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
Which is why, of course, the moral arguments for - or indeed against - the existence of gods tend not to work out so well. Something can be true and horrifying at one and the same time [edited] and whilst we may respect beliefs that result in good actions, that does not give those beliefs the stamp of truth. I did, in fact, come across an essay about Max Kolbe, which gave a very moving account of his actions whilst confined in Auschwitz; but then the essayist proceeded to blot his (or her) copybook by assuming that unbelievers take moral dictation from the facts of evolution and natural selection, and for that reason could never behave in a truly altruistic manner.
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.
Which doesn’t ameliorate the appalling nature of many of the various “messages” conveyed by the scriptures. If anything, it allows the more horrific parts to be glossed over and ignored, and treats the idea of vicarious atonement as if it were not utterly reprehensible.
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.
Upon what basis do you claim it is true, though? There are no
reasons, other than being told and taking it on faith. It is not reasonable, not in the same way that it is reasonable to accept propositions on the basis of evidence. As I believe I’ve already discussed, it is one thing to propose a theory that ‘explains’ everything, or a theory that can be made to fit with any possible fact one could hope to uncover - but such a theory is useless to the extent that there is actually no way to demonstrate that it is the correct explanation over and above some other explanation. You don’t - I might go so far as to say “can’t” - believe in your god on the basis of reason, because, as I said, there aren’t any reasons that couldn’t just as easily be reasons to believe in something else. You believe in your god because you have been taught and enculturated to accept his existence,
on faith.
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.
Now you’re sounding like a presuppositionalist, coming through with yet another undemonstrable, unfalsifiable claim, and assuming that morality is or even could be something other than a naturally evolved human social feature. What I would say is that it seems rather absurd to suggest that I am only able to act morally because of my Catholic baptism when so many of my moral judgements run counter to those offered by Catholic doctrine.
That’s begging the question again, Sair. You need to prove, first, that God is imaginary.
Until his existence is proven by those who claim he exists, he is provisionally considered imaginary. I repudiate your attempt to shift the burden of proof.
I will wait for the evidence for that, as well as the evidence for the PAK… :coffeeread:
As far as this is concerned, we are both in the position of being unable to prove a negative. What I would say is that if your god is really so undetectable that he is in the same category of “things that might exist because we can’t know every corner of the universe”, then even if he exists - which I cannot disprove, at least as far as a deistic conception of god is concerned - then we might as well just try to shift for ourselves, as many of us do already. I will also reiterate the fact that the existence or otherwise of the Phantom Atheist Kolbe is not, for me, an article of faith, much less the centre of my worldview. It is, at this juncture, proving merely to be an interesting talking point.
I might also echo the thoughts expressed by a few other posters now, who have queried the basis upon which you hold that Kolbe’s action was, indeed, motivated by a kind of love that goes beyond all others; whilst an action such as a soldier jumping on a grenade to save his comrades, or a health worker treating AIDS patients in Africa, say, and thus running a risk of infection themselves (and, were this to have been 20 years ago, facing a long-drawn-out and painful crawl towards death) are not motivated by this same kind of compassionate fellow-feeling. Do you know for a fact that Kolbe’s actions were motivated by the Christian ideal of agape? Or is it just possible that he simply felt ready to die after enduring a horrible experience in what might have been the worst place in the world?
and consider the evidence on its own merits (using, of course, the same criteria atheists demand as I limned earlier).
I do consider evidence on its own merits - and part of that is questioning it from all possible angles. You make blanket claims about the existence of your god and the motivation for Kolbe’s sacrifice which, although you are fully entitled to believe them, cannot, as it happens, be demonstrated as factual.
So?
