Problems w/ Atheism

[PantheistsRule]

Hey everybody!

Alright… well, first, to “Humble Maid”, I believe it was…

I am not accusing the modern Catholic Church, as in the organization, not its members, of being any worse than any modern organized religion. In the past, they were horrible, but today, they aren’t so bad. The fact that Catholocism has in the past damaged many lives is not an opinion, it is a fact. By the past, I don’t mean a month ago, I mean the stuff you’d read in a book written on a time period approximately 400-500 years ago.

And evidence? Do you have, like, a problem? Seriously, I’ve talked to NUNS who admit the Catholic Church was extremely corrupt and hypocritical in the past. The Crusades, the constant vying for the title of Pope by Princes and Kings, the Spanish Inquisition, just to name a few, all damaged MANY lives. They contributed in large to the Dark Ages staying dark (though Christian monks of course did give us a significant portion of our knowledge of ancient history via rewriting old books when everyone else was illiterate).

There are few statistics from the 1500’s, otherwise I’d give them to you. And there are no statistics of all the people the Church has indirectly killed via preaching elitism, favoritism, racism, etc.

And before you get pissed, I know the modern Church does not preach those things. Its members often practice them though…

Now to the other guy

I AM aware that the Catholic Church is a VERY VERY charitable organization. Are many of its members? Not nearly as many as there should be are.

I have looked at the facts. When I say they HAVE BEEN one of the worst, I mean that in the past tense. Today, the actual Church organization is less corrupt, though their members are still often racist, elitist, etc.

We’ll have to disagree on the evidence supporting the identities of the Biblical authors too The point I am getting at is that a) the identities of the authors of the Gospels are not known for sure b) other books from that period that have been found, but were not included in the Bible, have refuted some claims the Gospels made, and c) it is really about Jesus’ message; early Christians in general did NOT believe he was God.

Looking forward to your next posts

Peace
PantheistsRule

P.S. Please forgive any grammar/spelling mistakes, as I wrote this is a bit of a rush…

 

[srferdave]

early Christians in general did NOT believe he was God.

Thats not true. Some Gnostics did not believe Jesus was God. And I believe some of the gnostics believed they were Christians. But just because they thought they were Christians did not make them Christian.

You are starting to come up with many claims with no supporting evidence. Where do you come up with this stuff?

Just because there were some bad people in the Church in the past does not mean that the Church itself was bad or corrupt. You are just choosing to view a small portion of the Church without looking at the whole.

 

[PantheistsRule]

Hello

Don’t mean to be rude, but you are being VERY ignorant to widely accepted historical facts about the Church. Most if not all historians, theologists, etc. accept that the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages and such was VERY corrupt. There is no need to defend a Church that is in essence entirely different from the modern one that evolved from it. The modern Church is not the 1500’s Church.

Also, most historians do accept Gnostics as early Christians. There are/have been many different types of Christians. It is rather narrow-minded to only say that one sect of Christians at the time were REAL Christians. As per the Vatican’s definition, perhaps the Gnostics weren’t Christians, but as per the ACTUAL definition, the historical definition, the book definition, Gnostics WERE Christians, and a significant portion of early converts were Gnostic, especially Gentile converts. I’ll admit I implied that the number of them was larger than perhaps it actually was. My bad, I appologize.

Anway, I believe it would do you well, however, to go to your local library, and take out a book on the Ancient Roman Empire, making sure it discusses Constantine in detail. Constantine used the Church to his own political ends, to unify the Roman Empire once more, to make it easier to control. He was not a very abusive leader, but on the other hand, a politician is a politician. He recognized that founding an organized, Roman, Catholic Church would be useful in bringing Rome together once more. The Church was not REALLY the Church until Constantine endorsed it, and helped shape it.

Now, if you are to say that only certain Christians are Christians, then if I recall, you are actually working AGAINST the Church’s call for Christian unity. If Gnostics weren’t Christians, neither are Unitarians, at the very least, if not ALL Protestants. Depends on what you believe, or how extreme your faith in the Church is.

I could argue the same thing you are saying about Gnostics the other way around: Catholics aren’t Christians. It would make sense. Just because you believe you are Christian doesn’t mean you are. Many Protestants hold views that Catholics are idol-worshippers and hypocrites, descendents of Roman Paganism (which, as I said, the Church historically is descended from in part). To them, you CLAIM to be Christian but aren’t REALLY Christian.

And in large, the stuff I am coming up with stems from my knowledge of widely accepted historical fact.

