Should atheism be illegal?

[Lief_Erikson]

Pray: Jesus, Mary and Joseph - I love you - Save souls.

And too, pray the rosary.

That’s what I’m going to do.

 

[Pier]

That’s what I’m going to do.

Good, and try not to worry too much -

Also, if you care to, light candles when you can…

I also carry a little spray bottle with holy water in it - easily refillable at the church.

God bless you!

 

[Mirdath]

First of all, I’ll mention that the two additional reasons you’ve given are the product of where and when you grew up, as well as Vatican II. They come after, not first, so they can’t be included in the basic reasons why people believe what they do.

#4 is, yes, but I’d argue #5 is not. It’s directly extended from the teachings of a certain carpenter, philosopher, and rabbi in 1st century Judea, where and when I am not and almost certainly will never be.

Even St. Francis of Assisi wrote in his Testament that non-Catholics or Catholics who wanted to change the rule of his order should be seized and put into the hands of the bishop for judgment. They thought of “love they neighbor” as including justice as well as mercy.

That’s a vastly different case from changing the attitude of the government. If a cleric defies the rule of the order, that is a matter for the order to consider – and, if need be, the Church hierarchy, to which the order is beholden.

We punish rapists because we love our neighbors. We punish murderers and thieves for the same reasons. We should punish idolaters for the same reasons. For while murderers only kill human bodies, idolaters often kill souls.

That doesn’t make sense. Is preventing a rapist from committing rape an act that defies his humanity by preventing him from acting in accordance with his free will? No it’s not, because he’s harming other people. An idolater does the same, only toward souls rather than toward bodies. Though idolatry usually ends up resulting in immoral physical actions too. As Romans 1 and Wisdom 14 say, it is the root of all evil.

Rape, murder, and theft harm the fabric of society. Freedom of religion only harms a theocracy, which most societies these days are not. One who worships another deity may damn his eternal soul as far as you are concerned (and you may be damning yourself by his lights – and a secular government can’t tell and doesn’t care), but it is up to the will of a person to worship one god, another god, or none, and mere worship or non-worship harms no-one else. The Church, at least after Leo XIII, respects that expression of free will as it sees it, and for that I admit considerable respect for it.

The world does not revolve around Catholicism; are you not to be ‘in this world, but not of it’? Then let the world take its course, do your good works in it, save the souls of those who come to you, and leave the others in God’s hands: most of the rest of us will be doing more or less the same thing as best we can. Whether or not our best is as good as, better than, or worse than yours will either be up to one final Arbiter or won’t matter at all. Since you believe in such an Arbiter, let him do his job. If you’re right, hopefully he grades on effort.

Besides, on an evidence level, if denying someone free choice of religious values is tantamount to denying their humanity and yours, God would never have ordered Israel to do so in the OT.

God ordered Israel to do a lot of outright evil things in the Old Testament – but that’s another discussion entirely.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

#4 is, yes, but I’d argue #5 is not. It’s directly extended from the teachings of a certain carpenter, philosopher, and rabbi in 1st century Judea, where and when I am not and almost certainly will never be.

#5 is a modern interpretation of Jesus’ words. Throughout almost the whole of Church history, it was interpreted differently.
Therefore its root too is where and when we live, and Vatican II.

That’s a vastly different case from changing the attitude of the government. If a cleric defies the rule of the order, that is a matter for the order to consider – and, if need be, the Church hierarchy, to which the order is beholden.

But the present day Church would not seize and imprison a man who breaks the rule of the order, until he can be handed over to a bishop for sentencing. The bishop, in that time, would also have used the legal system to pronounce penalty on a proven offender. St. Francis agreed with the order that heretics be punished in ways beyond excommunication.

And that is not only St. Francis. Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, Jerome and countless others, both popes and saints, believed this throughout Church history until the present. A few of the Early Church Fathers didn’t believe this. Some supported religious freedom. They laid the groundwork for the Church’s 4th century choice to agree with the emperors in legally condemning heretics, though, by frequently lamblasting their unbelief verbally in the starkest of language, calling them “dogs of Satan,” and such. Polycarp, when sentenced to death in the arena, looked calmly at the mob that surrounded him and said, “away with the atheists.” Tertullian seems to have generally accepted religious freedom, but not always, for about the Gnostics he wrote, “It is proper that heretics be driven to duty, not enticed. Obstinacy must be conquered, not coaxed.” The saints of the Medieval Ages, building on the teaching of the Early Church, condemned religious freedom altogether.

Rape, murder, and theft harm the fabric of society. Freedom of religion only harms a theocracy, which most societies these days are not. One who worships another deity may damn his eternal soul as far as you are concerned (and you may be damning yourself by his lights – and a secular government can’t tell and doesn’t care), but it is up to the will of a person to worship one god, another god, or none, and mere worship or non-worship harms no-one else. The Church, at least after Leo XIII, respects that expression of free will as it sees it, and for that I admit considerable respect for it.

Idolatry, according to Wisdom 14 and Romans 1, is the source of all evil. Both chapters of the Bible include long lists of the kinds of evil deeds that result from idolatry.

If a nonbeliever was only going to harm his own soul and no one else, I might find its presence in society acceptable. But if unbelief has a presence in society, it can trick others into joining it and so damn them. Many people, including most true believers, have serious weaknesses in their personalities that God is working in them to transform. But people can lose grace after receiving it.

So a heretic is very analogous to a suicide bomber. A suicide bomber kills both himself and many people around him. So does a heretic. Only a heretic is often worse, for he destroys souls, where a suicide bomber only destroys bodies. And each one does what he does because he believes a lie.

Also, heresies can lead to many immoral behaviors. For instance, heresy in the Episcopal church in the USA is leading to homosexuality’s acceptance there, along with heterosexual immorality, divorce and other things. Heresies among some Evangelical churches that promote the attainment of wealth as God’s will promote greed and destroy charity. The Mormon heresy, throughout a good deal of its history, permitted promiscuity and the murder of non-adherents. Some Pentecostal Protestant groups are involved in witchcraft, as are some Catholics, especially in South America, where Catholicism sometimes gets blended with local religions.

Heresy produces destructive behavior, as the scripture says. These are mere physical manifestations of the spiritual destruction it wreaks, however. The spiritual devastation it can inflict on other people is its most terrible crime.

The world does not revolve around Catholicism; are you not to be ‘in this world, but not of it’?

Yes the world does, or should revolve around Catholicism! We are the Bride of Christ! The world is spared because God loves his Church that is within it! If it wasn’t for the Church, the world would probably tear itself to shreds within two generations. The scripture says, in the Book of Revelation, “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of God!” That is the goal. Not to become the kingdom of the world, but to transform the kingdom of the world in all of its parts- political, economic, social, judicial, everything. Christ’s holiness should emanate from his Church into every part of society, turning it into a manifestation of the beauty of God’s kingdom . Praise be to the Lord Christ.

Then let the world take its course, do your good works in it, save the souls of those who come to you, and leave the others in God’s hands: most of the rest of us will be doing more or less the same thing as best we can. Whether or not our best is as good as, better than, or worse than yours will either be up to one final Arbiter or won’t matter at all. Since you believe in such an Arbiter, let him do his job. If you’re right, hopefully he grades on effort.

