Is Christian faith necessary for Selfless Love?

[atheistgirl]

And the fact that there are some atheists here who are providing apologia for this nonexistent PAK is curious indeed, given their very demanding criteria for evidence in all other areas.

I just want them to keep this thread in the back of their mind whenever they’re arguing against a Believer using faith.

Just sayin’…

Like the Catholic Saints, venerated for centuries, you mean:

In 1969, the Church took a long look at all the saints on its calendar to see if there was historical evidence that that saint existed and lived a life of holiness. In taking that long look, the Church discovered that there was little proof that many “saints”, including some very popular ones, ever lived. Christopher was one of the names that was determined to have a basis mostly in legend. Therefore Christopher (and others) were dropped from the universal calendar.

catholic.org/saints/faq.php

Just sayin’ …

Sarah x

 

[Sair]

Excuse me, Sair, but your ignorance of Catholicism is again manifesting itself.

Excommunication is not the same as condemning.

A quick dictionary search brings up the following:

excommunication - the act of banishing a member of a church from the communion of believers and the privileges of the church; cutting a person off from a religious society

A quick search of online Catholic encyclopaedias produces this elaboration:

“Being a penalty, it supposes guilt; and being the most serious penalty that the church can inflict, it naturally supposes a very grave offence.”

Now, I don’t know about you, but this seems to me like a fairly condemnatory act. Whether it’s literally the same or not, it is undoubtedly an act of censure, condemning the supposedly guilty party to banishment - at least until they’ve atoned for their “offence” - from the claimed spiritual benefits of communion with the church. I presume Catholics consider this an undesirable state in which to be. And there remains the question of why abortion - which hurts no sentient being and under the circumstances appears much the lesser of two evils - is considered a more grave offence, by church standards, than rape, in this particular case, child rape. This strikes me as pretty unbalanced.

 

[atheistgirl]

Was this man Catholic?

Could you please provide the evidence for his religious affiliation?

From the article you read:

Jose Cardoso Sobrinho, the conservative regional **archbishop for Pernambuco **where the girl was rushed to hospital, has said that the man would not be thrown out of the Church, because although he had allegedly committed “a heinous crime”, the Church took the view that “the abortion, the elimination of an innocent life, was more serious”.

Why would the archbishop be talking about throwing some one out of the Church that didn’t belong to it? From the statement of the archbishop, it’s resonable to think the abusive, rapist stepfather, is Catholic.

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

Don’t forget that he died with a smile on his face, singing the psalms.

I find this highly unlikely, given he endured however long malnurished and beaten, before being put into the death cell, where he suffered two weeks of starvation and dehydration, with an already pre-existing medical contition, having lost one lung completely to TB and the other badly functioning.

This is the testimony of someone who saw him in his final moments, to a priest, and he makes no mention of him singing psalms:

The way Maxmilian Kolbe met death is also a personal testimony given by Bruno Borgowiec, who told it to his parish priest before he died in 1947. He narrates the incident:

"The ten condemned to death went through terrible days. From the underground cell in which they were shut up there continually arose the echo of prayers and canticles. As the days went by, the number of survivors lessened. The man in-charge of emptying the buckets of urine found them always empty. Thirst drove the prisoners to drink the contents. Father Kolbe never asked for anything and did not complain, rather he encouraged the others, saying that the fugitive might be found and then they would all be freed. He was always on his knees or sitting, propped up against the wall. One of the guards remarked, this priest is really a great man. We have never seen anyone like him’.

On August 14, the eve of the Feast of the Assumption, four prisoners were still alive but only Father Kolbe could speak. The cell had to be used for other prisoners; a German gave each of them an injection and they died immediately. Fr. Kolbe was the last: Borgowiec saw him propped up against the wall, eyes open, face serene, head inclined to the left, the death certificate, as always made out with precision indicates the hour of death 12.30." (Ibid., p. 170.)

I don’t think this man’s bravery needs any embellishment, although I’m sure many embellishments exist. As some one mentioned above, he seems to have been one tough guy. And regardless of his motivation, he did just about the bravest thing a person can do.

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

Excuse me, Sair, but your ignorance of Catholicism is again manifesting itself.

Excommunication is not the same as condemning.

con·demn (kn-dm)
tr.v. con·demned, con·demn·ing, con·demns

1. To express strong disapproval of: condemned the needless waste of food.
   2. To pronounce judgment against; sentence: condemned the felons to prison.
2. To judge or declare to be unfit for use or consumption, usually by official order: condemn an old building.
   4. To lend credence to or provide evidence for an adverse judgment against: were condemned by their actions.
3. Law To appropriate (property) for public use.

ex·com·mu·ni·cate (ksk-myn-kt)
tr.v. ex·com·mu·ni·cat·ed, ex·com·mu·ni·cat·ing, ex·com·mu·ni·cates

1. To deprive of the right of church membership by ecclesiastical authority.
2. To exclude by or as if by decree from membership or participation in a group.

