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

[mike182d]

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

Not if you compare the fruits of those who followed Catholicism as it is written (i.e. the Saints) and those who followed atheism the way it was written (i.e. Nietzche)

 

[buffalo]

Richardols:

Very possibly Survival. Anthropology explains some of the nature of primitive societies, including the basic family group.

How did the first atheist know not to kill a woman as he did beasts?

 

[buffalo]

Richardols:

Courtesy of the World Bible School. Do you think they might be pushing an agenda?

Play it and let’s discuss. What do you think about the presentation?

 

[buffalo]

mike182d:

Not if you compare the fruits of those who followed Catholicism as it is written (i.e. the Saints) and those who followed atheism the way it was written (i.e. Nietzche)

Catholicism if practiced perfectly by everyone would be outstanding. The failure of men does not invalidate the goal.

 

[mike182d]

buffalo:

Cathlolicism if practiced perfectly by everyone would be outstanding. The failure of men does not invalidate the goal.

My point exactly!

Just far less elegant in verbage…

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

mike182d:

Were we talking about athiests individually or atheism as a belief system?

I’m talking about individuals - in case that isn’t clear.​

No one is claiming that a person must ascribe to a particular religion in order to be a “good” person. If it is true that all men are created by God and created with the purpose of serving him, all men will in one way or another do this.

I was rather getting the impression that religion, of some sort, was being thought necessary for a moral life.​

So, the question is: when an athiest *does *act charitable, is it because he’s an athiest or his soul, loved by God, is stirring inside him despite his best efforts to deny that its there?

IMHO, potentially both - but the second, the action of God within us, is always involved​

 

[buffalo]

Gottle of Geer:

some

sort, was being thought necessary for a moral life. ##

That is true. Whether one knows or believes is irrelevant. The True GOD manifests in True religion. Morality flows from this whether one believes it or not. God is the source of everything whether one believes it or not.

So knowingly or not a moral person ultimately derives his morality from God, through God’s Revelation to all men.

 

[Brad]

## 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. ##

Grace and life only come through Jesus. If others receive it indirectly then that is God’s will but it is a difficult road for them.
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.​

I’m not saying that all atheists are immoral. I am saying that no athesist can claim to be more moral than someone else without accepting that there are moral absolutes and that God has defnined them through a church. They are either contradicting themselves by claiming atheism or by claiming moral superiority.
Gottle of Geer:

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

Because people reject God and/or His doctrines and morals.
Gottle of Geer:

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.​

Christians do not claim to be more moral. They claim to have a set of morals that was given to them by God. Atheists deny this and thus claim self-moral superiority over the Christians. Humility and giving praise to God for our own personal morality is a proper Christian reaction but we are not talking about behavior here. We are talking about belief systems and doctrines out of which behavior flows. Atheists cannot claim a set of moral beliefs without pointing to a widely agreed upon set that is founded on something that is unchanging. God can do good through anybody but Christ said that the only good would be done through Him and that we must have faith in Him or or works would be pointless.
Gottle of Geer:

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. ##

He does it through us, not because we are good, but because we act on our belief in Him. We cannot save ourselves but we can choose to do good through Christ, which strengthens us.
Gottle of Geer:

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 ##

Which doctrine are you referring to? Our sins do have negative consequences for unbelievers. They also have negative consequences for ourselves and for believers. But our sins do not let someone off the hook for rejecting God and Christ. Christ died for all. It is not us that save others by our sinlessness. It is Christ that saved others through His death on the cross. Bad behavior of others is not an excuse to reject God. It is a reason to accept Him.

 

[Brad]

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.”

I didn’t say they were false.

The Islam directive is better. Do you have the Surah quote? I don’t recall that being the one the priest quoted. Let’s remember thought that it was post-Christ.

 

[Brad]

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

Hardly. The good overwhelms the bad, as compared to any other belief system in the history of mankind.

 

[Brad]

## 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 ##

Indeed it is busy!

I should rephrase - the atheist can make no claim to having a moral foundation that anyone else should follow.

 

[Richardols]

buffalo:

How did the first atheist know not to kill a woman as he did beasts?

I wasn’t aware that primitive man would be divided into atheists and believers.

And, relative to family groups, overall, you don’t kill the person who lets you have sex with her without having to beat her and rape her, the one who cooks your food and makes hides from the animals you’ve killed into clothes for you, the one who produced those cute little replicas of you and her.

You are emphasizing exceptions - I’m speaking of the general pattern of how a family functions. Even Cain killed Abel. Does that invalidate the notion of a family as a basic unit of society? I think not.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

buffalo:

That is true. Whether one knows or believes is irrelevant. The True GOD manifests in True religion. Morality flows from this whether one believes it or not. God is the source of everything whether one believes it or not.

So knowingly or not a moral person ultimately derives his morality from God, through God’s Revelation to all men.

We certainly don’t disagree on anything you’ve said in this post ​

 

[Richardols]

buffalo:

Now Richard you might want to look at this - Ancient Chinese Characters - Conincidence or Design

This is fascinating.

You can do a lot with “selective” quotations. Like reading modern history events into the writings of Nostradamus or the coincidences of papal blessings with disasters (the opinion of one evangelical group.)

Yes, it is interesting, but even that organization isn’t asserting that what they are pointing out is true.