We aren’t supposed to “let the world take its course,” but are instead supposed to change the course of the world . “As my Father sent me, so am I sending you.” Saving souls is the most important part of our work here on Earth. Doing good works is another part of the abundance of God flowing out through us, and those works can be charity, or like Martin Luther King Jr., political activism, or bringing about economic reform, etc. There are all kinds of ways. What we can’t do ourselves, we can pray for. And what we can do ourselves, we’ll pray for as we do it. But improving the justice system, the laws of the land and the government is part of what God wants some of us to do, as his Body on Earth.

My thinking is that a good first step is to raise awareness about what real justice is. And to do that, I point to the laws the Church supported throughout its history until the present, to the Tradition they relied on and which they are part of, and to the Law of God revealed in the Sacred Scripture, which Jesus and the Early Church taught to be inerrant. These seem sensible places on which to base one’s ideas. I also rely on the teachings about the Law that exist in the New Testament, which are likewise crucial to understanding how God’s will operates in our society.

I’m looking to the Christian roots. I do not trust democratic innovations of our times, for they often deviate from those roots, and as time has passed they have come to deviate more and more from them. They are where we live, when we live, and the source of Vatican II’s teaching on religious freedom. They tend to be the source of many of our basic assumptions, but their historical origins are in the Enlightenment and Reformation’s secularist and heretical rebellions, not the Church’s teachings.

God ordered Israel to do a lot of outright evil things in the Old Testament – but that’s another discussion entirely.

Take a look at Chapter 2 of this text by Tertullian:
newadvent.org/fathers/0318.htm
He quotes the Old Testament liberally, pointing out that punishing heretics and unbelievers is a righteous act of God.

Consider also that Jesus said it is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the smallest stroke of the pen to fall from the Law. This includes the parts condemning idolatry.

Jesus, who is God, is unchanging. The God who passed the Law on to Jesus was righteous and incapable of evil, and he is so today as well. Praise God.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Good, and try not to worry too much -

Also, if you care to, light candles when you can…

I also carry a little spray bottle with holy water in it - easily refillable at the church.

God bless you!

I’m going to also try to convince Catholics that religious freedom is wrong, because I believe in justice. But I’ll pray and focus always on what I can do.

And perhaps I should do more counting my blessings. Religious Freedom is certainly better than the active government suppression of Catholicism. Even though I think it is an internally twisted system, it’s better to have a system that allows both righteousness and evil than it is to have one that allows evil and condemns righteousness. For that practical reason, religious freedom is probably the best thing we can hope for, for the moment. While hoping and praying for better things.

I hate that kind of defeatist thinking, but oh well.

Anyway, I’ll keep praying and trying to reach the souls around me with God’s truth.

The Lord bless you too .

~Lief

 

[Mirdath]

But the present day Church would not seize and imprison a man who breaks the rule of the order, until he can be handed over to a bishop for sentencing. The bishop, in that time, would also have used the legal system to pronounce penalty on a proven offender. St. Francis agreed with the order that heretics be punished in ways beyond excommunication.

Yes; however, that was a time and place in which the Church and the government were very closely linked. Wouldn’t you say that might have influenced their actions in many respects?

If a nonbeliever was only going to harm his own soul and no one else, I might find its presence in society acceptable. But if unbelief has a presence in society, it can trick others into joining it and so damn them. Many people, including most true believers, have serious weaknesses in their personalities that God is working in them to transform. But people can lose grace after receiving it.

I have yet to make a single convert to agnosticism. I’ve seen plenty of other people end up here, but it wasn’t because of anything I said or did.

But sure, other religions make converts. Isn’t that a risk you’re going to have to accept? When exactly did Jesus say this world was going to be perfect and free from temptation? Never! Instead he said ‘my kingdom is not of this world’, remember?

The Mormon heresy, throughout a good deal of its history, permitted promiscuity and the murder of non-adherents.

On the latter, they were simply doing exactly what you want to do – if, maybe, being a bit more permanent about it. Murdering (er, executing) or imprisoning those who don’t believe for that fact alone? What makes it right and just when you do it, and immoral for anyone else?

Remember, morality does not change. The act of killing (or otherwise infringing upon the rights of) someone who does not at least pay lip service to a given theological position is the same, no matter who commits it. It cannot be right for some and wrong for others: so which will it be?

Yes the world does, or should revolve around Catholicism! We are the Bride of Christ! The world is spared because God loves his Church that is within it! If it wasn’t for the Church, the world would probably tear itself to shreds within two generations.

The Church was established some millions of years after the earth formed and there were still people around to found it, so that’s a wash.

The scripture says, in the Book of Revelation, “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of God!” That is the goal. Not to become the kingdom of the world, but to transform the kingdom of the world in all of its parts- political, economic, social, judicial, everything. Christ’s holiness should emanate from his Church into every part of society, turning it into a manifestation of the beauty of God’s kingdom . Praise be to the Lord Christ.

Wouldn’t you say that goal would be all the nearer if you didn’t spend so much time going after the perceived evil of others and instead took what considerable good they had to offer?

Take a look at Chapter 2 of this text by Tertullian:
newadvent.org/fathers/0318.htm
He quotes the Old Testament liberally, pointing out that punishing heretics and unbelievers is a righteous act of God.

Frankly, I don’t buy the whole ‘benevolence’ schtick at all. I do not see how it would be necessary in theory for a deity (either you shackle a proposed god to a mere moral principle or you deny that it created shadow as well as light – nb. I distinctly disagree with Aquinas on the definition of evil, let’s not go off the rails that way), and in practice so far as the Abrahamic religions are concerned, ‘all-good’ is not an adjective I would use to describe the God they worship. ‘Beyond good and evil’, perhaps, recalling the passage in Isaiah I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord that do all these things. ‘Kind of a jerk’ as well, recalling other passages. To me, the God of Christianity as generally presented is too human to be believable as a deity.

Consider also that Jesus said it is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the smallest stroke of the pen to fall from the Law. This includes the parts condemning idolatry.

Nobody’s saying ‘change the Law’. They’re saying ‘have your Law, fine, but we didn’t sign a contract, you can’t prove there is one, and in any case who on earth, heaven, or hell made you the judge and jury?’.

 

[Mirdath]

Quick addendum – I meant to ask this but it slipped my mind

Lief, what place would Judaism have in your ideal world?

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Quick addendum – I meant to ask this but it slipped my mind

Lief, what place would Judaism have in your ideal world?

Judaism would be permitted, because its religion is somewhat racially self-inclosed. They don’t try to make converts, and historically, they never have made many converts at all.

Mirdath:

Yes; however, that was a time and place in which the Church and the government were very closely linked. Wouldn’t you say that might have influenced their actions in many respects?

Certainly it did, just as our environment of Separation of Church and State influences our viewpoints. I’m just pointing out what the Church tradition is.

Mirdath:

I have yet to make a single convert to agnosticism. I’ve seen plenty of other people end up here, but it wasn’t because of anything I said or did.

The cultural acceptability of agnosticism, and its ability to explain its views to others or challenge other moral systems makes it a threat.

Mirdath:

But sure, other religions make converts. Isn’t that a risk you’re going to have to accept? When exactly did Jesus say this world was going to be perfect and free from temptation? Never! Instead he said ‘my kingdom is not of this world’, remember?

