying spaghetti monster. if i saw reports of people witnessing such a thing to the extent that were they would choose death rather than renounce what they had seen. i would have admitt that they must have seen a flying spaghetti monster. So im sorry but the FSM = fail.
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
What I see in all these posts is blind hostility towards a group of people who simply believe in rational knowledge rather than ancient myths. There’s no good rebuttal for the objections of atheists (at least good ones); and there’s many more good objections to theism (the two I listed above are just the tip of the ice berg).
In my experience the religious man will always wind up attacking the atheist; because they will inevitably become frustrated at their inability to prove that myth is reality. Again, my problem with religion isn’t that there are millions who get sucked into it (for whatever reason). It’s that in this country we’ve been in the habit of basing our public policy on this mythology, which from an empirical and logical standpoint is clearly not true.
In my experience the religious man will always wind up attacking the atheist; because they will inevitably become frustrated at their inability to prove that myth is reality. Again, my problem with religion isn’t that there are millions who get sucked into it (for whatever reason). It’s that in this country we’ve been in the habit of basing our public policy on this mythology, which from an empirical and logical standpoint is clearly not true.
- Status