Is Christian faith necessary for Selfless Love?

[PRmerger]

Your argument would work if you worship Kolbe. Do you worship Kolbe then?

Your argument would work if I worshipped Jesus because he committed a profound sublime act of love for me.

I don’t.

I worship him because he is God.

 

[PRmerger]

My source for these supposed offences is, admittedly, the word of my Catholic brother who learned of such things during a religious education course at university (designed for the teaching of religious education in Catholic schools).

Best, then, not to proclaim things when one is gravely misinformed.

I have no immediate sources.

And do you have a source for this, or is this something you learned from overhearing a conversation on a bus between 2 people, one of whom “actually saw the pope in his popemobile!”

The only reason offered for a wife to actually leave a husband is if he is an unbeliever.

Perhaps you meant “divorce” a husband, not leave?

Because I can assure you that the Church coerces no one to stay with an abusive husband.

That is another piece of gaga lala nonsense that you’ve believed without a single piece of evidence.

(Well, perhaps you have more evidence than you have for, say, the existence of a Phantom Atheistic Kolbe–that, I’ll give you. Perhaps you met a woman who says she was coerced. But I guarantee you that it’s not part of Catholic teaching that *anyone *be coerced to stay with an abusive spouse. But I also guarantee you that you haven’t met a single person who says they met the PAK, so, again, still no evidence for his existence. )

 

[atheistgirl]

(Well, perhaps you have more evidence than you have for, say, the existence of a Phantom Atheistic Kolbe–that, I’ll give you. Perhaps you met a woman who says she was coerced. But I guarantee you that it’s not part of Catholic teaching that *anyone *be coerced to stay with an abusive spouse. But I also guarantee you that you haven’t met a single person who says they met the PAK, so, again, still no evidence for his existence. )

It’s kinda weird the way you seem to use this man, Max Kolbe, as if he was some kind of trump card and not a real person who did one of the bravest things a person can do.

Would you, or anyone else, have heard of him, if he wasn’t made a Saint?

Do you know the names of every single person in the world, that ever existed, that gave their life for another, and their religious or non religious background?

When atheists do the right thing, or a brave thing, or a selfless thing, or a morally courageous thing, there’s generally not a 2 billion member global organization behind them to give them an internationally recognized honor, publically broadcast and publicized all over the world, they most likely wouldn’t want in the first place.

Sarah x

 

[levinas12]

There are many people I alone would ‘‘volunteer’’ as you put it, to lay down my life for, to willingly exchange my life for, in the full knowledge the exchange would result in a horrific agonizing long slow lingering death.

These same people would do exactly the same for me.

We are all, to a person, atheists.

I might be going out on a limb to say this but most of us Catholics would not be willing to do this.

Maybe the most charitable way of describing our position is that we think of ourselves as “natural” losers.

But that’s why we subscribe to a doctrine of grace. With “outside help”, we might be able to do the right thing in spite of our loser status.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Your Bible admonishes wives to “submit” to their husbands in all things. Husbands are, to be sure, exhorted to love their wives, but not afforded any punishment for doing otherwise. The only reason offered for a wife to actually leave a husband is if he is an unbeliever. And as far as I’m aware, the Catholic church does not recognise divorce, even now. Hence the expectation that even if a husband is abusive, a wife is - in this day and age, at least, tacitly - expected to stay married to him.

Actually, you would probably be surprised that the Church does allow civil divorce in cases of legal issues (retaining care of children, inheritances, etc), but the divorced couple are still married in the eyes of God so remarriage is still quite impossible.
One should also note that divorce and separation are two totally different ideas. Separation is allowed in the Catholic faith, divorce is not.

For a church that excommunicates a young girl who has an abortion yet fails to condemn the rapist who put her in the position of requiring the abortion in the first place, I don’t think any level of misogyny is beneath them.

I also do not believe you actually read the article you cite here. It states rather clearly in two separate locations:
“…the Catholic Church’s decision to excommunicate the mother and doctors of a nine-year-old rape victim…” (first sentence of the very first paragraph)
“The young girl at the centre of the case escaped excommunication only because she is still a child in the eyes of Church authorities.” (second sentence of the last paragraph)
I do not see how that is at all ambiguous or confusing in the least. The girl who received the abortion was not excommunicated, the girl’s mother and her doctors were. Pretty sure that is in line with the Church’s teaching on procuring abortion (cf CCC 2272).