I don’t believe this world ever will be perfect- we’ll have to wait for the next one, the New Heaven and New Earth. But we are expected to become vessels of Christ’s grace in whatever field of society we’re called to help. When Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world,” he was saying that his kingdom is spiritual values, a kingdom that exists in the hearts of men. Those values include how to do what God wants, no matter what part of society one’s working on. There is no position, whether judiciary, economic or other, which is supposed to be devoid of God’s grace. Nothing in scripture suggests that. God wants economies, politics, social life and the judiciary all to run according to his will, because his will is love, and his Counselor can reveal to us how to make that love manifest to the most people in our systems.

Mirdath:

On the latter, they were simply doing exactly what you want to do – if, maybe, being a bit more permanent about it. Murdering (er, executing) or imprisoning those who don’t believe for that fact alone? What makes it right and just when you do it, and immoral for anyone else?

Remember, morality does not change. The act of killing (or otherwise infringing upon the rights of) someone who does not at least pay lip service to a given theological position is the same, no matter who commits it. It cannot be right for some and wrong for others: so which will it be?

Actually, the nature of the religion one is supporting is crucial to the issue. God’s religion is perfect and leads people to eternal life. Others lead people toward hell. Therefore having laws penalizing the damning religion while supporting the saving religion is only logical, rather like we have laws in our country against spreading putting a lethal dose of sleeping pills in someone else’s cup of coffee, but we don’t have laws against giving advil to our hurting children. Even though they’re both drugs, the laws between them differ because they have different functions.

Mirdath:

The Church was established some millions of years after the earth formed and there were still people around to found it, so that’s a wash.

When you fall off a chair, you might get hurt, but depending on your fragility and how you fall, you could easily escape getting hurt badly. Fall off a hill, and you could be hurt a good deal more. Fall off a mountain and you will get hurt a TON.

The world before the Law was given was like the chair, the world after the Law was given on Mt. Sinai was like the hill, and the world after the Church was given was like the mountain.

But even granted this, your statement isn’t quite true. God wiped out all the nations of the Earth in the Flood, before the Law was even given. According to Revelation, he’ll wipe them out again, but in fire, because they will severely persecute his Church.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Mirdath:

Wouldn’t you say that goal would be all the nearer if you didn’t spend so much time going after the perceived evil of others and instead took what considerable good they had to offer?

Well, why don’t you think we should do that for murderers? They may have considerable good to offer, even if they kill a few people too.

Mirdath:

Frankly, I don’t buy the whole ‘benevolence’ schtick at all. I do not see how it would be necessary in theory for a deity (either you shackle a proposed god to a mere moral principle or you deny that it created shadow as well as light – nb. I distinctly disagree with Aquinas on the definition of evil, let’s not go off the rails that way), and in practice so far as the Abrahamic religions are concerned, ‘all-good’ is not an adjective I would use to describe the God they worship. ‘Beyond good and evil’, perhaps, recalling the passage in Isaiah I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord that do all these things. ‘Kind of a jerk’ as well, recalling other passages. To me, the God of Christianity as generally presented is too human to be believable as a deity.

Then why is it that some of his actions in the Old Testament appear evil to you, when they are actually good? That in itself proves that his thoughts are not like yours and his ways are not either. It proves that he does not have a human point of view, unless you assume these actions are bad from your perspective and thus redefine the Christian God. If you redefine the Christian God to suit your own perspective, then of course you can see that deity as too human. But the fact is that the God of the Scriptures and of history does many loving things that people often have difficulty understanding.

Even so, I agree that there are parallels between humanity’s reactions and those of God. That is because we are made “in the image of God.”

I’ll tell you though that in my own personal relationship with God, one of the primary constants is that he surprises me all the time. He does things I’d never have expected, reveals himself or conceals himself when I wouldn’t have expected or planned it, and then in the long run, his way always proves to be best. That is his way, because his thoughts are higher than ours and so are his ways.

Mirdath:

Nobody’s saying ‘change the Law’. They’re saying 'have your Law, fine, but we didn’t sign a contract,

Every human has an intrinsic understanding that they should do what is right (however defined). Kids from infancy are saying things like, “that’s not fair!”, revealing the existence of a concept of justice. Everyone knows that everyone should do right and that they are out of line when they don’t.

God is Love. He is the heart and soul of all virtues. Since humans have an internal knowledge that they should behave in accordance with virtue, they all know that they have a contract of sorts that they have to fulfill. A contract that, if they do fulfill it, benefits both them and all the world around them. Love is a universally acknowledged good (though people try to restrict its progress toward various people or in various ways, and this is out of line with God’s will).

Mirdath:

you can’t prove there is one,

I don’t have to prove that there is such a contract. Almost everyone knows that they ought to do good (however defined).

Mirdath:

and in any case who on earth, heaven, or hell made you the judge and jury?’.

They didn’t. God is. And he has revealed his will through his Church, which rightfully declares what morality is, as it is itself the Body of Christ.

 

[Mirdath]

Judaism would be permitted, because its religion is somewhat racially self-inclosed. They don’t try to make converts, and historically, they never have made many converts at all.

What other exceptions would there be? Voudoun? It’s pretty ‘enclosed’, being a Caribbean religion. Zoroastrianism? They’re about as conversion-friendly as Judaism. Where do you draw the line, and how can you even tell where a particular religion lands? I could make something up that would qualify as ‘acceptable’ to you. You were on much firmer ground when it was all or nothing, even though you’re still in the wrong.

Now that you’ve given up your hardline stance, really, it’s over. Admitting that just one other religion is legit enough to be accepted in your utopia screwed you over: if, as you believe, there’s only one correct religion, you’ve allowed a false one in. You’ve said ‘this town’s big enough for a couple of us’, and, well, ever read Thidwick, the Big-Hearted Moose?

Certainly it did, just as our environment of Separation of Church and State influences our viewpoints. I’m just pointing out what the Church tradition is.

But this particular viewpoint was very much influenced by the current state of things at the time – indeed, it would never have arisen if not for that. Why is it more valid than our viewpoint from here and now?

The cultural acceptability of agnosticism, and its ability to explain its views to others or challenge other moral systems makes it a threat.

So I’m a threat because I can communicate effectively and you can’t prove me wrong? Where have I heard that before?

Another quick quiz: Francisco Franco, great dictator or greatest dictator?

Therefore having laws penalizing the damning religion while supporting the saving religion is only logical, rather like we have laws in our country against spreading putting a lethal dose of sleeping pills in someone else’s cup of coffee, but we don’t have laws against giving advil to our hurting children.

Then prove your religion perfect and the only means to salvation. Wait, first prove there is such a thing as salvation. Get those in, then we can talk about which religions should be supported by the state.

But even granted this, your statement isn’t quite true. God wiped out all the nations of the Earth in the Flood, before the Law was even given. According to Revelation, he’ll wipe them out again, but in fire, because they will severely persecute his Church.

One much-vaunted attribute of the ‘natural law’ is that it is eternal. There supposedly was never a time at which it did not apply – just ask Thomas Aquinas.

Well, why don’t you think we should do that for murderers? They may have considerable good to offer, even if they kill a few people too.

Support your local prison store!

Murderers cause direct, immediate, and obvious harm to society. Theological quibbles do not, unless someone murders someone else over them, in which case see rule #1.

Then why is it that some of his actions in the Old Testament appear evil to you, when they are actually good?

Because things like, oh I don’t know, sending down fire and brimstone, genocide, slavery, ordering the slaughter of infants, and so on and so forth are evil?

That in itself proves that his thoughts are not like yours and his ways are not either.

