Defending the church AND being charitable?

[ErricFiggy]

Hello everyone,

I recently posted a status on facebook and someone commented it saying that religion, particularly the Vatican(implying the Caholic Church) is one of the most deadliest, ruthless, and evil thing to ever exist. I responded, and a debate ensued. I honestly don’t feel like I was being mean or rude. The next day, i found that a friend of mine had posted this:

‎"Each one thought that they knew better,
That they were different by design,
Instead of standing strong together,
They let their differences divide
And one by one, they ran away
With their made up minds, to leave it all behind,
And the light began to fade, in The city on the hill
And the world is searching still…

I see their point…but what am i supposed to do then? Stay quite? Even with the more hostile people? I don’t go out picking fights with people…I have a particularly tought time the the atheist/agnostic crowd. How can I find things that we both agree on?

I’m sorry for all the questions. Any help would be much appreciated

 

[jmvizanko]

Hello everyone,

I recently posted a status on facebook and someone commented it saying that religion, particularly the Vatican(implying the Caholic Church) is one of the most deadliest, ruthless, and evil thing to ever exist. I responded, and a debate ensued. I honestly don’t feel like I was being mean or rude. The next day, i found that a friend of mine had posted this:

‎"Each one thought that they knew better,
That they were different by design,
Instead of standing strong together,
They let their differences divide
And one by one, they ran away
With their made up minds, to leave it all behind,
And the light began to fade, in The city on the hill
And the world is searching still…

I see their point…but what am i supposed to do then? Stay quite? Even with the more hostile people? I don’t go out picking fights with people…I have a particularly tought time the the atheist/agnostic crowd. How can I find things that we both agree on?

I’m sorry for all the questions. Any help would be much appreciated

Can I ask what you posted that they replied with that to, sheer curiosity?

 

[ErricFiggy]

Can I ask what you posted that they replied with that to, sheer curiosity?

Oh, I’m sorry if i wasn’t clear enough

A friend of mine was following the debate between me and the other guy, and decided to post those lyrics on my wall. Does that answer your question?

 

[ErricFiggy]

Or were you asking what was the original post?

 

[sw85]

Hello everyone,

I recently posted a status on facebook and someone commented it saying that religion, particularly the Vatican(implying the Caholic Church) is one of the most deadliest, ruthless, and evil thing to ever exist. I responded, and a debate ensued. I honestly don’t feel like I was being mean or rude. The next day, i found that a friend of mine had posted this:

‎"Each one thought that they knew better,
That they were different by design,
Instead of standing strong together,
They let their differences divide
And one by one, they ran away
With their made up minds, to leave it all behind,
And the light began to fade, in The city on the hill
And the world is searching still…

I see their point…but what am i supposed to do then? Stay quite? Even with the more hostile people? I don’t go out picking fights with people…I have a particularly tought time the the atheist/agnostic crowd. How can I find things that we both agree on?

I’m sorry for all the questions. Any help would be much appreciated

Most of my Facebook friends are ignorant degenerates, too. I don’t pick fights with them. But, by contrast, I don’t permit them to libel the Church without consequence. I confront them on their errors and point out the manners in which their reasoning has gone astray. I often challenge them by pointing out contradictions in their beliefs. (For instance, one liberal friend recently complained about Virginia’s new ultrasound/abortion bill. I asked him where rights come from. He said a right is a concession made by the state. I pointed out that if the state giveth, the state can taketh away and that he had no basis to complain).

If they get belligerent, I get belligerent back (but I try to avoid getting personal).

As for the idiotic quote your one friend posted, challenge that Satanic nonsense. God Himself will divide the wheat from the chaff, so clearly division is not in principle a bad thing. Truth is something worth being divided over. And modern liberal society, which denies transcendent truths (or believes it does), is no less divided anyway – in fact, it is substantially more so. Ask your liberal friends, if they think unity is such a good thing, why they don’t surrender – or is it not the case that social unity is an unequivocal good, but that social unity must be predicated on some principle which is true and good?

 

[jmvizanko]

Or were you asking what was the original post?

I was just curious what the original post was.

 

[ErricFiggy]

I was just curious what the original post was.