So… that’s it for this time. I’m quite enjoying this

'Till next post

Peace,
PantheistsRule

 

[srferdave]

Hello

Don’t mean to be rude, but you are being VERY ignorant to widely accepted historical facts about the Church. Most if not all historians, theologists, etc. accept that the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages and such was VERY corrupt. There is no need to defend a Church that is in essence entirely different from the modern one that evolved from it. The modern Church is not the 1500’s Church.

Also, most historians do accept Gnostics as early Christians. There are/have been many different types of Christians. It is rather narrow-minded to only say that one sect of Christians at the time were REAL Christians. As per the Vatican’s definition, perhaps the Gnostics weren’t Christians, but as per the ACTUAL definition, the historical definition, the book definition, Gnostics WERE Christians, and a significant portion of early converts were Gnostic, especially Gentile converts. I’ll admit I implied that the number of them was larger than perhaps it actually was. My bad, I appologize.

Anway, I believe it would do you well, however, to go to your local library, and take out a book on the Ancient Roman Empire, making sure it discusses Constantine in detail. Constantine used the Church to his own political ends, to unify the Roman Empire once more, to make it easier to control. He was not a very abusive leader, but on the other hand, a politician is a politician. He recognized that founding an organized, Roman, Catholic Church would be useful in bringing Rome together once more. The Church was not REALLY the Church until Constantine endorsed it, and helped shape it.

Now, if you are to say that only certain Christians are Christians, then if I recall, you are actually working AGAINST the Church’s call for Christian unity. If Gnostics weren’t Christians, neither are Unitarians, at the very least, if not ALL Protestants. Depends on what you believe, or how extreme your faith in the Church is.

I could argue the same thing you are saying about Gnostics the other way around: Catholics aren’t Christians. It would make sense. Just because you believe you are Christian doesn’t mean you are. Many Protestants hold views that Catholics are idol-worshippers and hypocrites, descendents of Roman Paganism (which, as I said, the Church historically is descended from in part). To them, you CLAIM to be Christian but aren’t REALLY Christian.

And in large, the stuff I am coming up with stems from my knowledge of widely accepted historical fact.

So… that’s it for this time. I’m quite enjoying this

'Till next post

Peace,
PantheistsRule

I think that you will find that even the majority of Protestants will say that the gnostics were not Christians. And every history book I’ve read has not referred to the gnostics as Christians. I’m sure there might be a few crazy ones out there however. Gnosticism actually existed before the time of Christ. Gnostics are known for taking a religion and turning it around to make it fit them. Not just Christianity. There are many writings (some in the Bible) that combat Gnosticism. I think all Christians can say they follow the Bible. And if defense against gnosticism is even in there than how can one say that they are Christian. Some gnostics didn’t even believe Jesus to be the one true God. Can’t call yourself Christian if you don’t believe that.

BTW, I believe that Protestants are Christians. You can’t compare Protestants or Catholics to Gnostics. The comparison doesn’t even come close.

 

[humble_maid]

I guess my first question is how do you remove superstition when you adhere to a religion where you’re judged partially on your behavior? It’s psychologically impossible (I guess unless you’re into the faith alone idea, but even then it’s difficult). If you think life is a scorecard you cannot escape superstition.

I’m sorry Yankee, first I don’t agree with your idea of superstition; you are basing it on ‘religion that judges partially on your behavior’? Here is a definition of superstition; perhaps you should read this with a nice plate of spaghetti.

There are four species of superstitions:
• improper worship of the true God (indebitus veri Dei cultus);
• idolatry;
• divination;
• vain observances, which include magic and occult arts.

