Should atheism be illegal?

[Pier]

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.

Alrighty then, if you attended the daily service of this made-up religion, and described exactly what you saw being consumed with your very own disbelieving eyes…

Then went to an abortion clinic, and described exactly what you saw being thrown away in the garbage, to be consumed in a landfill…

Do you think that what you had witnessed would emphasize and underline for you, the reality of what the Godlessness of disbelief has allowed?

 

[Mirdath]

Do you think that what you had witnessed would emphasize and underline for you, the reality of what the Godlessness of disbelief has allowed?

What’s that got to do with this?

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Mirdath:

Quote:
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?

The relationship between God and Christians is like that between a father and his children. A child is in no position to “judge” is father. He isn’t in a position to say whether his father’s business at the bank is good or bad, but he believes what his father teaches him, and believes in the goodness of his father, because he has a loving relationship with him. The child doesn’t need hard proof to make that judgment call. All he needs is the relationship. And he trusts the father on faith because the father has always provided for him and taken care of him, and has a very close, loving relationship with him.

It would be absurd for the child to criticize the father’s handling of his business of bank management. And he can only praise as far as he does understand, and that on the basis of the relationship.

In the same way, we rely on God principally because of our intimate relationships with him, and we trust him as children would their father, and we have lots of reasons for doing so- the good parent gives food to his children, talks and maybe plays with them, protects them, and gives them a great deal of reason all the time to believe that he loves them. Many of us experience all the same with God.

The experiential side of the relationship differs some in degrees, for different believers. Some experience God in astounding ways and some in more subtle ways, and some who aren’t real believers but say they are don’t experience him at all- or experience him and shut him out.

Anyway, you see what I mean? Children are not in a position to “judge” their parents. But they can trust them because of the loving relationships they have with them.

Mirdath:

Quote:
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.

If one’s own idea of God is pretty rotten, and one has no idea whether it’s true or not, it makes sense to prayerfully investigate more positive versions.

Mirdath:

Quote:
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?

Love?

Just look at the world you live in. Feel the wind, the warmth of the sun, the heat of the fire, the shade of the tree, the taste of bread, the feeling of water running down your throat, the power of your limbs and the glory of the shape you have! Look at the wonder of all the colors you are able to see. Thousands more are invisible, beyond visible light, but just the tiny number we can see is extravagantly beautiful. Our planet is beautiful and it nourishes us, the sun provides us with life, the moon has provided all the generations of humanity with light to shine in their evenings and hang like an orb in the sky, demonstrating beauty.

The negative things we experience don’t “counter-balance” all of the positive experiences we start out with, any more than a man shouting at his wife one day invalidates or disproves all the loving things he’s done for her on other days. The negative things we experience just need to be explained too. The positive experiences we have suggest intimate, loving care. The negative (hurricanes, earthquakes or plagues) suggest anger, which in turn suggests that there is something to be angry about. This, in turn, suggests wickedness, which is outside of the natural order, for anger is not natural. It always comes to exist for a reason, usually because it is provoked (though the provocation can itself be good, if the one provoked is bad or in the wrong).

Mirdath:

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!

Mirdath:

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.

Partaking of God is not the same as partaking of a normal human, even though both involve eating human flesh. I can think it’s a wonderful thing for you to have sex with your wife, enjoying her flesh as she enjoys yours, while still legitimately thinking it’s a bad thing for you to rape her, even though you’d be partaking of her flesh and she of yours either way.

Mirdath:

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.

There are good spirits and bad ones. The spirits these people are in contact with are probably teaching them things that are out of accord with Christian doctrine, so they are in all likelihood deceiving spirits, demons.

Mirdath:

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

No, because they’re not the ones doing anything wrong.

Mirdath:

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

Rather than discussing these individuals, I’ll make an overall, more important point.

According to Optatus of Milevus (367 AD), “In the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas ‘Rock’]—of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all.”

Cyprian of Carthage called Rome the “source and an intrinsic reason for [the Church’s] unity.” And again, the place “in which sacerdotal unity has its source.”

Irenaeus declared that, “With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition.”

And the Optatus of Milevus adds, “Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church.”

Unity and the life of Christianity flow from the Church in Rome, as Pope Innocent I put it (408 AD), “just as all waters proceed from their own natal source and, through the various regions of the whole world, remain pure liquids of an incorrupted head.”

Rome never corrupted its doctrine. Anyone who has deviated from it has been wrong. Priests have invented new doctrine from time to time- Martin Luther is a good example of that . As for bishops . . . I’d have to ask other Catholics here what they know about your claims on this and its reflection on apostolic succession. I don’t know enough on this point to give you an educated reply.