For sure! I said:

I’ve never understood the whole “hate religion but love Jesus” thing. God IS the goal but religion is the vehicle TO the goal, if by religion we mean the church.

He said:

I understand the argument “hate religion, love god”. Religion is implying the human end (i.e. churches and their pastors). Those people, the church, specifically the Vatican, have proven to be the most evil, ruthless, and deadly organization there is. Not one war has matched the bloodshed of the combined atrocities of Crusaders and the religion they fought for. The Inquisitions, crusades. Madness.

There are people who believe in God, Jesus, and the standards they set for our lives, but do not want to be tarnished by this “vehicle” you speak of. Since, you know, it’s one of the biggest sinning machines on the planet.

And that’s how it started.

 

[sw85]

Well, that’s just retarded. The Crusades killed a total of I think around 15 million people. That’s the whole of Western Christendom acting in concert for four centuries. There are particularly bad individual years in the communist world where the death toll exceeded double that number.

 

[ErricFiggy]

Well, that’s just retarded. The Crusades killed a total of I think around 15 million people. That’s the whole of Western Christendom acting in concert for four centuries. There are particularly bad individual years in the communist world where the death toll exceeded double that number.

Can you provide me your source? That would be a blessing

 

[jmvizanko]

For sure! I said:

I’ve never understood the whole “hate religion but love Jesus” thing. God IS the goal but religion is the vehicle TO the goal, if by religion we mean the church.

He said:

I understand the argument “hate religion, love god”. Religion is implying the human end (i.e. churches and their pastors). Those people, the church, specifically the Vatican, have proven to be the most evil, ruthless, and deadly organization there is. Not one war has matched the bloodshed of the combined atrocities of Crusaders and the religion they fought for. The Inquisitions, crusades. Madness.

There are people who believe in God, Jesus, and the standards they set for our lives, but do not want to be tarnished by this “vehicle” you speak of. Since, you know, it’s one of the biggest sinning machines on the planet.

And that’s how it started.

Well I guess the first thing I would say is that if you post something like that, you are asking for a debate. First off, many Christians outside of Catholicism see the Church as almost idolatrous in their belief that there are no mediums between any man and God, and this whole gigantic hierarchy of men is completely contradictory to that. So they are going to see this as a fight to be picked on that alone. And probably the biggest beef you could have with the Church is the Crusades, although I’d personally throw in more modern ones like telling an AIDS infested continent not to use condoms.

So if you are looking for common ground, I wouldn’t start by making exclusive statements.

 

[jmvizanko]

Well, that’s just retarded. The Crusades killed a total of I think around 15 million people. That’s the whole of Western Christendom acting in concert for four centuries. There are particularly bad individual years in the communist world where the death toll exceeded double that number.

Which, by the numbers, of course means those 15 million people didn’t really matter…

 

[ErricFiggy]

Ah, I see.

 

[Leegal]

Ah, I see.

FB is not the forum for a religious discussion. I can only say that when they are brought over here, they wind up getting removed. They really have no place here.

What happens is that the person or person(s) you are having this discussion with create CA accounts and come over here to bring the argument from FB and continue it. “Somehow”, others find out that the discussion is carried over here and so they come here for the argument.

 

[Leegal]

although I’d personally throw in more modern ones like telling an AIDS infested continent not to use condoms.

On the position on the use of condoms and AIDS in Africa. I refer you to:

Reuters

 

[sw85]

Well I guess the first thing I would say is that if you post something like that, you are asking for a debate. First off, many Christians outside of Catholicism see the Church as almost idolatrous in their belief that there are no mediums between any man and God, and this whole gigantic hierarchy of men is completely contradictory to that. So they are going to see this as a fight to be picked on that alone. And probably the biggest beef you could have with the Church is the Crusades, although I’d personally throw in more modern ones like telling an AIDS infested continent not to use condoms.

So if you are looking for common ground, I wouldn’t start by making exclusive statements.

The Church mainly tells them to stop sleeping around. Which they shouldn’t do on account of, you know, the AIDS epidemic.