Worship becomes **indebitus cultus **when incongruous, meaningless, improper elements are added to the proper and approved performance; it becomes idolatrous when it is offered to creatures set up as divinities or endowed with divine attributes. **Divination **consists in the attempt to extract from creatures, by means of religious rites, a knowledge of future events or of things known to God alone. Under the head of **vain observances **come all those beliefs and practices which, at least by implication, attribute supernatural or preternatural powers for good or for evil to causes evidently incapable of producing the expected effects. The number and variety of superstitions appear from the following list of those most in vogue at different periods of history:
• astrology, the reading of the future and of man’s destiny from the stars;
• aeromancy, divinations by means of the air and winds;
• amulets, things worn as a remedy or preservative against evils or mischief, such as diseases or witchcraft;
• chiromancy, or palmistry, divination by the lines of the hand;
• capnomancy, by the ascent or motion of smoke;
• catroptomancy, by mirrors;
• alomancy, by salt;
• cartomancy, by playing cards;
• anthropomancy, by inspection of human viscera;
• belomancy, by the shuffling of arrows (Ezekiel 21:21);
• geomancy, by points, lines or figures traced on the ground;
• hydromancy, by water;
• idolatry, the worship of idols;
• Sabianism, the worship of the sun, moon, and stars;
• Zoolatry, Anthropolatry, and Fetishism, the worship of animals, man, and things without sense;
• Devil-worship;
• the worship of abstract notions personified, e.g. Victory, Peace, Fame, Concord, which had temples and a priesthood for the performance of their cult;
• necromancy, the evocation of the dead, as old as history and perpetuated in contemporary Spiritism;
• oneiromancy, the interpretation of dreams;
• philtres, potions, or charms intended to excite love;
• omens or prognostics of future events;
• witchcraft and magic in all their ramifications;
• lucky and unlucky days, numbers, persons, things, actions;
• the evil eye, spells, incantations, ordeals, etc.

These causes explain the origin and spread of superstition in the pagan world. They were to a large extent eliminated by the preaching of Christianity; but so deep-rooted was the tendency to which they gave rise that many of the ancient practices survived, especially among peoples just emerging from barbarism. It was only by degrees, through the legislation of the Church and the advance of scientific knowledge, that the earlier forms of superstition were eradicated. But the tendency itself has not wholly disappeared. Side by side with the Rationalistic philosophy and the rigorous scientific methods which are characteristic of modern thought, there are still to be found various sorts of superstition… It is also significant that just when many scientists supposed that a belief in a future life had been finally proved an illusion, Spiritism, with its doctrines and practices, should have gained such a strong hold not only on the ignorant, but also, and in a much more serious sense, on leading representatives of science itself. This may indeed be interpreted as a reaction against Materialism; but it is none the less, at bottom, an evidence of man’s restless desire to penetrate, by any and every means, the mystery that lies beyond death.

But the chief source of superstition is pointed out in Scripture: “All men are vain, in whom there is not the knowledge of God: and who by these good things that are seen, could not understand him that is, neither by attending to the works have acknowledged who was the workman: but have imagined either the fire, or the wind, or the swift air, or the circle of the stars, or the great water, or the sun and moon, to be the gods that rule the world” (Wisdom 13:1-2)

As you can see, the early church had to deal with these issues and relied on rationalistic and scientific reasoning. In a time where paganism still plagued the world the early church was the voice of reason. Now she is being condemned by a greater enemy still which calls for TOTAL ANNIHILATION OF GOD…TO BLOT OUT HIS NAME IN THE HEARTS OF MAN FOREVER.

 

[humble_maid]

Hello

Don’t mean to be rude, but you are being VERY ignorant to widely accepted historical facts about the Church. Most if not all historians, theologists, etc. accept that the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages and such was VERY corrupt. There is no need to defend a Church that is in essence entirely different from the modern one that evolved from it. The modern Church is not the 1500’s Church.

HUMBLE MAID RESPONSES:
Yes to some extent you are being rude, perhaps not willingly because your info is biased. You sound more like a protestant. No, I am not ignorant as I do know the errors of my church. What I was referring to is that you made specific accusations; address them give me sources where it says that the crusades were all about Roman Papal Power, and that the problem in Africa is the CC’s fault etc…support your claims. The church needed reform but it did not entirely change.

Also, most historians do accept Gnostics as early Christians. There are/have been many different types of Christians. It is rather narrow-minded to only say that one sect of Christians at the time were REAL Christians. As per the Vatican’s definition, perhaps the Gnostics weren’t Christians, but as per the ACTUAL definition, the historical definition, the book definition, Gnostics WERE Christians, and a significant portion of early converts were Gnostic, especially Gentile converts. I’ll admit I implied that the number of them was larger than perhaps it actually was. My bad, I appologize.

By the way they did not have the true teachings according to the apostles so in essence they were not part of the church of Christ.

Anway, I believe it would do you well, however, to go to your local library, and take out a book on the Ancient Roman Empire, making sure it discusses Constantine in detail. Constantine used the Church to his own political ends, to unify the Roman Empire once more, to make it easier to control. He was not a very abusive leader, but on the other hand, a politician is a politician. He recognized that founding an organized, Roman, Catholic Church would be useful in bringing Rome together once more. The Church was not REALLY the Church until Constantine endorsed it, and helped shape it.