Seems to me 2 and 4 above are applicable.

As seems to be the case with a lot of things pertaining to the religious, for practical purposes, any claimed similarity in definition will be nuanced to death.

Sarah x

 

[tonyrey]

A. And there remains the question of why abortion - which hurts no sentient being and under the circumstances appears much the lesser of two evils - is considered a more grave offence, by church standards, than rape, in this particular case, child rape. This strikes me as pretty unbalanced.

The premeditated murder of millions of children - many of them solely on the ground of convenience - is glibly justified on the false pretext that it is painless even though the unborn babies writhe in agony when the surgical scissors cut into their bodies. That strikes me as hideously unbalanced in a post which purports to support selfless love…

 

[atheistgirl]

Well, part of the canonization process is actually devoted to the person’s state of mind around the time of death.

From what I’ve read, I think you’re right. I don’t think he would have focused on his own personal suffering.

His words to the camp commander, as reported by Franciszek Gajowniczek were interesting. He’s supposed to have said, he’s a ‘‘fairly old priest’’. He was only in his 40s, not old at all, but I wonder, given what he had been through already, and his TB ravished lungs, if he felt he wasn’t going to live much longer anyhow.

And if he could substitute his preceived shorted life for some one who has a chance to go on and live, and who already has a wife and children (although the hell they were in that must have seemed impossible at the time), he has the courage and bravery to do this.

I think I read something like 60 people, including grandchildren and great grandchildren, resulted from Franciszek Gajowniczek’s survival.

60 people who owe this incredible man Max Kolbe an enormous debt of gratitude. I’ve been incredibly moved by this man’s story.

Sarah x

 

[tonyrey]

Seems to me 2 and 4 above are applicable.

As seems to be the case with a lot of things pertaining to the religious, for practical purposes, any claimed similarity in definition will be nuanced to death.

Excommunication (Latin ex, out of, and communio or communicatio, communion — exclusion from the communion), the principal and severest censure, is a medicinal, spiritual penalty that deprives the guilty Christian of all participation in the common blessings of ecclesiastical society. Being a penalty, it supposes guilt; and being the most serious penalty that the Church can inflict, it naturally supposes a very grave offence. It is also a medicinal rather than a vindictive penalty, being intended, **not so much to punish the culprit, as to correct him **and bring him back to the path of righteousness. It necessarily, therefore, contemplates the future, either to prevent the recurrence of certain culpable acts that have grievous external consequences, or, more especially, to induce the delinquent to satisfy the obligations incurred by his offence…

The right to excommunicate is an immediate and necessary consequence of the fact that the Church is a society. Every society has the right to exclude and deprive of their rights and social advantages its unworthy or grievously culpable members, either temporarily or permanently.

newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm

The concept of guilt tends to disappear in a “progressive” secular society, thereby exalting compassion for the criminal at the expense of compassion for the victims…

 

[atheistgirl]

newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm

Just as I suspected. I was right

Sarah x

 

[tonyrey]

Just as I suspected. I was right

You certainly are:

The concept of guilt tends to disappear in a “progressive” secular society, thereby exalting compassion for the criminal at the expense of compassion for the victims…

As I pointed out on another thread the ways in which many secularists observe the spirit of fraternity - let alone selfless love - are carried to its logical extreme in the decimation of the serfs in the USSR by Stalin under the aegis of Marxism - dialectical materialism - and the infliction of such atrocities as the **massacre **in Tiananmen Square under the auspices of Maoism - another version of dialectical materialism.

Those who reject God believe **they alone **are the authors of morality, a diabolical assumption which enables them to employ any means whatsoever to achieve their goals in a supposedly **amoral **universe. In their scheme of things human beings are no more than naked apes that can be eliminated when they prove to be troublesome. Their motto of Non Serviam sums up their creed perfectly and is supplemented with “Ego Ipse Me Serviam”…

 

[samiam1611]

Quantitative is pretty significant in this case, don’t you think?

Yes I do. I was just wondering if that was all.

Not to mention there’s the qualitative difference of the motivation of AGAPE.

Yeah that’s what I was asking about

Because he’s not motivated by agape. The act itself may be brave indeed. Heroic. Worthy of medals.

But if it’s not motivated by agape, then it’s not a profoundly loving act, naturally.

That’s what I was hoping you would explain to me.

And the fact that there are some atheists here who are providing apologia for this nonexistent PAK is curious indeed, given their very demanding criteria for evidence in all other areas.
It would appear that there are some atheists who have great faith in this nonexistent entity.
That’s fine. I don’t begrudge them that faith. I just want them to keep this thread in the back of their mind whenever they’re arguing against a Believer using faith.

Just sayin’…

Just so we’re clear though, the type of faith and the things we have faith in is fundamentally different from your religious beliefs. What may seem ironic at first is really just an inapt comparison.