This argument has always baffled me. Putting aside the obvious fact that you and most other atheists are completely ignorant wrt to the basis for the Church’s teachings on contraception (and the fact that you’re obviously smuggling in incompatible ethical assumptions by demanding that the Church abandon this teaching), the argument itself is self-refuting. Africans don’t listen to the Church when it tells them to exercise chastity, so clearly it is far from having sway over the hearts and minds of the continent. Why then would they listen to it when it tells them to rubber up before going on rape sprees?

Which, by the numbers, of course means those 15 million people didn’t really matter…

The claim was that “Not one war has matched the bloodshed of the combined atrocities of Crusaders and the religion they fought for.” That claim is false even if you exclude those atrocities which technically occurred outside war, i.e., the engineered famines and other slaughters of the communist east. Do you deny this or would you like to continue playing word games in defense of falsehood?
Just to add to your argument, ErricFiggy, we hardly even point out that the Crusades were largely provoked by Muslim aggression. Why in the world should a just war waged in defense of Christendom’s subjects be taken as evidence that we should abolish Christianity? Why isn’t it evidence that we should simply do away with Islam, presently the world’s troublemakers?

Finally, as I posted recently:

If religion is true, then it ought to be defended, with war and violence if absolutely necessary, against those who would deny it its proper place in the ordering of man’s social and ethical life. And if it’s false, we ought to abandon it because it’s false, not because it causes war and violence.

Clearly, your friends think we ought to abandon religion because it’s false. But if they think it’s false, we are owed an argument as to why. Pointing to death tolls doesn’t prove anything.

Can you provide me your source? That would be a blessing

Sadly, I don’t have a source handy as I am presently traveling and away from my book collection. My estimate is (probably) sugar-coated though; the most common estimates I have heard are in the 8-12 million range.

Bear in mind of course the world was less populous in those times. I don’t see that that matters, though, as the claim that the Crusades were uniquely violent is still false. As for the Spanish Inquisition, judging by a quick wikipedia search (your guess is as good as mine re: its accuracy) that the total death toll was between 3,000 and 5,000. Even if we assume each and every one of those people were entirely innocent of any wrongdoing, that’s still historical peanuts, even by the standard of the day. It’s roughly equivalent to the number of Byzantine subjects killed during the siege and fall of Constantinople alone.

 

[IrishRush]

Most of my Facebook friends are ignorant degenerates, too. I don’t pick fights with them. But, by contrast, I don’t permit them to libel the Church without consequence. I confront them on their errors and point out the manners in which their reasoning has gone astray. I often challenge them by pointing out contradictions in their beliefs. (For instance, one liberal friend recently complained about Virginia’s new ultrasound/abortion bill. I asked him where rights come from. He said a right is a concession made by the state. I pointed out that if the state giveth, the state can taketh away and that he had no basis to complain).

If they get belligerent, I get belligerent back (but I try to avoid getting personal).

As for the idiotic quote your one friend posted, challenge that Satanic nonsense. God Himself will divide the wheat from the chaff, so clearly division is not in principle a bad thing. Truth is something worth being divided over. And modern liberal society, which denies transcendent truths (or believes it does), is no less divided anyway – in fact, it is substantially more so. Ask your liberal friends, if they think unity is such a good thing, why they don’t surrender – or is it not the case that social unity is an unequivocal good, but that social unity must be predicated on some principle which is true and good?

Wow, you’re good. Will you be on my debate team if I ever put one together?

 

[jmvizanko]

The Church mainly tells them to stop sleeping around. Which they shouldn’t do on account of, you know, the AIDS epidemic.

And of course, from my atheist standpoint, the suggestion that if they are going to have sex, which they are because that’s a natural and completely ok given, they might as well use a condom, is irrelevant.

This argument has always baffled me. Putting aside the obvious fact that you and most other atheists are completely ignorant wrt to the basis for the Church’s teachings on contraception (and the fact that you’re obviously smuggling in incompatible ethical assumptions by demanding that the Church abandon this teaching), the argument itself is self-refuting. Africans don’t listen to the Church when it tells them to exercise chastity, so clearly it is far from having sway over the hearts and minds of the continent. Why then would they listen to it when it tells them to rubber up before going on rape sprees?

I forgot that all sex in Africa is conducted in rape sprees…

And I’m not “demanding” that the Church abandon their teaching on contraception, I’m simply suggesting that the teachings are an evil in this world. I don’t expect the church to change because of my opinions.