By the way if you read up on the History of Catholism you would know that we did not Descend from the Roman Empire. To start with here is the site you can visit and see for yourself that we have a list of popes that goes way before Constatine. We have had our traditions and beliefs passed down from St. Peter himself.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

Now, if you are to say that only certain Christians are Christians, then if I recall, you are actually working AGAINST the Church’s call for Christian unity. If Gnostics weren’t Christians, neither are Unitarians, at the very least, if not ALL Protestants. Depends on what you believe, or how extreme your faith in the Church is.

What do you mean how extreme my faith in the church is?

I could argue the same thing you are saying about Gnostics the other way around: Catholics aren’t Christians. It would make sense. Just because you believe you are Christian doesn’t mean you are. Many Protestants hold views that Catholics are idol-worshippers and hypocrites, descendents of Roman Paganism (which, as I said, the Church historically is descended from in part). To them, you CLAIM to be Christian but aren’t REALLY Christian.

Do you believe this or are you playing devil’s advocate? If this is your claim well fine you are entitled. COLOR]

And in large, the stuff I am coming up with stems from my knowledge of widely accepted historical fact.

You said it right. You are making this stuff up. Widely accepted historical fact? Which history? From the fundamentalist or atheists point of view. Get the inside story from the very source CATHOLICISM. LOOK IT UP.

Sorry, I don’t buy your story. Good luck. Peace of God.

 

[gearhead]

You do realize that Catholic charities provide annual reports (and/or pie charts that delineate how the money you give will be spent), furthermore, the money raised from these charities does not go towards proselytization, evangelization and/or missionary work if that is not it’s intended purpose, please don’t mistake us for the Salvation Army.

p.s. I found what you said to be quite insulting really, you could at the very least substantiate your claims before making them.

I was talking about that specific report. And I realize that it would be possible to go through each Catholic organization or diocese published reports, but it’s certain that in the numbers that SonofMonica gave, a significant portion of that money does not go to people in need.

For example, in the report for ShareLife, the archdiocese of Toronto’s charitable “clearing house”, we can see that they raised a total of $11.4 million last year. However, $1.5 of this went to “education of clergy”. $2.45 million went to “third world development and missions”, and while they don’t provide a detailed breakdown of how much goes to the “development” part vs. the “missionary” part, I think it’s reasonable to expect that a good deal of it would go to missionary work as opposed to development. In addition, there are smaller amounts that go to what appear to be political lobbying groups like Right to Life Canada.

And those are just the amounts that go to recognizable causes. There are other large lump-sum amounts (e.g. the $750,000 going to Catholic Charities for "Agency Support, ‘Advocacy’, and Volunteer Development) where it’s not immediately clear exactly what specific causes will benefit.

What I’m trying to say is that I take the claims about the charitable nature of the Catholic Church with a grain of salt, since I know that a significant portion of the “charity” goes toward what amounts to marketing and promotion of the Church, and recruitment and training of clergy, neither of which I consider to be “charity” at all.

Now, that’s not to say that the Church isn’t doing good work - I know that they do a great deal of valuable service to many people in need. But not all of what the Church claims as “charity” goes towards these things.

 

[srferdave]

I was talking about that specific report. And I realize that it would be possible to go through each Catholic organization or diocese published reports, but it’s certain that in the numbers that SonofMonica gave, a significant portion of that money does not go to people in need.

For example, in the report for ShareLife, the archdiocese of Toronto’s charitable “clearing house”, we can see that they raised a total of $11.4 million last year. However, $1.5 of this went to “education of clergy”. $2.45 million went to “third world development and missions”, and while they don’t provide a detailed breakdown of how much goes to the “development” part vs. the “missionary” part, I think it’s reasonable to expect that a good deal of it would go to missionary work as opposed to development. In addition, there are smaller amounts that go to what appear to be political lobbying groups like Right to Life Canada.

And those are just the amounts that go to recognizable causes. There are other large lump-sum amounts (e.g. the $750,000 going to Catholic Charities for "Agency Support, ‘Advocacy’, and Volunteer Development) where it’s not immediately clear exactly what specific causes will benefit.

What I’m trying to say is that I take the claims about the charitable nature of the Catholic Church with a grain of salt, since I know that a significant portion of the “charity” goes toward what amounts to marketing and promotion of the Church, and recruitment and training of clergy, neither of which I consider to be “charity” at all.

Now, that’s not to say that the Church isn’t doing good work - I know that they do a great deal of valuable service to many people in need. But not all of what the Church claims as “charity” goes towards these things.