Thank God for that, I guess!

It proves that he does not have a human point of view, unless you assume these actions are bad from your perspective and thus redefine the Christian God.

I am not – I am simply holding your God up to his own standards. The idea that ‘anything is good if God does it’ does not sit well with me. Given what he is supposed to have done, it’s much like condoning and supporting the actions of a sociopathic arsonist who occasionally drops loaves of bread off at homeless shelters.

Drop the idea that a deity must be the acme of Good, and how much more majestic and terrible it will be! What are ‘good’ and ‘evil’ but our words and concepts anyway? Why even attempt to put a deity on such a leash?

Every human has an intrinsic understanding that they should do what is right (however defined). Kids from infancy are saying things like, “that’s not fair!”, revealing the existence of a concept of justice. Everyone knows that everyone should do right and that they are out of line when they don’t.

An implicit contract with society is nothing like an explicit contract with God.

They didn’t. God is. And he has revealed his will through his Church, which rightfully declares what morality is, as it is itself the Body of Christ.

Then what are you doing trying to step into his shoes?

 

[Lief_Erikson]

What other exceptions would there be? Voudoun? It’s pretty ‘enclosed’, being a Caribbean religion. Zoroastrianism? They’re about as conversion-friendly as Judaism. Where do you draw the line, and how can you even tell where a particular religion lands? I could make something up that would qualify as ‘acceptable’ to you. You were on much firmer ground when it was all or nothing, even though you’re still in the wrong.

Perhaps. You know, I see believers in false religions as being rather like suicide bombers, in that suicide bombers destroy themselves and everyone around them. But if the person’s false religion is self-contained, harming no one but that person, then there’s no point in legal restrictions existing on that person. It’s like a suicide bomber who’s only bombing himself. You might try to convince the person not to, through evangelism, but there’s not much reason to bust him.

I haven’t investigated Voudoun or Zoroastrianism, so I don’t know what their practices or beliefs are. If a religion doesn’t try to convert anyone else, though, then I’m not anywhere near as concerned by it.

And you draw the line after an investigation. If it doesn’t seem the religion will spread, you might allow it. If, on the other hand, as time passes, you find that the religion is attracting new adherents, then you ban it.

But this particular viewpoint was very much influenced by the current state of things at the time – indeed, it would never have arisen if not for that. Why is it more valid than our viewpoint from here and now?

It’s pretty simple, really. Their laws were created in a Christian environment that had just been produced by the evangelistic victories of the Early Church. The Early Church held to its beliefs no matter what, and finally most people converted, including the emperors themselves. The movement of the past was toward Christianity, and the laws were made in a secure Christian environment. Religious Freedom, on the other hand, in our societies was created by the Protestant Reformation and the Enlightenment. It does not have Christian origins, and the Church resisted it until the mid-20th century.

A belief that was established in law in a Christian environment that directly followed (and was produced by) the Early Church phase of Christianity has a higher tradition by far supporting it than does a belief that was spawned by secular and heretical forces first and only became accepted in the Church with ferocious debate, and after hundreds of years of resistance.

So I’m a threat because I can communicate effectively and you can’t prove me wrong? Where have I heard that before?

First of all, I’ll mention that it doesn’t matter too much if you can be proved wrong. Some people aren’t going to be as good at arguing as you are, and some are going to be better, but people don’t tend to change their views just because they’ve been defeated in a debate. On the other hand, frequently people join a false belief in ignorance of its true nature, even though there are perfectly logical refutations to it that they just aren’t aware of.

I’d also point out that the obvious answer is Yes. Hitler, Islamist radicals, Communist rebels and countless others have convinced people to pursue deadly and evil courses of action through their words. Their words themselves were a threat because they could communicate effectively. Even though some people could prove them wrong, those proofs wouldn’t reach all ears, and biases would cause people to disagree with them, and some people would be too ignorant to understand or accept the proofs, etc. An ability to communicate effectively can be a dangerous and destructive weapon.

Then prove your religion perfect and the only means to salvation. Wait, first prove there is such a thing as salvation. Get those in, then we can talk about which religions should be supported by the state.

I can certainly discuss with you the objective evidence supporting Christianity’s truth, but we’d need to move to another thread. It would throw this one completely off course.

One much-vaunted attribute of the ‘natural law’ is that it is eternal. There supposedly was never a time at which it did not apply – just ask Thomas Aquinas.

I agree with that. The natural law has always been there. However, because sin blinds us, its requirements aren’t so explicit to us as the Law of the Old Covenant is. And the Law of the Old Covenant is not so glorious as the Law of the New Covenant that followed.

Support your local prison store!

Murderers cause direct, immediate, and obvious harm to society. Theological quibbles do not, unless someone murders someone else over them, in which case see rule #1.

So it comes down to the fact that you don’t think false religions damn anyone.

Because things like, oh I don’t know, sending down fire and brimstone, genocide, slavery, ordering the slaughter of infants, and so on and so forth are evil?

A human’s verdict about God is like a child of five years old wandering into a courtroom where a trial is taking place, listening for about twenty seconds, and then delivering a verdict.

If I had a child and talked with him about justice, and asked his opinion on a case, it’s very possible he’d come to some conclusions that I wouldn’t, because his would be a lot more short-sighted. In fact, if one being to have superior wisdom than another, because of that fact he’ll act differently sometimes, and because of that fact the one who would have behaved differently will think the wiser person isn’t making sense. Unless he just trusts him.

The fact that a person is wiser than another means he’ll act in ways the other doesn’t understand and sometimes might think are wrong, because in his ignorance, he’d behave differently.

God has infinite wisdom, so it’s only logical that some of his actions would seem correspondingly nonsensical to little mortals.

I’ll also mention that you’re attempting to not only judge the conduct of one infinitely wiser and more knowledgeable than you, but you’re also trying to judge his actions in an environment that existed thousands of years ago, when you don’t know much about the crimes of the people he was judging. And even if you did know all the crimes they were being judged for, you wouldn’t know the full ramifications of those crimes. So even if you were a human judging other humans, your opinion from here would be so much more limited because of its ignorance of the time period and circumstances that it would be nearly worthless.

There are loving reasons for the actions of God that you have mentioned. I can discuss them too, if you like, but that again should be another thread.

Thank God for that, I guess!

That’s a statement born of blindness. Rather than asking if an omniscient God might have some good reasons for doing things you wouldn’t do, you assume he’s wrong.

I am not – I am simply holding your God up to his own standards. The idea that ‘anything is good if God does it’ does not sit well with me.

Doesn’t sit well with me either. God is right, he doesn’t invent right and thus make right meaningless. His nature is eternal, so right is eternal, and it can’t change into something wrong.

However, I think that the idea that humans are in a position to pass judgment on God is foolishness.

Given what he is supposed to have done, it’s much like condoning and supporting the actions of a sociopathic arsonist who occasionally drops loaves of bread off at homeless shelters.

There are very poignant moments in the Book of Ezekiel, where God says he takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. In many of the Books of the Prophets, he mourns for Israel and aches for them, grieving at what they force him to do through their actions.

Have you ever read the Book of Jonah? In that book, he sends a prophet to Nineveh to convince the Assyrians to repent for their evil deeds so that he can save them. Jonah argues with God in the end of the book, arguing that because the Assyrians have committed so much wickedness, they deserve to die, even though they’ve repented. And God says no, they have repented and he has compassion for them, so he will spare their lives.