And could you also please enlighten me to what I do not understand about the Church’s basis for its teachings on contraception?

The claim was that “Not one war has matched the bloodshed of the combined atrocities of Crusaders and the religion they fought for.” That claim is false even if you exclude those atrocities which technically occurred outside war, i.e., the engineered famines and other slaughters of the communist east. Do you deny this or would you like to continue playing word games in defense of falsehood?

I am not playing comparison. The Crusades saw the murder of many unbelievers. I am examining that on its own. I do not deny your comparison, and I admire that at least you are calling it the result of communist regimes instead of atheism.

Just to add to your argument, ErricFiggy, we hardly even point out that the Crusades were largely provoked by Muslim aggression. Why in the world should a just war waged in defense of Christendom’s subjects be taken as evidence that we should abolish Christianity? Why isn’t it evidence that we should simply do away with Islam, presently the world’s troublemakers?

Christians fighting Muslims, Muslims fighting Christians, I am failing to see the difference. Please illustrate it for me, since you clearly have the case.

Bear in mind of course the world was less populous in those times. I don’t see that that matters, though, as the claim that the Crusades were uniquely violent is still false. As for the Spanish Inquisition, judging by a quick wikipedia search (your guess is as good as mine re: its accuracy) that the total death toll was between 3,000 and 5,000. Even if we assume each and every one of those people were entirely innocent of any wrongdoing, that’s still historical peanuts, even by the standard of the day. It’s roughly equivalent to the number of Byzantine subjects killed during the siege and fall of Constantinople alone.

Its always easy to round down given a bias. But even if your claims were accurate, how is that still not relevant?

 

[ErricFiggy]

FB is not the forum for a religious discussion. I can only say that when they are brought over here, they wind up getting removed. They really have no place here.

What happens is that the person or person(s) you are having this discussion with create CA accounts and come over here to bring the argument from FB and continue it. “Somehow”, others find out that the discussion is carried over here and so they come here for the argument.

I see what you mean. But that never was my intention, honest. I’ve learned so much here, and everytime I ask for help, I get it! You’re all so kind I can already see how this is getting off topic though…so if the mods feel that its going nowhere, please lock this thread. I appreciate every one of you responding, thank you

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

Hello everyone,

I recently posted a status on facebook and someone commented it saying that religion, particularly the Vatican(implying the Caholic Church) is one of the most deadliest, ruthless, and evil thing to ever exist. I responded, and a debate ensued. I honestly don’t feel like I was being mean or rude. The next day, i found that a friend of mine had posted this:

‎"Each one thought that they knew better,
That they were different by design,
Instead of standing strong together,
They let their differences divide
And one by one, they ran away
With their made up minds, to leave it all behind,
And the light began to fade, in The city on the hill
And the world is searching still…

I see their point…but what am i supposed to do then? Stay quite? Even with the more hostile people? I don’t go out picking fights with people…I have a particularly tought time the the atheist/agnostic crowd. How can I find things that we both agree on?

I’m sorry for all the questions. Any help would be much appreciated

The best piece of advise I can give is to delete your Facebook account; I can tell you its been the best decision I have ever made.

Anyway saying you “love Jesus, but hate religion” is basically saying you claim to love Christ but do not wan’t a relationship with Him. Christ said those who love Him keep His commandments (John 14:21) and if anyone is unsure of what his commandments are then they are to go to the Church (Matthew 18:17) which is the pillar of all truth (1 Timothy 3:15). Those who tell you not to go to Church and practice religion are asking you to be a heathen.

Christianity in itself is a religion and not only a religion but the fulfillment of Judasim which was another religion. If God hated religion then why did He found Judasim in the first place? Why did He institute laws, and sacrifice? Why did Christ Himself practice religion if it was so horrible? Why did Christ found of Church (Matthew 16:18)? Those who hate religion and the practice of religion in the end hate God (Luke 10:16).

 

[jmvizanko]

On the position on the use of condoms and AIDS in Africa. I refer you to:

Reuters

And this was proclaimed in 2010, which is 42 years after Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae… Although I do applaud the updated position.