 

[PRmerger]

It’s kinda weird the way you seem to use this man, Max Kolbe, as if he was some kind of trump card and not a real person who did one of the bravest things a person can do.

Well, I must say I am taking great delight in this conversation, and wondering if the folks at Google are puzzled at the great increase in google searches for “avowed atheists who are capable of agape in the manner that Kolbe demonstrated”.



Should your searches not end up empty, as they apparently have so far, I am prepared to consider the evidence for this Atheistic Kolbe and judge the situation on its own merits.

But, of course, I will apply all the atheistic demands for evidence: first hand witnesses of said event. Scientific and empirical evidence for same. Documentation, documentation, documentation. And repeatable evidence in a lab would be helpful, too.

I do find it amusing that there are atheists here who demand evidence for every other arena of belief, but are, in this case essentially taking the fideist approach of, “I believe this Phantom Atheist Koble exists because I just know in my heart of hearts that he does!”

Now, some have said they use reason alone to assert the existence of this PAK, and that’s allowable. Of course, the Believers argue that we, too, use reason alone to argue for God’s existence, so if you’re a reason-alone apologist for this Phantom Atheistic Kolbe, then I hope you’ll also consider the reason-alone arguments for the existence of God.

 

[tonyrey]

Well, I must say I am taking great delight in this conversation, and wondering if the folks at google are puzzled at the great increase in google searches for “avowed atheists who are capable of agape in the manner that Kolbe demonstrated”.



Should your searches not end up empty, as they apparently have so far, I am prepared to consider the evidence for this Atheistic Kolbe and judge the situation on its own merits.

But, of course, I will apply all the atheistic demands for evidence: first hand witnesses of said event. Scientific and empirical evidence for same. Documentation, documentation, documentation. And repeatable evidence in a lab would be helpful, too.

I do find it amusing that there are atheists here who demand evidence for every other arena of belief, but are, in this case essentially taking the fideist approach of, “I believe this Phantom Atheist Koble exists because I just know in my heart of hearts that he does!”

Now, some have said they use reason alone to assert the existence of this PAK, and that’s allowable. Of course, the Believers argue that we, too, use reason alone to argue for God’s existence, so if you’re a reason-alone apologist for this Phantom Atheistic Kolbe, then I hope you’ll also consider the reason-alone arguments for the existence of God.

Eminently reasonable!

 

[tonyrey]

Actually, you would probably be surprised that the Church does allow civil divorce in cases of legal issues (retaining care of children, inheritances, etc), but the divorced couple are still married in the eyes of God so remarriage is still quite impossible.
One should also note that divorce and separation are two totally different ideas. Separation is allowed in the Catholic faith, divorce is not.

I also do not believe you actually read the article you cite here. It states rather clearly in two separate locations:
“…the Catholic Church’s decision to excommunicate the mother and doctors of a nine-year-old rape victim…” (first sentence of the very first paragraph)
“The young girl at the centre of the case escaped excommunication only because she is still a child in the eyes of Church authorities.” (second sentence of the last paragraph)
I do not see how that is at all ambiguous or confusing in the least. The girl who received the abortion was not excommunicated, the girl’s mother and her doctors were. Pretty sure that is in line with the Church’s teaching on procuring abortion (cf CCC 2272).

Inexorable logic!

 

[PRmerger]

Your Bible admonishes wives to “submit” to their husbands in all things. Husbands are, to be sure, exhorted to love their wives, but not afforded any punishment for doing otherwise. The only reason offered for a wife to actually leave a husband is if he is an unbeliever. And as far as I’m aware, the Catholic church does not recognise divorce, even now. Hence the expectation that even if a husband is abusive, a wife is - in this day and age, at least, tacitly - expected to stay married to him. For a church that excommunicates a young girl who has an abortion yet fails to condemn the rapist who put her in the position of requiring the abortion in the first place, I don’t think any level of misogyny is beneath them.

Your link did not work, Sair. Could you re-post please with a different hyperlink?

 

[tonyrey]

Your argument would work if I worshipped Jesus because he committed a profound sublime act of love for me.

I don’t.

I worship him because he is God.

Non-Catholics often fail to distinguish “worship” from “venerate”!

 

[PRmerger]

Good grief.

Jesus: Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.

Amen!

But an act, no matter how heroic and brave, of itself cannot be considered “love” unless one intends for it to be an act of love.

An atheist jumping on a grenade (which thus far as been as close to the example of the Phantom Atheist Kolbe as we’ve gotten, and is as nebulous as an example as one can get) is heroic. It’s brave. But love, just because he gave his life? Not so much. Unless he did this with the intention of love*. And if that’s your argument, then I’d like to see some evidence for this intention.