So you agree that the Catholic Church is the most charitable institution in the world? Of course you could find one charity here and there that don’t distribute their donations as wisely as they could. But at the end of the day what have you established?.. Nothing. The collection of all research that people have done shows that the Catholic Church is the most charitable institution in the world. If you don’t believe that you are just fooling yourself.

 

[josie_L]

I was talking about that specific report. And I realize that it would be possible to go through each Catholic organization or diocese published reports, but it’s certain that in the numbers that SonofMonica gave, a significant portion of that money does not go to people in need.

How in the heck do you know that money doesn’t go towards creating new programs, paying overhead/administrative costs and/or expanding their reach? There was nothing in that report for which I saw that indicated (unless it’s part of their mission statement) money was going towards missionary work or proselytization?

For example, in the report for ShareLife, the archdiocese of Toronto’s charitable “clearing house”, we can see that they raised a total of $11.4 million last year. However, $1.5 of this went to “education of clergy”. $2.45 million went to “third world development and missions”, and while they don’t provide a detailed breakdown of how much goes to the “development” part vs. the “missionary” part, I think it’s reasonable to expect that a good deal of it would go to missionary work as opposed to development. In addition, there are smaller amounts that go to what appear to be political lobbying groups like Right to Life Canada.

No, it’s not reasonable to say that a good deal of it would go to missionary work (unless that’s the mission of the charity) rather than development, however, being that “Shared Life” is under the administrative control of the Archdiocese of Toronto, there will be no doubt of missionary work (but this is not something which is kept hidden by the charity, all this information should be stated in the annual report which contains all that is needed to understand the goals of the organization as well as how the money intends to be parceled and spent). Furthermore, “third world development” would mean things like building schools, hospitals, orphanages, even hotels (whatever services are needed to build a community) which will go hand in hand with missionizing, that being said, the Church helps all people who are in need without imposing conditions. Think of Mother Theresa’s Sisters of Charity who help Hindu Indians (which many would not help) without proselytizing them, or St. Vincent de Paul, which from what I remember gives more than 90 cents of every dollar towards helping the poor (they have very little administrative costs because the Church as well as volunteers provide the labour). I will try to provide some examples.

And those are just the amounts that go to recognizable causes. There are other large lump-sum amounts (e.g. the $750,000 going to Catholic Charities for "Agency Support, ‘Advocacy’, and Volunteer Development) where it’s not immediately clear exactly what specific causes will benefit.

Agency support more than likely means administrative/overhead costs (did I mention I have a graduate degree in non-profit administrative), advocacy would entail marketing and/or spreading the word for the particular mission of the organization in question, and volunteer development is necessary to any charity, in fact, it pays to put in some money in order to get a good volunteer program. By the way this is no different than secular organizations that have to pay for the same things and usually in greater amounts because they do not have the man power or reach that the Catholic Church has.

What I’m trying to say is that I take the claims about the charitable nature of the Catholic Church with a grain of salt, since I know that a significant portion of the “charity” goes toward what amounts to marketing and promotion of the Church, and recruitment and training of clergy, neither of which I consider to be “charity” at all.

I’ve already stated you’re in error for believing this.

Now, that’s not to say that the Church isn’t doing good work - I know that they do a great deal of valuable service to many people in need. But not all of what the Church claims as “charity” goes towards these things.

Then the Church or Catholic charities in question would specify it; there is no hidden agenda gearhead. And no one is forced to give their money where they don’t want to either (if it does not suit their intended purposes). God bless.

p.s I wanted to add this just to give a little insight on the good that the Catholic Church and charities do for people around the world, here’s a tidbit of what the St Vincent de Paul society has done in Ireland alone:

"Mairead Bushnell said that the SVP’s 9500 volunteers had made over 300,000 visits to people’s homes, spending over 2.8 million free volunteer hours tackling crisis situations and bringing hope where it was badly needed. Over €46.2m was spent on helping people in need, an increase of 9.2%, which meant that nearly €900,000 was spent every week."

svp.ie/News/Latest-News/St–Vincent-De-Paul-Annual-Report-Shows-That-The-C.aspx

Also found this:

Thanks for supporting Friends of Poor Walk - Billings, MT - Friday, October 09, 2009
The Society of St. Vincent de Paul thanks all who walked or sponsored walkers for our second annual Friends of the Poor Walk on Sept. 26. Your donations brought in $6,874, and it is important to note that 100 percent of this money is being used to assist local families in need through the Billings SVDP Charity Office. read more …

svdpusa.org/

This site contains the annual report of the SVDP in the U.S. you should take a look at it.