From the Catechsim:

“Faith is the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us, and that Holy Church proposes for our belief, because he is truth itself.”
“Faith is a supernatural gift from God.”
“Faith is first of all personal adherence to God and assent to his truth, Christian faith differs from our faith in any human person. It is right and just to entrust oneself wholly to God and to believe absolutely what he says. It would be futile and false to place such faith in a creature.”

Clearly what is being talked about there is nothing like the type of faith you accuse us of having.

 

[atheistgirl]

Those who reject God believe **they alone **are the authors of morality,

Of course not. If I have views that differ from the majority view, can I impose them? No. If I act on them what happens? If they’re against our shared and agreed norms, I get arrested and thrown in the slammer.

a diabolical assumption which enables them to employ any means whatsoever to achieve their goals in a supposedly **amoral **universe.

I guess you missed the revolutions and the Arab Spring, where, when pushed hard enough, people will stand up and say enough.

Sarah x

 

[tonyrey]

Just so we’re clear though, the type of faith and the things we have faith in is fundamentally different from your religious beliefs. What may seem ironic at first is really just an inapt comparison.

From the Catechsim:

“Faith is the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us, and that Holy Church proposes for our belief, because he is truth itself.”
“Faith is a supernatural gift from God.”
“Faith is first of all personal adherence to God and assent to his truth, Christian faith differs from our faith in any human person. It is right and just to entrust oneself wholly to God and to believe absolutely what he says. It would be futile and false to place such faith in a creature.”

Clearly what is being talked about there is nothing like the type of faith you accuse us of having.

Your version is:

“Faith is the pathological virtue by which I believe in myself and believe all that I decide for myself because there is no higher moral authority.”

“Faith is a natural gift endowed by purposeless processes.”

“Faith is first of all my adherence to my own opinion and assent to my own version of the truth. My faith differs from faith in anyone except myself. It is right and just to entrust myself wholly to myself and to believe absolutely what I decide is right because no one knows me as well as I know myself. It would be futile and false to place such faith in anyone but myself.”

 

[tonyrey]

*Those who reject God believe **they alone ***

Only if you lack the cunning to acquire a position of power - as so many others have done.

There is no bulwark against the rejection of shared and agreed norms in a purposeless universe.

a diabolical assumption which enables them to employ any means whatsoever to achieve their goals in a supposedly **amoral **

universe. I guess you missed the revolutions and the Arab Spring, where, when pushed hard enough, people will stand up and say enough.

You are assuming the people have achieved their goals…

Moreover their goals have no rational foundation if they (and we) are merely naked apes here today and gone tomorrow… Death can strike at any moment and reduce all fine words to nonsense - if it destroys everything we cherish.

 

[atheistgirl]

There is no bulwark against the rejection of shared and agreed norms in a purposeless universe.

Oh, we’ve come a long way from burning witches, invading countries and stealing their land, debating whether certain ‘‘people’’ had a soul or not, and thus if they were really human, and enslaving whole nations, in the name of God.

Personally, I much prefer this purposeless universe, to anything any Deity would be involved with and the attendant consequences to us from those who think they know what this Deity wants.

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

Death can strike at any moment and reduce all fine words to nonsense - if it destroys everything we cherish.

So the great poetry, the great ideas expressed in wonderful literature, passed from generation to generation, are reduced to nonsense because the authors dead?

Of course not.

Everything my father told me, every expression of love he showed me, the very fact his genes make up my body, is reduced to nonsense because he’s dead?

Of course not.

He lives on through his writing, his painting, his children, our memories of him, all the things he created and all the memories of all those who’s lives he touched.

That is simply wonderful, and perfect to me.

Sarah x

 

[inocente]

“Define” <> “explain”.

Nor does the statement account for the origin of love or its power.

In other words there is no evidence that it is an **entirely natural **phenomenon. If it were it would not have been necessary for Jesus to redeem humanity.

Jesus never talks about love as natural vs. whatever, so I’d say we can safely infer that it’s completely irrelevant to his teaching.

 

[inocente]

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.

I think you missed the point. God says Kolbe’s wasn’t the great love, as Kolbe died for a stranger, while God himself says: Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.

So according to God, the unsung soldier who lays down his life for his buddies has the greatest love. Presumably because he loves his friends for who they are, whereas strangers can only be loved in abstraction. Whatever, God couldn’t be any clearer.

Just as in the parable of the Good Samaritan, He deliberately chose a non-Christian, non-Jew as the one who shows love, to teach that Christians are not top of the pile, we are all equal. Repent PR, for the end is neigh.

 

[inocente]

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

So any Catholic chosen at random is more able than the majority of Jews, Muslims and the rest of us?

Everyone is equal but Catholics are more equal than others.

 

[inocente]

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.

Exactly.