(And please note: patriotism *(love of country) comes as close to agape as my love for chocolate comes to my love for my DH).

An act, done without the intention of love, cannot be construed as loving, simply because it* could* be done as a loving act.

 

[PRmerger]

Non-Catholics often fail to distinguish “worship” from “venerate”!

'zactly. :yup:

 

[PRmerger]

Eminently reasonable!

shaw:

 

[PRmerger]

I think you mistake me if you assume I have a blanket objection to religious beliefs - I actually do find some of the purported words of Jesus as given in the gospels to be wonderful summations of how people should treat each other, original or otherwise.

Of course, that misses the entire point of the Good News, which is, naturally, not about what Jesus taught (for every morally sane person–Jew *or *pagan–already knew that it was better to give than to receive, to turn the other cheek, to give your cloak to the one who has none, etc etc etc.)

But the problem is, if religious beliefs are taken seriously, they cannot be taken piecemeal - to accept the teachings of Jesus, a serious Christian must accept all the morally reprehensible aspects, not only the whole idea of vicarious atonement, but also the appalling baggage of the Old Testament, since Jesus declared that this was to be accepted.

Oh, to be sure Catholics take the entire message of the Gospel–OT AND NT–and understand them in light of the source of Truth: Jesus Christ.

Your attitude of “truth trumps everything” assumes that all the teachings of Christ are, in fact, the truth

Actually, I was thinking bigger than that and talking about the existence of God. We believe in God not because it makes us act in a saintly way, but because it’s true. God exists. Therefore reasonable people believe in him.

• you are thus obliged to act (and even think) in ways that are immoral, from an enlightened humanist perspective.

Huh? You can tell me that something is immoral?

If you can, it is only because you have conformed yourself to the divine law, which is written into your heart. Not to mention the fact that the indelible seal of baptism is on your immortal soul so if you do declare something to be true, in accord with God’s law, it is because you are cooperating with the grace that was given to you at your baptism.

Yes, beliefs are primarily valuable for the actions they motivate - but if we are to take some religious believers at their word, the only reason they treat their fellows humanely is because they believe Christian teaching - or maybe even just theism in general - to be true, and that others are only worthy of respect and compassion because their god has said so. That means, in effect, that they place the commands/desires/whims of beings that are, for all intents and purposes, imaginary, ahead of the needs of real, living, feeling beings.

That’s begging the question again, Sair. You need to prove, first, that God is imaginary.

I will wait for the evidence for that, as well as the evidence for the PAK… :coffeeread:

and consider the evidence on its own merits (using, of course, the same criteria atheists demand as I limned earlier).

 

[PRmerger]

For a church that excommunicates a young girl who has an abortion yet fails to condemn the rapist who put her in the position of requiring the abortion in the first place, I don’t think any level of misogyny is beneath them.

Yes, this does seem wrong.

However, just to be clear, excommunication is not the same as condemning.

And how are we to know what counsel the rapist received from his priest? Maybe he repented and the abortionist didn’t.

 

[PRmerger]

For a church that excommunicates a young girl who has an abortion yet fails to condemn the rapist who put her in the position of requiring the abortion in the first place, I don’t think any level of misogyny is beneath them.

Incidentally, the Church did not excommunicate the young girl. Only the abortionist and girl’s mother.

 

[samiam1611]

Is there an example of an atheist who has given up his life in an act of sacrificial agape, ala Maximilian Kolbe?

Now, to be sure, there are many noble atheists, and perhaps some of them in the military have risked their lives, jumped on a grenade, for the sake of another.

But, not to demean this heroic act, we can all admit that this type of duty is qualitatively different than the profound act of love that Maximilian Kolbe did, stepping up in front of Evil, declaring to all, “I will die in the place of this man!”, knowing he would endure a slow, horrific torture.

NB: I am speaking of a sublime “profoundly loving act” here–the type of agape that would have a person volunteer to take the place of another, knowing he will die a slow, horrific death and doing so with a smile on his face. No atheist could do this.

Why is Kolbe’s sacrifice more loving than the soldier’s? I see a quantitative difference - slow death vs instant.