 

[gearhead]

No, it’s not reasonable to say that a good deal of it would go to missionary work (unless that’s the mission of the charity) rather than development,

They say that it’s going to “missionary and development work”. It’s not reasonable to assume that they’re probably spending money on what they say they are?

however, being that “Shared Life” is under the administrative control of the Archdiocese of Toronto, there will be no doubt of missionary work (but this is not something which is kept hidden by the charity, all this information should be stated in the annual report which contains all that is needed to understand the goals of the organization as well as how the money intends to be parceled and spent).

I never said it was hidden. My point was that aggregate totals like the one SonofMonica presented don’t necessarily provide a good indication of where the money goes.

Furthermore, “third world development” would mean things like building schools, hospitals, orphanages, even hotels (whatever services are needed to build a community) which will go hand in hand with missionizing, that being said, the Church helps all people who are in need without imposing conditions.

Again, I didn’t say that the Church doesn’t engage in worthwhile causes. What I said is that a portion of its charitable expenditure goes to causes that don’t help people in need. For example, training of priests does not help needy people. Neither does evangelization.

Agency support more than likely means administrative/overhead costs (did I mention I have a graduate degree in non-profit administrative), advocacy would entail marketing and/or spreading the word for the particular mission of the organization in question,

And in Canada, “promotion of religion” is recognized under the law as a charitable purpose.

and volunteer development is necessary to any charity, in fact, it pays to put in some money in order to get a good volunteer program. By the way this is no different than secular organizations that have to pay for the same things and usually in greater amounts because they do not have the man power or reach that the Catholic Church has.

I realize that all charitable organizations have overhead. However, most secular charities don’t do things like spend 10% of their revenue on the training of priests as ShareLife did last year. That kind of “charitable giving” doesn’t impress me at all.

 

[srferdave]

I realize that all charitable organizations have overhead. However, most secular charities don’t do things like spend 10% of their revenue on the training of priests as ShareLife did last year. That kind of “charitable giving” doesn’t impress me at all.

Yeah… Instead they will spend 25% of their revenue to train “doctors” on how to give an abortion (planned parenthood). Personally i would rather give my money to a priest.

 

[yankee_doodle]

I’m sorry Yankee, first I don’t agree with your idea of superstition; you are basing it on ‘religion that judges partially on your behavior’? Here is a definition of superstition; perhaps you should read this with a nice plate of spaghetti.

There are four species of superstitions:
• improper worship of the true God (indebitus veri Dei cultus);
• idolatry;
• divination;
• vain observances, which include magic and occult arts.

Here’s how Merrian Webster defines it:

1 a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
2 : a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary

Of course I understand a belief system that enforces a certain code of conduct isn’t in itself superstition. But it becomes superstition when you believe a deity is watching you 24 hours a day, and any misstep will result in another red check mark on your report card

Furthermore, I even think that belief dilutes the idea that integrity ought to be viewed as a duty, not a legal requirement. It’s not that it may not also be a legal requirement in some circumstances, but duty is our highest aspiration, while laws are merely something we obey to avoid a negative consequence.

 

[josie_L]

Here’s how Merrian Webster defines it:

1 a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
2 : a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary

Of course I understand a belief system that enforces a certain code of conduct isn’t in itself superstition. But it becomes superstition when you believe a deity is watching you 24 hours a day, and any misstep will result in another red check mark on your report card

Furthermore, I even think that belief dilutes the idea that integrity ought to be viewed as a duty, not a legal requirement. It’s not that it may not also be a legal requirement in some circumstances, but duty is our highest aspiration, while laws are merely something we obey to avoid a negative consequence.

How is the Christian belief of “love thy neighbour” a legal requirement?

 

[humble_maid]

Here’s how Merrian Webster defines it:

1 a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
2 : a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary

Of course I understand a belief system that enforces a certain code of conduct isn’t in itself superstition. But it becomes superstition when you believe a deity is watching you 24 hours a day, and any misstep will result in another red check mark on your report card

Furthermore, I even think that belief dilutes the idea that integrity ought to be viewed as a duty, not a legal requirement. It’s not that it may not also be a legal requirement in some circumstances, but duty is our highest aspiration, while laws are merely something we obey to avoid a negative cons equence.