The Old Testament God is a lot more complex than popular viewpoints make out.

Drop the idea that a deity must be the acme of Good, and how much more majestic and terrible it will be! What are ‘good’ and ‘evil’ but our words and concepts anyway? Why even attempt to put a deity on such a leash?

He made us in his image, and these goods are wonderful and beautiful. Especially when you get to know God, who is their source, the heart of all virtue and love. His mystery is so stunningly beautiful . . . it is incomparable.

If God were “beyond good and evil,” were amoral, then really everything becomes relative, nothing either right or wrong in a true sense, and everything correspondingly becomes meaningless and miserable. That is like hell, to me. No one has any reason to do good, and no one even can do good because good doesn’t exist. All value in life drops away. It’s an intensely disturbing ideology. Not “majestic,” though certainly terrible. Nightmarish.

God, on the other hand, is both majestic and terrible. And he created a world of order, based on mathematical precision, not chaos. The complexity, vastness and beauty of his universe completely defy human reason to comprehend, and they are a mirror of his own nature, his beauty, complexity and vastness, the mystery, infinity, wonderful kindness (just feel the wind or the water! The warmth of the sun, the power of your limbs, the glory of the colors nature gives your eyes to see every day) and awesome power that are part of his nature. Nature reveals the nature of God, but evil human actions have caused nature, to some extent, to rebel against humans. And have caused humans to torment one another.

An implicit contract with society is nothing like an explicit contract with God.

I don’t think that it is an implicit contract with society so much as it is with God. For God himself is the heart of all virtues, so a feeling that people should be virtuous is an implicit contract with the Creator. But I can understand your view that it’s only a contract with society.

In any case, I agree. The natural law is not so clear as the Law of the Old Covenant, which is why the Jews were punished more swiftly and rewarded more greatly by God than the countries around them. That’s why I compared breaking their Law to falling off a hill, and breaking the natural law to falling off a chair.

Then what are you doing trying to step into his shoes?

I’m not. The Church gave a teaching on this issue, opposed to religious freedom, and held to it all the way up to the mid-20th century. The position of Vatican II was firstly born on the wind of modern thinking. It cites scripture and some of the Early Church Fathers, I expect, but these interpretations only came to exist because they believed and were pressured so heavily by modern thought. Church tradition or scripture were not the root of Vatican II’s decision. The Protestant Reformation and Enlightenment were. They announced themselves that their verdict on the issue was non-binding, for their council was only pastoral, only giving advice, and they said it did not give any new dogmatic definitions.

I believe that I am holding to the revealed will of Christ.

 

[whiteknite]

If we make Atheism illegal then arent we going back to the dark ages??
We use the power of Freethinking and i’m sure Atheists would quickly create a religon to get get out of punishment and then you will shout Witch in order to put your penalty accross.

I think 21st Century could do without 9th Century views…

 

[Mirdath]

And you draw the line after an investigation. If it doesn’t seem the religion will spread, you might allow it. If, on the other hand, as time passes, you find that the religion is attracting new adherents, then you ban it.

What criteria, exactly, would you use? Obviously disinterest in making converts isn’t nearly all of it: a religion can be plenty interesting even if (or because) it discourages would-be converts. Give me a list of What Makes A Religion Okay By Lief Erikson. Give me a list, and I will make up a religion containing no tenet not already held by one or more faiths that will both be utterly abhorrent to you and still be permissible.

Their laws were created in a Christian environment that had just been produced by the evangelistic victories of the Early Church. The Early Church held to its beliefs no matter what, and finally most people converted, including the emperors themselves. The movement of the past was toward Christianity, and the laws were made in a secure Christian environment. Religious Freedom, on the other hand, in our societies was created by the Protestant Reformation and the Enlightenment. It does not have Christian origins, and the Church resisted it until the mid-20th century.

You’re not answering the question. The idea that freedom of belief was unacceptable was a product of a particular place and time, just as you argue that its opposite is a product of another place and time. What makes one more valid than the other?

On the other hand, frequently people join a false belief in ignorance of its true nature, even though there are perfectly logical refutations to it that they just aren’t aware of.

Why yes

An ability to communicate effectively can be a dangerous and destructive weapon.

But is it not also a gift from God?

I can certainly discuss with you the objective evidence supporting Christianity’s truth, but we’d need to move to another thread. It would throw this one completely off course.

Indeed, and I’ve already been there, done that, got the t-shirt, and remain unconvinced. No point going there again.

I agree with that. The natural law has always been there. However, because sin blinds us, its requirements aren’t so explicit to us as the Law of the Old Covenant is. And the Law of the Old Covenant is not so glorious as the Law of the New Covenant that followed.

As far as being bound by the law goes, that doesn’t matter.

So it comes down to the fact that you don’t think false religions damn anyone.

I think they’re all false, and doubt that any saves anyone from anything beyond their own personal demons – in the metaphoric sense.

A human’s verdict about God is like a child of five years old wandering into a courtroom where a trial is taking place, listening for about twenty seconds, and then delivering a verdict.

Again, tell that to Aquinas. And five-year-olds are often the first to point out that the emperor’s got no clothes.

God has infinite wisdom, so it’s only logical that some of his actions would seem correspondingly nonsensical to little mortals.

Many actions of God in the old testament do not seem ‘nonsensical’, they seem completely and utterly evil. They make perfect sense, and give the lie to the idea that God must be all-good.

I’ll also mention that you’re attempting to not only judge the conduct of one infinitely wiser and more knowledgeable than you, but you’re also trying to judge his actions in an environment that existed thousands of years ago, when you don’t know much about the crimes of the people he was judging. And even if you did know all the crimes they were being judged for, you wouldn’t know the full ramifications of those crimes. So even if you were a human judging other humans, your opinion from here would be so much more limited because of its ignorance of the time period and circumstances that it would be nearly worthless.

Much as your favorable judgment would be, no? And don’t assume I’m ignorant. I am, in fact, quite well-read and educated on the subject.

There are loving reasons for the actions of God that you have mentioned. I can discuss them too, if you like, but that again should be another thread.

He sure loved those Canaanites.

However, I think that the idea that humans are in a position to pass judgment on God is foolishness.

Isn’t that the whole point of being able to choose whether to worship him or not?

There are very poignant moments in the Book of Ezekiel, where God says he takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. In many of the Books of the Prophets, he mourns for Israel and aches for them, grieving at what they force him to do through their actions.

How would Israel force God to do anything? This flies in the face of everything you just said about him.

If God were “beyond good and evil,” were amoral, then really everything becomes relative, nothing either right or wrong in a true sense, and everything correspondingly becomes meaningless and miserable. That is like hell, to me. No one has any reason to do good, and no one even can do good because good doesn’t exist. All value in life drops away. It’s an intensely disturbing ideology. Not “majestic,” though certainly terrible. Nightmarish.

Not at all. If God were beyond good and evil, and said ‘good is the standard I have laid out for you to follow’, it’d make perfect sense.

I believe that I am holding to the revealed will of Christ.

I think you’re wrong

 

[Salonika]

Definitely not, every person has the right to determine and develop their own spirituality and also the responsibility to use this right responsibly.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

What criteria, exactly, would you use? Obviously disinterest in making converts isn’t nearly all of it: a religion can be plenty interesting even if (or because) it discourages would-be converts. Give me a list of What Makes A Religion Okay By Lief Erikson. Give me a list, and I will make up a religion containing no tenet not already held by one or more faiths that will both be utterly abhorrent to you and still be permissible.