If the atheist military guy knew his buddy whose life he is trying to protect had a wife and family at home, would you consider that an equally profoundly loving act? (No I don’t have any specific names )

If so, what is the difference, bc the only difference I see is the length of time but maybe I am missing something. I don’t know beyond a dictionary definition what agape is so can you explain why the soldier is not displaying agape love? What if the bomb didn’t kill him but injured him so he died a few days later, would you then consider it agape?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

If the atheist military guy knew his buddy whose life he is trying to protect had a wife and family at home, would you consider that an equally profoundly loving act? (No I don’t have any specific names )

When I read that I think of an early russian cosmonaut that knew that their space craft was not safe. But he didn’t want his friend to be the one to go up and die, so he went any way ( here is one account of the story npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2011/05/02/134597833/cosmonaut-crashed-into-earth-crying-in-rage ).

“I’m not going to make it back from this flight.”

Russayev asked, Why not refuse? According to the authors, Komarov answered: “If I don’t make this flight, they’ll send the backup pilot instead.” That was Yuri Gagarin. Vladimir Komarov couldn’t do that to his friend. “That’s Yura,” the book quotes him saying, “and he’ll die instead of me. We’ve got to take care of him.” Komarov then burst into tears.

…]an NSA analyst, identified in the book as Perry Fellwock, described overhearing Komarov tell ground control officials he knew he was about to die. Fellwock described how Soviet premier Alexei Kosygin called on a video phone to tell him he was a hero. Komarov’s wife was also on the call to talk about what to say to their children. Kosygin was crying.

When the capsule began its descent and the parachutes failed to open, the book describes how American intelligence “picked up [Komarov’s] cries of rage as he plunged to his death.”

 

[atheistgirl]

Well, I must say I am taking great delight in this conversation, and wondering if the folks at Google are puzzled at the great increase in google searches for “avowed atheists who are capable of agape in the manner that Kolbe demonstrated”.
Should your searches not end up empty, as they apparently have so far, I am prepared to consider the evidence for this Atheistic Kolbe and judge the situation on its own merits.

I personally have not searched for anything. Obviously you’ve done some searching though. Obviously, to you, this is some kind of big deal, but it sounds like it’s more like in a my dad is bigger than your dad kinda way.

Your assertions on the motivations and behaviors of all atheists, that ever existed, declared and undeclared, because let’s remember, there was a time when being avowed atheist was a death senstence from the Churches, the world over, are … well … just that, baseless assertions.

Whether an atheist gave up their life, minus the song and dance an organization makes of it and world publicity, is neither here nor there to me, and I suspect, to most people.

What possible difference does it make to me, in my life, in my world, that Joe Bloggs, in Kenya, Africa, who doesn’t believe in any form of a deity what so ever, swopped places with a pregnant woman, with kidnappers, who later mutilated him? What possible difference does that make to me, other than to know, when it counts, there are some incredibly good and brave people in the world that you would wish to have your back

Joe Bloggs might get a wiki entry, he’ll get some local write ups as the guy who swopped places with the pregnant woman but there isn’t an organization for atheists to belong to, equivolent to the Catholic Church, that would publicize their good deeds on a world wide scale

Normal everyday Atheists tend to just get on with it, without the song and dance routine.

I’ve answered your baseless assertion and unsubstantiated claim that no atheist would or could do what Kolbe did.

Max Kolbe’s ‘‘sacrifice’’ as a martyr guarantees his place in heaven with God, the final objective of all Christians except Jehovah’s Witnesses, and that two weeks of torture for a guaranteed place in heaven, is not a bad trade.

He received his lethal injection in 1941, when it must have seemed the Nazis were at the height of their power and were set to rule the world. Most, if not all, of his family were already dead. He would have already been starving, and thirsty, day in day out, and it must have looked like there was no end to the hellish conditions they were in.

I have to wonder, since people don’t tend to be all good, or all bad, all the time, if a small part of his undoubtly supremely brave and honorable sacrifice could have been to end his own personal suffering and despair, but in a manner in which he saw some good coming as a result Strictly speaking, I don’t think that would count as suicide, but the end result is the same, to end ones own personal suffering. I don’t know that’s what was going on, as I don’t know the state of his mind at the time he made the decision. Seems to me though, no one else does either.

Sarah x

 

[PRmerger]

I personally have not searched for anything. Obviously you’ve done some searching though.

Nope. Haven’t done a search at all either.

But I have posed this question multiple times over the years to atheists of all different flavors. Not a single one has come up with this PAK…so…

Obviously, to you, this is some kind of big deal, but it sounds like it’s more like in a my dad is bigger than your dad kinda way.

Said the girl whose dad smaller. In fact, nonexistent in this context.