Hello Athiests!

[happilycatholic]

Origin of Love:

“Cupid kissed God and that got the ball rollin’.”

Julio, age 9

Okay, I’ll quit now.
​

 

[kalt]

Thank you for telling me what actually happened to me, instead of what I remembered happening to me.

You’re most welcome.

 

[aileron]

It’s just a definition, hence my reason for using wikipedia, would you prefer I used another dictionary to define moral relativism to your satisfaction.

Clear definition of terms is critical in philosophical and theological discussions. Different people define moral relativism in different ways. It is probably easier to define what moral relativism is not. It is not a claim that morality can be in one way or another discerned from God. I’m trying to show that in their actions, the RCC shows exactly this.

The opposite of moral relativism is moral absolutism, which espouses a fundamental, Natural Law of constant values and rules

The problem is: Who gets to say what the natural laws are? God? Who speaks for God? The Church? Prove it. Over 80% of the world rejects the claim that the RCC gets to set those standards. One of the clearest pieces of evidence against the RCC claim is the shifting views of morality over time practiced by the clerical leadership.

 

[aileron]

An excerpt taken from “The Myth of Hitler’s Pope” by RABBI David Dalin:
The truth is that the popes and the Catholic Church from the earliest days of the Church were never responsible for physical persecution of Jews and only Rome, among the capitals of the World, is free from having been a place of Jewish tragedy. For this we Jews must have gratitude."

I’m sure these were some carefully snipped quotes from the book. In any case, is this the best retort that one can find? That no Pope directly ordered physical persecution of the Jews? They ordered plenty of persecution of the Jews, but left it to the civil authority or the mob to do the dirty work. After whipping up or inflaming antisemitism among the civil authorities or mobs that led to violence, sometimes the Pope would issue a Papal Bull protecting the Jews. The protection Bulls were invariably insulting and condescending.

Also, this statement is simply not true: “Rome, among the capitals of the World, is free from having been a place of Jewish tragedy.” I’m curious why it’s not a tragedy that the Germans rounded up Jews in Rome’s former Papal-decreed Jewish ghettos and took them to certain death.

Do I really have to dig up the Papal Bulls calling for among other things:

• Censorship of Jewish sacred texts
• Forcing Jews to wear distinctive clothing or identifying badges
• Suspended interest payments to Jews
• Requiring Jews to tithe to local Roman Catholic churches
• Forbidding Jews to hire Christian servants
• Burning copied of the Talmud
• Forbidding Jews to live with Christians
• Forbidding Jews from owning real estate
• Forcing Jews to live in a walled off section of Rome locked at night
• Forcing Jews to attend conversion sermons

 

[josie_L]

That is a lot of material, but i have to ask what it has to do with anything? I don’t believe, nor am I trying to make the point that the human instruments of the Church have been consistently a net negative force for humanity. My point all along has been that it has changed with the times, all the while claiming otherwise.

In other words, they have been inconstant. Counterbalancing what we consider today the bad with what we consider today the good only serves to reinforce my point. ** If a clear, discernible universal code of morality existed from a transcendental source, why has the Church and all of Christianity changed its preaching of morality over time?**

They used to preach and sanctify repression of Jews. Now they preach that it is a serious sin. They used to preach and sanctify wars of conquest and enslavement of indigenous peoples. Now they work tirelessly to protect their rights, at least until the higher ups tell them to stop.

The problem with claiming that the Church can claim a universal, constant moral authority is that in practice they have shown just the opposite.

Allow me to cut and paste too, from Mark Twain.

That’s the point I’m trying to make with my posts in that the Church (as a whole) did not change its stance in regard to morality, it always abhorred chattel slavery (this is not to be confused with indentured servititude), it always abhorred anti-semitism (although we know that some of the religious within the Church contributed to the anti-semitism of their time). So even though the Church, at times, failed to live up to her own standards, never did those standards for which she upheld change.

Also, I wasn’t aware that Mark Twain was a historian, was he? Furthermore, the amount of scholarly works and information we have derived from historical events since the time of Mark Twain’s death to our present day has been enormous, thus changing how we view the past. For example, it was only in the 70’s that scholars gained access to documents in the Spanish government archives concerning the Inquisition. Hence, we have to put all the knowledge we now know into perspective. So, I can hardly use Mark Twain as a source without taking into consideration these changes.