It couldn’t break any of the country’s laws. The country would have laws banning sexual immorality, murder, witchcraft, theft and many other evil and dangerous practices. The false religion also must not attract converts.

Basically, the government should have laws that correspond pretty much to the Old Covenant civil law, though they would be strongly tempered with mercy. And any false religions must not attract new members.

If you can suggest a religion with abhorent practices that aren’t condemned by Church canon law or the Law of the Old Covenant, I’d be rather surprised. These kinds of immoral practices would be banned by the government, and if the false religion breaks those laws, it would be suppressed.

Evangelism is the single gravest threat posed by false religions, though there are others, it is true.

You’re not answering the question. The idea that freedom of belief was unacceptable was a product of a particular place and time, just as you argue that its opposite is a product of another place and time. What makes one more valid than the other?

In the past, it came from the rise of Christianity’s power and influence. It came when Christianity was doing well, was less under pressure by unholy influences, and this view also came right after the Early Church period of history. Thus beliefs originating in that time period are more likely to be reliable than beliefs that come from Protestantism and secularism first, and the Church only centuries later (under a great deal of pressure, and with a great deal of infighting over the decision).

The fact that the 4th century Church approved of these practices, and their teaching came right after the earliest era of Christianity, suggests that their views came right from the early teachings. The present religious views, however, come from heretical and non-Christian sources. That is what makes their time period and their origin extremely unreliable, whereas the Early Church era is much more reliable because its teachings were so near those of the original apostles and Jesus Christ.

Why yes

Good.

But is it not also a gift from God?

Yes, and so are our hands. We can use our hands to build people houses or to tear them down, to bless or to kill. It is the same with speech. The tongue is a gift from God that he gave us to use to his glory, not to use to people’s destruction.

Indeed, and I’ve already been there, done that, got the t-shirt, and remain unconvinced. No point going there again.

The most important two things I’d suggest on this point, though, without getting into any of the evidence are:

1. Recognize that even if you don’t believe it, Christianity might be true. And that if it is true, it can only make your life far better and happier (as it teaches God is love).
2. Appeal to God that if he exists and is truly both loving and personal, he will reveal himself to you in a way you can clearly understand is Him. How can this kind of prayer hurt? If you are wrong in your unbelief, it will reward you (if you are sincere), if you are right in your unbelief, it won’t hurt you.

As far as being bound by the law goes, that doesn’t matter.

How so?

I think they’re all false, and doubt that any saves anyone from anything beyond their own personal demons – in the metaphoric sense.

And if one really can’t tell which is true, and doesn’t know if any of them are, it makes sense to allow all of them. If, on the other hand, you know that one saves souls and the others damn them, doesn’t it seem logical to you that the government should have a role in protecting its citizens in this crucial area of their lives? Assuming that you know which saves and which destroy.

Again, tell that to Aquinas.

I don’t think Thomas Aquinas would have disagreed with me. I believe in a natural law like he does. I also believe in sin’s power to blind people so that they can’t perceive morality accurately, and I don’t think he’d have disagreed with that. The Prophet Isaiah quoted the Lord as saying, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are my ways your ways, declares the Sovereign Lord. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.”

This is the Christian teaching. St. Paul praised God, saying, “your judgments beyond searching out.” God’s ways do make sense, they are wise, and as we come closer to God the wisdom of his ways can become more clear. But while we are lost in sin and severed from God, our own dark ways look like light to us, or look or feel good in our eyes, and the will that opposes our darkness looks bad to us. The Nazis saw themselves as doing good and as leading a great light, and they saw their enemies as darkness. Muslim extremists condemn all the Western world as “the Great Satan,” and everyone in our nations as evil. Darkness appears like light to those enveloped in it, the “wisdom of the world,” but the wisdom from God pierces the shadows of the human mind with a great sword.

And five-year-olds are often the first to point out that the emperor’s got no clothes.

Cool. So you think they’d make a valid jury? You’d want them judging your trial, if you were ever to be charged?

Many actions of God in the old testament do not seem ‘nonsensical’, they seem completely and utterly evil. They make perfect sense, and give the lie to the idea that God must be all-good.

They do not. The Lord said that he was judging the Canaanites for their sins, and he said that he was judging the people in the time of Noah because they filled the world with violence. He knows who is guilty and who is not far, far better than you do, because he is pure while you live in an environment highly influenced by sin and non-Christian beliefs, he is omniscient and you are not, and you live thousands of years after the events you’re judging while he lived through them. Your judgment is partially warped by personal sin and sinful surroundings, impaired because of your complete non-proximity to the time period, and above all, finite. Whereas the one you in your wisdom are judging has infinite knowledge.

It’s not sensible, and is indeed astonishingly arrogant, for a human to think he can judge God. But I’d also point out that God has not only told us he loves us- he has proven it by giving his own Son to take on the sins of the world and be crucified for our salvation, purification and eternal life and joy.

Much as your favorable judgment would be, no? And don’t assume I’m ignorant. I am, in fact, quite well-read and educated on the subject.

By the scholarly standards of today, that may be. However, you did not live thousands of years ago and the knowledge available today is limited. You are not in anywhere near as good a position as God to judge.

Isn’t that the whole point of being able to choose whether to worship him or not?

No, it calls for faith in what God reveals about himself. We can have faith because God came to us as a human and died for us, and he transforms us to make us holy and pure, a state which always brings greater joy and love. Also, when we become united with God we come into the condition St. Paul described when he said, “we have the mind of Christ.” Christ is our head, our director, our leader. To reject faith in God is to be lost. This is all understandable on a basic, experiential level. Our sense of the natural law God made validates it. Our sense of the natural law can be corrupted by sin, but as we come closer to God, this falls away and we come to have more fully the mind of Christ.

How would Israel force God to do anything? This flies in the face of everything you just said about him.

“Force” may be the wrong word. I was using it in the same way Islamic extremists blowing themselves in New York might “force” the government to react against Al Qaeda.

Not at all. If God were beyond good and evil, and said ‘good is the standard I have laid out for you to follow’, it’d make perfect sense.

I prefer holy mysteries to unholy ones.

Your God is an unholy mystery, one whose ways are completely beyond understanding (beyond good and evil). Mine is a holy mystery whose ways are simply higher and better than ours, but become more and more comprehensible to us as we become more fully united with him. Your God is also one who cannot be known, whereas mine revealed himself to men and seeks to draw every person to himself, that they might have eternal life, love and joy. He reveals himself to everyone who wants him to reveal himself, for “he who asks receives, and he who seeks finds. To him who knocks, the door will be opened.” Praise the Lord for the truth of those words that hundreds of millions have experienced around the world.

 

[Mirdath]

It couldn’t break any of the country’s laws. The country would have laws banning sexual immorality, murder, witchcraft, theft and many other evil and dangerous practices. The false religion also must not attract converts.

If you can suggest a religion with abhorent practices that aren’t condemned by Church canon law or the Law of the Old Covenant, I’d be rather surprised.

That’s it? I could just read you a list of several old-time Catholic heresies, maybe some current Protestant denominations, and they’d fit just fine. Westboro Baptist Church would skate right on in to your utopia. But I said I’d make one up (and I didn’t specify whether beliefs, practices, or both would push your buttons, but I can manage), so let’s go for the gold.

