"Hard-Core Catholicism bursting out all over the place"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maranatha
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
mike182d:
So, there are some atheists that are better people than some Christians, but its not because of their atheism.
Click to expand...
Correct.
 
40.png
mike182d:
His argument fails in the assumptions he makes about human nature without qualification. It is not enough to recognize that human beings have certain traits and then infer that these traits exists of their own accord. What *is *instinct? Why am I *obligated *to obey it? Where does it come from? If there is no God, is not instinct a man-made convetion? Clear example: Every man has a natural urge to lust after women other than his wife - we as Christian fight against this. Does it follow that this urge, too, should be the foundation of a societal norm? You can say that in the interest of preserving the species now, that monogomy is necessary, but if the human race faced extinction, would that then warrant relations with multiple partners? If so, does that not render Theology of the Body obsolete?

If you assume that human beings are the way they are simply because they are the way they are, and then build an ethic around it, that is terribly faulty logic.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. If everyone acted out every time they thought “I ought to punch you” or “I ought to kill you”, where would we be?

This is the biggest issue with sibling children in early years - keeping them from using brute force to get their own way (training the will to overcome instinct).
 
Brad said:
1) Christianity has a unique version of the Golden Rule that is not present in ANY other belief system.
Click to expand...

You are wrong.

Christianity: “All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do yer so to them; for this is the Law and the prophets.” Matt 7:1

Confucianism “Do not do to others what you would not like yourself.” *Analects 12:2
*
Buddhism: “Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.” *Udana-Varga 5,1
*
Judaism: “What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow man. That is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary.” *Talmud, Shabbat 3id

*And I can give example for Hinduism and Taoism and Islam as well.

Not so unique as you thought!
 
40.png
Richardols:
You are wrong.

Christianity: “All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do yer so to them; for this is the Law and the prophets.” Matt 7:1

Confucianism “Do not do to others what you would not like yourself.” *Analects 12:2
*
Buddhism: “Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.” *Udana-Varga 5,1
*
Judaism: “What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow man. That is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary.” *Talmud, Shabbat 3id

*And I can give example for Hinduism and Taoism and Islam as well.

Not so unique as you thought!
Click to expand...
Sorry but I knew about all of those. I’ ead a book by a priest that make the same claim. The claim is not true.

Notice the Christian command is positive, not negative. It is not about just NOT doing things that you would not like. It is about DOING things to others that you wish would be done to you. It is a radical difference and one that takes one from only not doing harm to doing great good. It transformed the world.
 
40.png
Brad:
Rachel’s proposal (if based on no God) falls apart on point #1. If there is no basis for showing special regard for one’s kin then people will freely choose to ignore this rule and they do all the time.
Click to expand...
Any anthropological study of kin groups show that people have special regard for one’s family members. Primitive societies would have fallen apart if this basic family solidarity did not exist. The family is the basic societal group. Surely, you’ve heard that!

Regardless if someone kills his spouse or children from time to time, the general rule is valid. There is kin altruism or else there wouldn’t be families at all.
 
40.png
Richardols:
Your opinion, fine. I submitted my opinion. Obviously, we don’t agree, and based on public debates such as “Is the basis of morality natural or supernatural?” a lot of other people hold to one position or the other.
Click to expand...
But only one is true. Morality flows downward from God.
 
40.png
Richardols:
You are wrong.

Christianity: “All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do yer so to them; for this is the Law and the prophets.” Matt 7:1

Confucianism “Do not do to others what you would not like yourself.” *Analects 12:2
*
Buddhism: “Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.” *Udana-Varga 5,1
*
Judaism: “What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow man. That is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary.” *Talmud, Shabbat 3id

*And I can give example for Hinduism and Taoism and Islam as well.

Not so unique as you thought!
Click to expand...
Yes, they come from natural law also. Natural law comes form God.
 
40.png
Brad:
Not sure of your point here. God exists irregardless of whether people believe in Him or not.
Click to expand...

TY - my point exactly: atheists don’t need to know there is a God, in order to receive His grace; just as the toddler has no need to know of the ultimate this-worldly sources of its food.​

I agree that some atheists can act in a way that is less sinful that some Christians. However, the idea these actions are based on an absolute moral values system that is equal or superior to Christianity is not a defendable concept.
Click to expand...

That’s not a point I am trying to make anyway - I’m interested only to insist that there is nothing incoherent in in the notion of atheism with a high moral character. For some reason, there seems to be a perception that atheists must necessarily be immoral people, and completely without any good reasons for their atheism. I don’t agree with either perception.​

Isolated examples show nothing. One needs only to scan the 20th century to find countless examples of grave and wicked behavior increasing as the idea of God was diminished. In fact, where the most death occurred, the idea of God had to be first wiped away and those that preached the Gospel or the OT were the biggest enemies of the godless.
Click to expand...

So why was there the godlessness in the first place ?​

An atheist’s behavior may be more moral in comparison to another Christian. My point is that an atheist can not claim to be an atheist on one hand and claim to be moral on the other. Without a source of moral values, they can make no claim to their behavior being more moral than someone else’s.
Click to expand...