Hello Yankee,

I see my sister gave a response to your post regarding your comment about how belief dilutes the idea of integrity. Integrity is cultivated from having high moral standards which are not of the norm but demands a greater sense of discipline towards oneself and others. Usually the bible demands that one practices this high-degree of discipline such as the example given by Josie and another such as abstaining from immoral behaviour like promiscuity etc. Maybe you can address that.

In no matter of respect is God this all seeing menacing eye like that of “The Lord of The Rings”. That would definitely be considered as superstitious (read the first species of superstition-indebitus veri Dei cultus). However this is not what us Christians believe therefore we are not superstitious. I don’t have this irrational abject attitude that if I falter He will chastise me and therefore I live in fear of Him and not in loving obedience (such as that of a doting child on its parent); everytime I go to Him He receives me and I feel healed. In actuality, He is not keeping score of your missteps so as to cast you off, but rather He is waiting for you to admit your weaknesses and trust in His guiding Light to heal you body and soul.

Can you please give me an opinion about the last part of my previous post regarding the churches stance on superstition and how she fought it with science?

Thanks

 

[yankee_doodle]

How is the Christian belief of “love thy neighbour” a legal requirement?

Is that the only rule of Catholicism? Good news gay people, I guess no eternal roasting in hell after all. Good news protestants, apparently you’ll be getting better real estate in heaven

OK seriously … are you going to tell me there aren’t Catholics who apologize to god when they curse (and maybe even do a quick sign of the cross), feel internal guilt for lustful thoughts, etc.?

You can probably frame it as consistent with the law of love in a theoretical sense, but that’s not the practical reality. In reality religious people believe in judgment, believe they’re being “watched” by a god, and try to behave a certain way because that’s how they believe god wants them to behave.

It’s the old carrot and the stick, reward and punishment … whereas I think integrity with no false pretenses is more probably genuine.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Hello Yankee,

I see my sister gave a response to your post regarding your comment about how belief dilutes the idea of integrity. Integrity is cultivated from having high moral standards which are not of the norm but demands a greater sense of discipline towards oneself and others. Usually the bible demands that one practices this high-degree of discipline such as the example given by Josie and another such as abstaining from immoral behaviour like promiscuity etc. Maybe you can address that.

In no matter of respect is God this all seeing menacing eye like that of “The Lord of The Rings”. That would definitely be considered as superstitious (read the first species of superstition-indebitus veri Dei cultus). However this is not what us Christians believe therefore we are not superstitious. I don’t have this irrational abject attitude that if I falter He will chastise me and therefore I live in fear of Him and not in loving obedience (such as that of a doting child on its parent); everytime I go to Him He receives me and I feel healed. In actuality, He is not keeping score of your missteps so as to cast you off, but rather He is waiting for you to admit your weaknesses and trust in His guiding Light to heal you body and soul.

Can you please give me an opinion about the last part of my previous post regarding the churches stance on superstition and how she fought it with science?

Thanks

One thing stuck out in your post (I’ll re-quote it, and then respond):

It is also significant that just when many scientists supposed that a belief in a future life had been finally proved an illusion, Spiritism, with its doctrines and practices, should have gained such a strong hold not only on the ignorant, but also, and in a much more serious sense, on leading representatives of science itself. This may indeed be interpreted as a reaction against Materialism; but it is none the less, at bottom, an evidence of man’s restless desire to penetrate, by any and every means, the mystery that lies beyond death.

What is the author really saying here? Religion, or at least according to the author the Christian religion … is a reaction to our restless desire to “penetrate . . . the mystery that lies beyond death.” In other words – a reaction to our mortality.

I probably wouldn’t frame the causes for religion so narrowly. Certainly fear of death is one obvious motive for religiosity; but there’s the search for meaning, a way to explain things we don’t completely understand yet, etc.

As intelligent creatures we would like to believe we’re not just an accident of nature. In fact religious apologists commonly say things like, atheism reduces us to a cosmic accident, mere intelligent mammals, etc. But what if that’s all we are? Don’t we limit ourselves by illusion?

The fact is atheism, at least intelligent atheism, neither reduces or elevates us to anything. What I say is the only thing we know to be immortal is energy and matter, and we know that because we have evidence. Energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed, it only changes form. So all the energy and matter in our universe, in prior universes (assuming there were any), and in parallel universes (if they exist), as far as we can tell, always existed.

We can say time (at least our reference frame) began at the big bang, but that’s not a useful way to look at it. If the matter that formed our universe always existed, and the space that surrounds our universe always existed, then aren’t our attempts to mark a starting point for time pretty meaningless (at least from a practical and philosophical perspective)?