Alright, let’s call it Shacathormodoun. Bonus points if you get which real faiths and heresies I’m going to be referencing.

Beliefs:
-The world is evil, created by the angel Demiurge who tried to become God, and was defeated by the death of the Christ. Anything in it or of it is evil (no matter how good it may seem), and it is only through the mercy of God that we may escape it.
-Following from that, sex is especially evil as it may bring another soul into the world; men and women are kept completely separate, and only see each other in church.
-Medicine is evil; all illness and disease is caused by the stain of evil, and can only be cast out by prayer. If it doesn’t work, obviously God thought it was time.
-Science and technology are evil, for howevermuch our souls may be created by God, pursuits of the world are cooperation in evil.
-Possession is a regular occurrence, both demonic and angelic.
-God does not judge souls, as she knew them when she created them; the elect are raised up with the angels and oversee this and other worlds in a kind of cosmic bureaucracy, the rest are consigned to oblivion.

Practices:
-Services consist of readings and periods of silence, frequently interrupted by a member of the congregation being ‘ridden’ by the presence of an angel, shaking and dancing ecstatically. Often persons in this state may relate visions. These occurrences are regarded as God showing us a glimpse of her real, supernatural, infinite Good to give us hope for the next life.
-Being fatalists about predestination, there is no evangelization whatsoever. Either you are one or you aren’t. Converts are grudgingly accepted if they keep trying long enough, a process that may take years.
-As sex is evil, propagation of the faith is pretty static. They run orphanages and raise the abandoned children in the faith as credentes or catechumens. At the age of majority the kids are asked if they want to become full members, going through much the same process as an adult would-be convert. Or they may depart, no debts, no strings attached.
-After death, in an attempt to completely remove the deceased from this evil sphere, they eat the corpse. Church services have some of the best barbecues around.

It came when Christianity was doing well, was less under pressure by unholy influences, and this view also came right after the Early Church period of history. Thus beliefs originating in that time period are more likely to be reliable than beliefs that come from Protestantism and secularism first, and the Church only centuries later (under a great deal of pressure, and with a great deal of infighting over the decision).

Excuse me? Back in those days, the Church was under more pressure than now: it was just one of many regional faiths, and there were heretics lurking around every corner to boot. You want infighting? One name: Arius.

How so? [being bound by an immutable Law over time]

Since the law never changes and the responsibility of people to uphold it also never changes, ignorance is no excuse.

And if one really can’t tell which is true, and doesn’t know if any of them are, it makes sense to allow all of them. If, on the other hand, you know that one saves souls and the others damn them, doesn’t it seem logical to you that the government should have a role in protecting its citizens in this crucial area of their lives? Assuming that you know which saves and which destroy.

We simply cannot assume that. I could ask any person I found walking out of a church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or treehouse what religion saves and which damn, and get as many answers as times I asked the question. If one faith can prove it is the full, exclusive Truth, then it’s a question of ‘that faith’ or ‘not that faith’.

And even then, I would say the government should mind its own business. Does it enforce the FDA recommended daily allowance of sodium, or penalize people for overdrawing their bank accounts? No, many, if not most, things dealing with ‘areas of people’s lives’ that do not infringe upon the same areas of others’ lives are left up to the citizens to deal with as they please. And that’s a very nice system.

I don’t think Thomas Aquinas would have disagreed with me.

He may not have disagreed with you, but you are both still judging God. You simply have a more favorable verdict than I do.

Cool. So you think they’d make a valid jury? You’d want them judging your trial, if you were ever to be charged?

Sure, I’d give them candy before the hearing. Much more affordable than grownup bribes.

It’s not sensible, and is indeed astonishingly arrogant, for a human to think he can judge God.

You judge God every second you remain a Catholic. I judge him every second I think about the possibility of theism being correct. What’s the difference?

I prefer holy mysteries to unholy ones.

What does your preference have to do with it? I’d prefer to have a billion dollars cash sitting at my feet.

Your God is an unholy mystery, one whose ways are completely beyond understanding (beyond good and evil). Mine is a holy mystery whose ways are simply higher and better than ours, but become more and more comprehensible to us as we become more fully united with him.

Technically, my concept of divinity would be more ‘holy’ – all that word means is set apart. Mine is, yes, beyond understanding, alien, different; yours is an immortal Boy Scout with a troubled past. Why should God be comprehensible to us in any way?

 

[Lief_Erikson]

That’s it? I could just read you a list of several old-time Catholic heresies, maybe some current Protestant denominations, and they’d fit just fine. Westboro Baptist Church would skate right on in to your utopia. But I said I’d make one up (and I didn’t specify whether beliefs, practices, or both would push your buttons, but I can manage), so let’s go for the gold.

Alright, let’s call it Shacathormodoun. Bonus points if you get which real faiths and heresies I’m going to be referencing.

Beliefs:
-The world is evil, created by the angel Demiurge who tried to become God, and was defeated by the death of the Christ. Anything in it or of it is evil (no matter how good it may seem), and it is only through the mercy of God that we may escape it.
-Following from that, sex is especially evil as it may bring another soul into the world; men and women are kept completely separate, and only see each other in church.
-Medicine is evil; all illness and disease is caused by the stain of evil, and can only be cast out by prayer. If it doesn’t work, obviously God thought it was time.
-Science and technology are evil, for howevermuch our souls may be created by God, pursuits of the world are cooperation in evil.
-Possession is a regular occurrence, both demonic and angelic.
-God does not judge souls, as she knew them when she created them; the elect are raised up with the angels and oversee this and other worlds in a kind of cosmic bureaucracy, the rest are consigned to oblivion.

Practices:
-Services consist of readings and periods of silence, frequently interrupted by a member of the congregation being ‘ridden’ by the presence of an angel, shaking and dancing ecstatically. Often persons in this state may relate visions. These occurrences are regarded as God showing us a glimpse of her real, supernatural, infinite Good to give us hope for the next life.
-Being fatalists about predestination, there is no evangelization whatsoever. Either you are one or you aren’t. Converts are grudgingly accepted if they keep trying long enough, a process that may take years.
-As sex is evil, propagation of the faith is pretty static. They run orphanages and raise the abandoned children in the faith as credentes or catechumens. At the age of majority the kids are asked if they want to become full members, going through much the same process as an adult would-be convert. Or they may depart, no debts, no strings attached.
-After death, in an attempt to completely remove the deceased from this evil sphere, they eat the corpse. Church services have some of the best barbecues around.

Cannibalism would be illegal, under law, and the spiritual experiences and possessions you describe might be investigated, as they sound like they could likely break anti-witchcraft laws. The conversion of any Catholic to this religion (or any other false religion) would be illegal.

Beyond that, I don’t know that they would be banned. They might be required to live in ghettos, so that their beliefs wouldn’t have a chance to influence others. The scripture and Early Church Fathers did clearly call on Catholics to separate themselves from heretics and have nothing to do with them.

Excuse me? Back in those days, the Church was under more pressure than now: it was just one of many regional faiths, and there were heretics lurking around every corner to boot. You want infighting? One name: Arius.

We Catholics believe that the Early Church Fathers accurately transmitted the original teachings of Jesus and the apostles to their following. A scholar can look at their teachings and at their apostolic succession right from the founders of Christianity and see marvelous consistency. Heretics tended to have one commonality between them: they did not have apostolic succession. Their beliefs originated with them and were discarded by the orthodox Church. Yes, the Church was under immense pressure, but we can look back at their documents and see the consistency of their teaching in spite of that difficulty.