 

[josie_L]

I’m sure these were some carefully snipped quotes from the book. In any case, is this the best retort that one can find? That no Pope directly ordered physical persecution of the Jews? They ordered plenty of persecution of the Jews, but left it to the civil authority or the mob to do the dirty work. After whipping up or inflaming antisemitism among the civil authorities or mobs that led to violence, sometimes the Pope would issue a Papal Bull protecting the Jews. The protection Bulls were invariably insulting and condescending.

Can you cite your sources, so I know where you’re getting your information from?

Also, this statement is simply not true: “Rome, among the capitals of the World, is free from having been a place of Jewish tragedy.” I’m curious why it’s not a tragedy that the Germans rounded up Jews in Rome’s former Papal-decreed Jewish ghettos and took them
to certain death.

And what do you think Pope Pius XII did? Are you aware that he saved the majority of Jews living in Rome from being deported?

Do I really have to dig up the Papal Bulls calling for among other things:

• Censorship of Jewish sacred texts
• Forcing Jews to wear distinctive clothing or identifying badges
• Suspended interest payments to Jews
• Requiring Jews to tithe to local Roman Catholic churches
• Forbidding Jews to hire Christian servants
• Burning copied of the Talmud
• Forbidding Jews to live with Christians
• Forbidding Jews from owning real estate
• Forcing Jews to live in a walled off section of Rome locked at night
• Forcing Jews to attend conversion sermons

Most of these topics are covered in the book I mentioned, please read it.

 

[aileron]

That’s the point I’m trying to make with my posts in that the Church (as a whole) did not change its stance in regard to morality, it always abhorred chattel slavery (this is not to be confused with indentured servititude),

If I take the time to research the exact names, dates, and popes who issued Papal Bulls sanctifying chattel slavery, will this invalidate your claim?

it always abhorred anti-semitism (although we know that some of the religious within the Church contributed to the anti-semitism of their time).

So if I take the time to research the exact names, dates, and popes who issued Papal Bulls that can only be considered antisemitic, will this invalidate your claim?

So even though the Church, at times, failed to live up to her own standards, never did those standards for which she upheld change.

What is the standard if not decades or centuries-long pronouncements from multiple Popes, enacted by the bishops and secular governments?

Also, I wasn’t aware that Mark Twain was a historian, was he?

Historian? No. He did know the history of his church and yours though.

Furthermore, the amount of scholarly works and information we have derived from historical events since the time of Mark Twain’s death to our present day has been enormous, thus changing how we view the past.

So? We have the words the Popes used to examine for ourselves. If there is substantial evidence of change in their own words over time, new findings are not necessary to get the answer to the question at issue.

For example, it was only in the 70’s that scholars gained access to documents in the Spanish government archives concerning the Inquisition. Hence, we have to put all the knowledge we now know into perspective.

Let me get this straight. We know that such and such events were brutal, and would never be practiced by the present-day Church. But because we don’t have all the information about them, new information can make the older and newer Church outlook the same? What documents to you think will be forthcoming that would make what happened during the Spanish Inquisition something that the current leadership of the Church would want to repeat today? Now you’re just being disingenuous.

So, I can hardly use Mark Twain as a source without taking into consideration these changes.

I’m not using Twain as a source, but as a poet. Poetry chances more minds than reason ever will.

 

[josie_L]

If I take the time to research the exact names, dates, and popes who issued Papal Bulls sanctifying chattel slavery, will this invalidate your claim?

So if I take the time to research the exact names, dates, and popes who issued Papal Bulls that can only be considered antisemitic, will this invalidate your claim?

What is the standard if not decades or centuries-long pronouncements from multiple Popes, enacted by the bishops and secular governments?

Historian? No. He did know the history of his church and yours though.

So? We have the words the Popes used to examine for ourselves. If there is substantial evidence of change in their own words over time, new findings are not necessary to get the answer to the question at issue.

Let me get this straight. We know that such and such events were brutal, and would never be practiced by the present-day Church. But because we don’t have all the information about them, new information can make the older and newer Church outlook the same? What documents to you think will be forthcoming that would make what happened during the Spanish Inquisition something that the current leadership of the Church would want to repeat today? Now you’re just being disingenuous.

I’m not using Twain as a source, but as a poet. Poetry chances more minds than reason ever will.

Please cite these bulls that you refer to that condone “chattel” slavery? And although there have been actions committed by Church members/hierarchy that were anti-semitic, the doctrinal groundwork of the Church is not anti-semitic that is, she does not espouse anti-semitism in her theology. And she is not an anti-semitic institution (please read the book set forth earlier by me). Can you say the same of communism and/or Nazism? And I have already stated that she has failed at times to live up to her own standards (on faith and morals).