As for the rest of what the church said regarding superstition, pretty standard stuff. The only thing they forgot to include in their list was themselves.

 

[humble_maid]

Is that the only rule of Catholicism? Good news gay people, I guess no eternal roasting in hell after all. Good news protestants, apparently you’ll be getting better real estate in heaven

OK seriously … are you going to tell me there aren’t Catholics who apologize to god when they curse (and maybe even do a quick sign of the cross), feel internal guilt for lustful thoughts, etc.?

You can probably frame it as consistent with the law of love in a theoretical sense, but that’s not the practical reality. In reality religious people believe in judgment, believe they’re being “watched” by a god, and try to behave a certain way because that’s how they believe god wants them to behave.

It’s the old carrot and the stick, reward and punishment … whereas I think integrity with no false pretenses is more probably genuine.

Yankee, forgive me, but you sound very defensive; rather than assume all christians are the same understand that there are those who are genuine and devout. Perhaps when you get to read my post carefully you will assess my meaning. OK. PEACE.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Is that the only rule of Catholicism? Good news gay people, I guess no eternal roasting in hell after all. Good news protestants, apparently you’ll be getting better real estate in heaven

OK seriously … are you going to tell me there aren’t Catholics who apologize to god when they curse (and maybe even do a quick sign of the cross), feel internal guilt for lustful thoughts, etc.?

You can probably frame it as consistent with the law of love in a theoretical sense, but that’s not the practical reality. In reality religious people believe in judgment, believe they’re being “watched” by a god, and try to behave a certain way because that’s how they believe god wants them to behave.

It’s the old carrot and the stick, reward and punishment … whereas I think integrity with no false pretenses is more probably genuine.

I meant to say “probably more genuine” (gosh … not at my grammatical best today, long darn week with little sleep).

 

[humble_maid]

one thing stuck out in your post (i’ll re-quote it, and then respond):

it is also significant that just when many scientists supposed that a belief in a future life had been finally proved an illusion, spiritism, with its doctrines and practices, should have gained such a strong hold not only on the ignorant, but also, and in a much more serious sense, on leading representatives of science itself. This may indeed be interpreted as a reaction against materialism; but it is none the less, at bottom, an evidence of man’s restless desire to penetrate, by any and every means, the mystery that lies beyond death.

what is the author really saying here? Religion, or at least according to the author the christian religion … Is a reaction to our restless desire to “penetrate . . . The mystery that lies beyond death.” in other words – a reaction to our mortality.

I probably wouldn’t frame the causes for religion so narrowly. Certainly fear of death is one obvious motive for religiosity; but there’s the search for meaning, a way to explain things we don’t completely understand yet, etc.

As intelligent creatures we would like to believe we’re not just an accident of nature. In fact religious apologists commonly say things like, atheism reduces us to a cosmic accident, mere intelligent mammals, etc. But what if that’s all we are? Don’t we limit ourselves by illusion?

The fact is atheism, at least intelligent atheism, neither reduces or elevates us to anything. What i say is the only thing we know to be immortal is energy and matter, and we know that because we have evidence. Energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed, it only changes form. So all the energy and matter in our universe, in prior universes (assuming there were any), and in parallel universes (if they exist), as far as we can tell, always existed.

You are getting there…

We can say time (at least our reference frame) began at the big bang, but that’s not a useful way to look at it. If the matter that formed our universe always existed, and the space that surrounds our universe always existed, then aren’t our attempts to mark a starting point for time pretty meaningless (at least from a practical and philosophical perspective)?

Not quite. The operative word here is infinity. Time is only infinite in the future. This space and matter that always existed enabled our universe to become what it is thus began Time. The question is what or maybe who is this matter and whatever or whoever it is, is infinite even before notion or existence of time. I’m speaking in laymen’s terms so please bear with me.
Check this site if you will. I haven’t read it in its entirety.
catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17267

as for the rest of what the church said regarding superstition, pretty standard stuff. The only thing they forgot to include in their list was themselves.

That is your opinion. Did you not regard the part where the church uses science to demystify superstitions and solidify the belief in god.

 

[humble_maid]

I meant to say “probably more genuine” (gosh … not at my grammatical best today, long darn week with little sleep).

It’s OK to make mistakes Yankee. But I never get much sleep if it is any solace to you. Ever since my maternal instincts were turned on, I sleep with one eye open. Anyway I should log out and try to get some restful sleep. I will presume to receive your reply… so perhaps this time tomorrow. Good Night.