If the last sentence is the foundation for the point in the second - I don’t see the reasoning: why must God be known of, in order for an atheist to be a moral person ? Why can’t God be God incognito, as much so and as fully so as when He is named ? Is He unable to do good through men, unless they are aware of Him ? It’s not the atheists who are making claims to be more or less moral than those not in their “set” - it’s Christians who do that; it’s such a silly thing for Christians, of all people, to do. If we are moral at all, the praise for that is never ours, always God’s; Who will humble those who boast of themselves, and who raises the lowly.​

ISTM that because, as you say, “God exists regardless of whether people believe in Him or not”, He is more than able to do good through atheists without their knowing it. He does it through us, after all. ##
The atheist has full responsiblity for rejecting God outright. Christians have full responsibility for living out the Christian life as Jesus taught. Neither group is forced to do either.
Click to expand...

That doesn’t by one iota lessen the sins of scandal we commit, by which we lead others into loss of faith, or put them off seeking it. V2 as good as says this. I try never to trust a doctrine which has the convenient effect of letting us off facing the consequences of our misdeeds - a doctrine which completely absolves us of setting a bad example by our admitted misconduct, is just too convenient to be credible - and it is entirely unlike the usual reasoning which requires that we do face up to our misdeeds. If our sins have consequences which mean that we need a Sacrament for them - then they have consequences for how potential atheists or seekers for Christ view our behaviour in the light of our claims to be Christians.​

At least we agree on somethings 🙂 ##
 
40.png
Brad:
Sorry but I knew about all of those. I’ ead a book by a priest that make the same claim. The claim is not true.
Click to expand...
Those quotations are false? Nonsense.

Well, then, you’ll apprecite the Islamic directive: “No one is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he wishes for himself.” Nice and positive. Or that of Taoism: “Regard your neighbor’s gain as your own gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own.”
 
40.png
mike182d:
I don’t know. I’m asking you. If atheism is not inherently amoral in its belief structure, where are these charitable contributions to mankind?

You shall know a tree by its fruit…
Click to expand...

And the fruits of Catholicism - of Christianity as a whole - are decidedly mixed​

 
40.png
buffalo:
But only one is true. Morality flows downward from God.
Click to expand...
That’s the Supernatural view. I gave an example of how morality might also be explained from a Natural view. Both points of view offer an explanation of the source of morality in mankind.
 
40.png
Brad:
So still we have no answer. The atheist has no source for his/her claim to morals and therefore can make no claim to being moral.
Click to expand...

The answer is in Romans 2 - and in St.Thomas​

BTW - I can’t believe how busy this thread is; it’s amazing that so few of us have written so many posts in so short a time, IMO 😃

I have to be off in a moment - I look forward to picking up with you guys later 🙂 ##
 
40.png
Richardols:
Any anthropological study of kin groups show that people have special regard for one’s family members. Primitive societies would have fallen apart if this basic family solidarity did not exist. The family is the basic societal group. Surely, you’ve heard that!

Regardless if someone kills his spouse or children from time to time, the general rule is valid. There is kin altruism or else there wouldn’t be families at all.
Click to expand...
And what is the source of this special regard? Many families have fallen apart and subsequent societies, mainly because they rejected God or His laws.

Notice how American families are falling apart more frequently than every before in complete synchronization with a rejection of God’s morality?
 
40.png
Richardols:
Those quotations are false? Nonsense.

Well, then, you’ll apprecite the Islamic directive: “No one is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he wishes for himself.” Nice and positive. Or that of Taoism: “Regard your neighbor’s gain as your own gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own.”
Click to expand...
Now Richard you might want to look at this - Ancient Chinese Characters - Conincidence or Design

This is fascinating.
 
Gottle of Geer said:
## And the fruits of Catholicism - of Christianity as a whole - are decidedly mixed ##
Click to expand...

Who was it that said something to the effect that “Christianity is a wonderful religion. It ought to be tried.”? 🙂
 
Gottle of Geer:

That’s not a point I am trying to make anyway - I’m interested only to insist that there is nothing incoherent in in the notion of atheism with a high moral character. For some reason, there seems to be a perception that atheists must necessarily be immoral people, and completely without any good reasons for their atheism. I don’t agree with either perception.​

Click to expand...
It’s not being said that atheists *must *be immoral, but rather for them to feel any sort of obligation to *be *moral is inconsistent with their belief system.

Bottom line is that atheists do not *need *to believe in God in order to receive the grace of God and act morally, however, there are degrees of morality and grace. The *most *moral people will always be those that are *most *in love with God. The more you love God, the more grace you receive from Him and one cannot advance in their love of God if they deny God exists. Therefore, one cannot increase their grace if they deny the very source of it.

Its like saying that atheists can be happy, therefore we do not need God to be happy. There are *degrees *of happiness.
 
40.png
Brad:
And what is the source of this special regard?
Click to expand...
Very possibly Survival. Anthropology explains some of the nature of primitive societies, including the basic family group.
 
40.png
Richardols:
Who was it that said something to the effect that “Christianity is a wonderful religion. It ought to be tried.”? 🙂
Click to expand...

That sounds like a Ghandi-ism to me 🙂​

“See” you later 🙂 ##
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top