And I have no idea what you are refering to in your last paragragh? I stated that because we were able to have access to the archives in Spain, scholars gained greater insight into what happened during the Inquisition, which by the way, was under the authority of temporal powers. We realized for one, that the Inquisitions did not kill millions of people but rather 3500 - 5000 people (which is still wrong, but considering it was spaced out within a span of 350 years it is not as horrific as the hundreds of thousands or millions thought to have been killed). Therefore, our perception of the events upon learning of these documents, changed, as such people existing before this discovery, may have had erroneous opinions on the matter, like Mark Twain. People still insist on believing the black legend, as it is termed.

“But even at this early point in the history of the Spanish Inquisition, the papacy was having second thoughts. Pope Sixtus IV (1471-1484) complained about the activities of the inquisition in Aragon and its treatment of the conversos. But, as throughout much of Europe, the papacy had lost much control over the actions of local inquisitions. Pope Innocent VIII (1484-1492) complained fruitlessly as well. The inquisition in Spain was controlled by Spanish authorities, not the authority of the papacy.”

catholic.com/thisrock/2007/0711tbt.asp

 

[aileron]

Please cite these bulls that you refer to that condone “chattel” slavery?

Fine, I will.

And although there have been actions committed by Church members/hierarchy that were anti-semitic, the doctrinal groundwork of the Church is not anti-semitic that is, she does not espouse anti-semitism in her theology.

I call shenanigans. If there were any other institution on earth that from the top instituted such policies toward the Jews and had the establishment institute them, you would call it antisemitic. You simply are making a special pleading for the RCC.

And she is not an anti-semitic institution (please read the book set forth earlier by me).

Not now she’s not. Why the need to read the book? You have not explained why second hand sources are better than first hand sources. Please explain.

Can you say the same of communism and/or Nazism?

Using your standards of evidence, I can say that about communism but not Nazism. In any case, so what? Does the fact that other entities have persecuted Jews mean that the RCC persecution of Jews didn’t happen and wouldn’t happen today – showing a change in moral outlook?

And I have already stated that she has failed at times to live up to her own standards (on faith and morals).

No, those were her standards. People didn’t think they were doing anything wrong with these actions. Quite the contrary. They thought they were doing God’s will.

And I have no idea what you are refering to in your last paragragh?

It’s simple really. A universal claim can be invalidated by a single counter example. When I provide not only a single counter example, but a systematic set of counter examples, you go on about how they can be counterbalanced by opposing events. It doesn’t work that way. Your universal claim is invalidated.

 

[aileron]

Please cite these bulls that you refer to that condone “chattel” slavery?

Dum Diversas, 1452, Nicholas V

We grant you by these present documents, with our Apostolic Authority, full and free permission to invade, search out, capture, and subjugate the Saracens [Muslims] and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ wherever they may be, as well as their kingdoms, duchies, counties, principalities, and other property … and to reduce their persons into perpetual slavery.

Romanus Pontifex, 1455, Nicholas V

We therefore weighing all and singular the premises with due meditation, and noting that since we had formerly by other letters of ours granted among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid King Alfonso – to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, and to apply and appropriate to himself and his successors the kingdoms, dukedoms, counties, principalities, dominions, possessions, and goods, and to convert them to his and their use and profit.

 

[jam070406]

They thought they were doing God’s will.

Key word in bold. I don’t understand why an honest seeker of Truth would throw away the gift of God over the things you are arguing for. You can go back through history and nick pick every sinful action of man but how does that disprove the existence of God?

 

[redhen]

After 30 years since the success of his book The Selfish Gene, Dawkins has grown more militant in his atheism. The *God Delusion *is just more of his polemics against religion. Nothing new in this book, and nothing for Christians to be afraid of. Christians would have more to fear from Bart Ehrman’s books. Still, Dawkins is a lively writer.

Here’s a funny animated video of the Dawkins Rap, with the 4 Horsemen and a cameo from Darwin. For a rap tune it’s amazingly clean, there’s no profanity; it’s been humorously censored.

youtube.com/watch?v=eaGgpGLxLQw

 

[aileron]

Key word in bold. I don’t understand why an honest seeker of Truth would throw away the gift of God over the things you are arguing for. You can go back through history and nick pick every sinful action of man but how does that disprove the existence of God?

Nit pick? These were systematic in the Church. I only have to nit pick specific items because certain people use a dishonest double standard for evidence.

If it reflects well on the Church, hearsay, secondary analysis, even wishful thinking qualifies.