Also, by the fourth century when its opposition to religious freedom became most clearly pronounced, it was in a dominant position in society, protected by emperors who turned to it for moral guidance when developing their legal codes. Theodosius is particularly notable for looking to the Church’s teachings when developing these laws. Christianity was on the rise during the 4th century. It was on the decline when religious freedom appeared, carried forward by the winds of the Enlightenment and Reformation.

Since the law never changes and the responsibility of people to uphold it also never changes, ignorance is no excuse.

That doesn’t make sense. In our law courts, when a child steals something, he might get a small penalty of some sort or no penalty at all. It would be unfair to punish him much because of his immaturity. But an adult caught for the same thing would be punished more seriously. Jesus teaches us in the scripture that if a person sins knowingly, he’ll be punished with many blows, but if he sins unknowingly, he’ll be punished with few blows. And God in the Old Testament punished Israel first and other nations much later, after their sins were piled higher, because Israel had been given the Law and it knew what it was doing. This is a consistent scriptural teaching, and we practice it in our own courts too. Ignorance does reduce culpability. Even if the Law is unchanging and we all should obey it.

We simply cannot assume that. I could ask any person I found walking out of a church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or treehouse what religion saves and which damn, and get as many answers as times I asked the question. If one faith can prove it is the full, exclusive Truth, then it’s a question of ‘that faith’ or ‘not that faith’.

I don’t know much about the objective evidence surrounding the origins of other religions, but I know that it very strongly supports Christianity. I’m very tempted to get into specifics, but I know this just isn’t the right thread . This is a seriously related issue, though, just as the supposedly evil deeds of God in the Old Testament are, so should we create a couple new threads about them in the main Apologetics forum?

And even then, I would say the government should mind its own business. Does it enforce the FDA recommended daily allowance of sodium, or penalize people for overdrawing their bank accounts? No, many, if not most, things dealing with ‘areas of people’s lives’ that do not infringe upon the same areas of others’ lives are left up to the citizens to deal with as they please. And that’s a very nice system.

We’re talking about damnation of souls, not overdrawing bank accounts . And about the spreading of that damnation. Murdering a person’s human body only kills them physically, but murdering a soul kills a person eternally. Preachers of false religions would be essentially spreading hellfire around through their words, which destroys people just like suicide bombers do. You’d approve of the use of the army to quell suicide bombers. Why wouldn’t you approve of the use of force against people who spread damnation, assuming you think they actually are doing that?

I’ll respond to the rest of your post later.

 

[Mirdath]

Cannibalism would be illegal, under law, and the spiritual experiences and possessions you describe might be investigated, as they sound like they could likely break anti-witchcraft laws. The conversion of any Catholic to this religion (or any other false religion) would be illegal.

I cannot believe you took the bait like that! I’d added that almost as a joke – I really didn’t think you would swallow it! You, who eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood every weekend before coffee and donuts, shy away from others practicing eating the deceased as a religious mandate no less integral to their faith than your ritual cannibalism (in convenient bread and wine form, but to you no less flesh and blood for that) is to yours? You said anything that is not prohibited by Church law goes. Show me the canon that prohibits this, and I’ll show you a canon that denies the Real Presence.

As for being ridden by angels/lwa, it’s not really too different from charismatic Catholics speaking in tongues. It’s just a descent of a holy (as opposed to The Holy) spirit; I did not say it was ‘invited’ in any way (which would be a form of theurgy), only that it would happen in this made-up religion. This sort of thing is how the Shakers got their nickname, it’s not just Voudoun.

Beyond that, I don’t know that they would be banned. They might be required to live in ghettos, so that their beliefs wouldn’t have a chance to influence others. The scripture and Early Church Fathers did clearly call on Catholics to separate themselves from heretics and have nothing to do with them.

Then wouldn’t it make more sense for the Catholics to live in ghettos?

We Catholics believe that the Early Church Fathers accurately transmitted the original teachings of Jesus and the apostles to their following. A scholar can look at their teachings and at their apostolic succession right from the founders of Christianity and see marvelous consistency. Heretics tended to have one commonality between them: they did not have apostolic succession. Their beliefs originated with them and were discarded by the orthodox Church. Yes, the Church was under immense pressure, but we can look back at their documents and see the consistency of their teaching in spite of that difficulty.

Arius and Montanus were priests. Donatus and Jansen were bishops, Nestorius an archbishop. The Antinomian schism was a church affair. Apostolic succession? Check.

That doesn’t make sense. In our law courts, when a child steals something, he might get a small penalty of some sort or no penalty at all. It would be unfair to punish him much because of his immaturity. But an adult caught for the same thing would be punished more seriously. Jesus teaches us in the scripture that if a person sins knowingly, he’ll be punished with many blows, but if he sins unknowingly, he’ll be punished with few blows. And God in the Old Testament punished Israel first and other nations much later, after their sins were piled higher, because Israel had been given the Law and it knew what it was doing. This is a consistent scriptural teaching, and we practice it in our own courts too. Ignorance does reduce culpability. Even if the Law is unchanging and we all should obey it.

You’re mixing up secular law and ‘natural law’. Ignorance may reduce culpability, but it does not eliminate it. If everyone is bound by the Law, everyone is bound by it; after all, the Angelic Doctor says it is engraved on the human heart, no? Then having it on stone tablets, scrolls, or computers doesn’t matter one bit.

I don’t know much about the objective evidence surrounding the origins of other religions, but I know that it very strongly supports Christianity. I’m very tempted to get into specifics, but I know this just isn’t the right thread . This is a seriously related issue, though, just as the supposedly evil deeds of God in the Old Testament are, so should we create a couple new threads about them in the main Apologetics forum?

Never speak from ignorance Do some reading, learn about the origins of those other religions – it’s often quite fascinating, even enlightening. I’d start with Judaism; after all, Christianity is nothing but a schismatic sect of Judaism.

We’re talking about damnation of souls, not overdrawing bank accounts . And about the spreading of that damnation. Murdering a person’s human body only kills them physically, but murdering a soul kills a person eternally. Preachers of false religions would be essentially spreading hellfire around through their words, which destroys people just like suicide bombers do. You’d approve of the use of the army to quell suicide bombers. Why wouldn’t you approve of the use of force against people who spread damnation, assuming you think they actually are doing that?

First you have to prove that any harm is being done; then and only then can you make a valid case for doing something about it.

I’ll respond to the rest of your post later.

I’ll be waiting

 

[Pier]

I cannot believe you took the bait like that! I’d added that almost as a joke – I really didn’t think you would swallow it! You, who eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood every weekend before coffee and donuts, shy away from others practicing eating the deceased as a religious mandate no less integral to their faith than your ritual cannibalism (in convenient bread and wine form, but to you no less flesh and blood for that) is to yours?

Eating the Flesh of the Son of God and drinking His Blood is quite different, as He Himself instructed us to do so, and He is not dead, but alive.

 

[Mirdath]

Eating the Flesh of the Son of God and drinking His Blood is quite different, as He Himself instructed us to do so, and He is not dead, but alive.

In this made-up religion, the instruction to eat the dead is implicit. And the deceased are alive with God. There’s no difference at all.