If it reflects poorly on the Church, the standard of evidence is progressively raised to an absurd or impossible standard.

 

[jam070406]

Nit pick? These were systematic in the Church. I only have to nit pick specific items because certain people use a dishonest double standard for evidence.

If it reflects well on the Church, hearsay, secondary analysis, even wishful thinking qualifies.

If it reflects poorly on the Church, the standard of evidence is progressively raised to an absurd or impossible standard.

You are unwilling to differentiate between The Church and individuals behaving badly. Which is dishonest on your part. And…you still didn’t answer my question.

 

[aileron]

You are unwilling to differentiate between The Church and individuals behaving badly.

You’re being duplicitous with this gigantic special pleading. You made specific accusations against atheism because of actions by individuals. You refuse to allow your own argument when concerning your member group.

Which is dishonest on your part.

Hardly. These were not individual actions but the prevailing tendency. You are making the implied assumption, without evidence to support it, that they were isolated individual acts. Even a moment’s reflection sends that one up in flames. These weren’t any old Catholics. They were from the Pope. It took many, many other Catholics to go along with and implement his ideas. It took generations of Catholics to allow them to stand in place without repudiation.

And…you still didn’t answer my question.

As for disproving the existence of God, that is not the question at issue here.

 

[jam070406]

You’re being duplicitous with this gigantic special pleading. You made specific accusations against atheism because of actions by individuals. You refuse to allow your own argument when concerning your member group.

I got upset. I allowed emotion to cloud my reason. I admit I was wrong in my thinking, Ok?
The issue of communism killing Christians hits close to home for me. Forgive me.
So, now we have the opposite scenario, you are using the same double standard when the issue applies to the Church, can you drop it?

Hardly. These were not individual actions but the prevailing tendency. You are making the implied assumption, without evidence to support it, that they were isolated individual acts. Even a moment’s reflection sends that one up in flames. These weren’t any old Catholics. They were from the Pope. It took many, many other Catholics to go along with and implement his ideas. It took generations of Catholics to allow them to stand in place without repudiation.

If Jesus said love thy neighbor, love one another, turn the other cheek, Whoever lives by the sword dies by it, etc.
And individuals act in direct conflict of that in the name of God, I can conclude that they are NOT in line with the mind of the Church or Jesus. It’s that simple! Period.

As for disproving the existence of God, that is not the question at issue here.

Fine. Sorry again.

 

[happilycatholic]

God exists because (insert magic words here that make everyone believe).

…not going to happen.

Very frustrating.

 

[aileron]

So, now we have the opposite scenario, you are using the same double standard when the issue applies to the Church, can you drop it?

No, and here’s why. Atheism does not make a claim of having access to a transcendental, perfect, and ultimate moral authority. The RCC does claim to have access to a transcendental, perfect, and ultimate moral authority.

So if we see morals from atheistic groups shifting over time, even committing atrocities, we cannot conclude that atheism has made a false claim about its source for morals.

On the other hand, if we see the Church’s moral outlook changing over time it casts doubt on the claim that it has access to a transcendental, timeless, ultimate moral authority.

If Jesus said love thy neighbor, love one another, turn the other cheek, Whoever lives by the sword dies by it, etc.
And individuals act in direct conflict of that in the name of God, I can conclude that they are NOT in line with the mind of the Church or Jesus. It’s that simple! Period.

That is all well and good, and I will agree with you here. However, it does leave the central question unresolved. It leaves it unresolved because these guidelines do not cover all moral issues. For instance, my wife and I used IVF to have children. According to the hierarchy of the RCC, we have done something that was morally incorrect. My point is: Says who?

What gives the earthly hierarchy of the Church the right to say this is moral, this is not? They claim it is because they have access to a transcendental, perfect, ultimate moral authority. Not only is that suspect, their history casts serious doubt on the claim.

 

[happilycatholic]

No, and here’s why. Atheism does not make a claim of having access to a transcendental, perfect, and ultimate moral authority. The RCC does claim to have access to a transcendental, perfect, and ultimate moral authority. (Which is passes on as referenced below, not as you would describe)

So if we see morals from atheistic groups shifting over time, even committing atrocities, we cannot conclude that atheism has made a false claim about its source for morals. (Again, it depends on whether it is Dogma or Doctrine)

On the other hand, if we see the Church’s moral outlook changing over time it casts doubt on the claim that it has access to a transcendental, timeless, ultimate moral authority. (Only if some current DOGMA contridicted prior Dogma)

That is all well and good, and I will agree with you here. However, it does leave the central question unresolved. It leaves it unresolved because these guidelines do not cover all moral issues. For instance, my wife and I used IVF to have children. According to the hierarchy of the RCC, we have done something that was morally incorrect. My point is: Says who?

What gives the earthly hierarchy of the Church the right to say this is moral, this is not? They claim it is because they have access to a transcendental, perfect, ultimate moral authority. Not only is that suspect, their history casts serious doubt on the claim.

Wait a minute…

You can’t claim that there is no higher power and then use it as a standard of proof.

To say the Church has the authority to lead, does not mean it is infallable in all things. Afterall, Jesus knew his Apostles were not infallable in all things when He and they lead the Church while Christ was here on earth. It also does not mean that doctrine cannot evolve. Judaism EVOLVED into Christianity. So doctrine quite clearly evolves.

Also, on faith and morals, only those things proclaimed ex cathedra can be claimed infallable, unchanging. No pope has ever made a statement ex cathedra on IVF.

It’s simple, you confuse Church dogma with doctrine. It would be good for you to study this:

1. Deposit of Faith: Holy Scripture AND Sacred Tradition, recognized and deliniated by the Magesterium. INFALLIBLE. Cannot be added to or subtracted from.
2. Dogma: INFALLIBLE teaching of Faith or Morals, derived from the Deposit of Faith. Propagated by ex cathedra pronouncment of reigning Pontiff or by a ecumenical council of the Church’s bishops in turn ratified by reigning Pontiff. Cannot contradict Deposit of Faith or prior Dogma. (THIS PART IS VERY IMPORTANT, NO DOGMA HAS EVER CONTRADICTED PRIOR DOGMA, EVER.)
3. Doctrine: NOT infallible teaching of the Church of Faith and Morals. Binding on all Catholics while propagated. Can be altered, modified, abandoned, even condemned. Doctrine RARELY becomes Dogma. (ALSO VERY IMPORTANT, DOCTRINES SUCH AS THE WAY PEOPLE OF OTHER FAITHS ARE CONSIDERED)
4. Discipline: NOT infallible rules of behavior, binding on all Catholics while propagated, designed with the intent to keep believers “on the straight and narrow”. Includes Lenten rules of fasting & priestly celibacy. Can be relaxed, altered, or abolished.
5. Devotions: Private practice of prayers, meditions, and disciplines, in accordance to Church approval. Includes 99% of Marian devotions, belief in approved apparitions or visions (Private Revelation), First Saturdays, Stations of the Cross, etc…

You can’t just go off willy-nilly and claim that the Church is responsible for everything that’s ever been done or said in its name. Again, you hold the Church to different standards than you do your own (non)religion or whatever you call it.

 

[aileron]

Wait a minute…

You can’t claim that there is no higher power and then use it as a standard of proof.

1. I don’t claim that there is no higher power. I dispute human claims that there are good reasons to conclude so.
2. I’m not using proof of God as a standard of proof for the question at issue. I’m not sure you’ve been following the thread long enough to have the context. It seems like you may be picking out the later posts without going back to look at the question at issue. I’m using evidence of changing outlooks on morality as disproof of the notion that there is a discernible universal moral standard applied by the Church.

Afterall, Jesus knew his Apostles were not infallable in all things when He and they lead the Church while Christ was here on earth. It also does not mean that doctrine cannot evolve. Judaism EVOLVED into Christianity. So doctrine quite clearly evolves.

We’re not discussing doctrine. We’re discussing morality.

Also, on faith and morals, only those things proclaimed ex cathedra can be claimed infallable, unchanging. No pope has ever made a statement ex cathedra on IVF.

I am not a Protestant here to bash the infallibility of the Pope. I am aware of the limitations placed on its use, and it really is of no concern to me.

It’s simple, you confuse Church dogma with doctrine. It would be good for you to study this:

Why do so many religious people assume that atheists must not know the basics about various religions? Did it occur to you that many former priests and pastors are atheists too, or that many atheists have studied these matters in great detail in their quest to decide whether to leave a particular religion?

You can’t just go off willy-nilly and claim that the Church is responsible for everything that’s ever been done or said in its name.

Really? You think that Papal Bull after Papal Bull calling for systematic persecution of Jews for example, that was carried out over centuries by large bodies of Roman Catholic followers of the Pope is “willy-nilly”.

Again, you hold the Church to different standards than you do your own (non)religion or whatever you call it.

I’m not holding the Church to any standard at all. I’m claiming that its moral outlook has changed. I see that as a good thing. I see no problem with that. Apparently some here do.