Mirdath:

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 was using an analogy to secular law, and then I demonstrated that this same concept exists in the way God enforces law in the scripture.

I agree that ignorance doesn’t eliminate culpability, but does reduce it. That’s because, as you point out, the law is also engraved on the human heart. People can become blinded to this law through various means. One cannot so easily err ignorantly before the Law of the Old Covenant or the New.

Mirdath:

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.

Or it is the completion of Judaism . I have actually looked into some of Judaism’s claims, particularly as relates to Christianity. I’ve also done some of that with Hinduism, and I’ve been through moral relativism, agnosticism and atheism hundreds of times with adherents. I know a good deal about Islam too, but I haven’t had a debate with a Muslim, so I can’t say I know enough. I’ve actually also read a book on Mormonism and heard a lecturer about it.

There are just so many of these religions or religious beliefs out there, and there’s usually so much further one can dig through each one, that if I haven’t gone over its supports for a long time, I don’t feel comfortable with saying I know enough about it. With atheism, agnosticism and moral relativism, I do feel comfortable with saying that, because I’ve been arguing with adherents for years and tend to know what they think. But with most religions, I know there’s a lot further I’d need to go.

But I’ll just add at this point that you may not want to say so freely that you think all religions are false, considering what you said above.

Mirdath:

Quote:
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’m asking you whether or not, assuming that I’m right that false religions damn souls, you’d agree that some kinds of restrictions or force against those spreading these religions seems appropriate. I’m not saying you have to agree that I’m right on this, but only if you were to assume I was right about this, does the response not follow? If the government has laws against hard drugs or murder, why shouldn’t it have laws against people spreading damnation?

I agree with you that first one needs to provide strong evidence that harm is being done. I wouldn’t use the word “proof,” as technically, nothing outside of mathematics can be proven, and mathematics itself relies on certain postulates. What is proof to one person is simply a great deal of evidence to another person, or really shabby evidence to another. No one can “know” anything. They can only believe for such and such reasons.

 

[Mirdath]

The relationship between God and Christians is like that between a father and his children. A child is in no position to “judge” is father.

(snip)

Anyway, you see what I mean? Children are not in a position to “judge” their parents. But they can trust them because of the loving relationships they have with them.

Although you are ‘as little children’ before God, first you have to decide to follow and be as a child. That’s a judgment, even though you may not think of it as such. Are you a convert? You weighed Catholicism against whatever other creed you subscribed to, and judged it better. Are you a cradle Catholic? You weighed Catholicism against the idea of leaving the Church, and judged it better to stay. This goes on every second of your life.

Your trust and hope in God comes after you have judged him trustworthy and caring.

The negative things we experience just need to be explained too. The positive experiences we have suggest intimate, loving care. The negative (hurricanes, earthquakes or plagues) suggest anger, which in turn suggests that there is something to be angry about. This, in turn, suggests wickedness, which is outside of the natural order, for anger is not natural. It always comes to exist for a reason, usually because it is provoked (though the provocation can itself be good, if the one provoked is bad or in the wrong).

Yet love, joy, and wonder also come to exist for a reason. To suggest that a thing is not ‘natural’ because it is a predicate of circumstances implies that everything that makes us human is ‘unnatural’ – no, more, it implies that the entire universe is ‘unnatural’ because it came to be, at least as far as your point of view is concerned.

Partaking of God is not the same as partaking of a normal human, even though both involve eating human flesh. I can think it’s a wonderful thing for you to have sex with your wife, enjoying her flesh as she enjoys yours, while still legitimately thinking it’s a bad thing for you to rape her, even though you’d be partaking of her flesh and she of yours either way.

And here’s where the hypostatic union comes back and bites you. You partake of God, but the wafer is the flesh of ‘true God and true Man’, if you’ll recall the Credo. It is wholly human as well as wholly divine.

The rape analogy doesn’t fly, as members of this religion would implicitly consent, or even desire, the consumption of their earthly remains. I drew that as an extension of gnosticism/Catharism – following it to a logical, if bizarre, conclusion, with a couple of nods to African and southeast Asian paganism, and Egyptian burial ritual. Except instead of preserving the corpse to rise in the afterlife (as in Egypt), the gnostic attitude of the world being evil would lead to a desire to escape it as completely as possible.

There are good spirits and bad ones. The spirits these people are in contact with are probably teaching them things that are out of accord with Christian doctrine, so they are in all likelihood deceiving spirits, demons.

Don’t be so quick to draw conclusions like that. As I said, the religion would regard these visitations primarily as a manifestation of God’s real, infinite Good. Nothing is even necessarily being taught – it’s just God saying ‘hey guys, haven’t forgotten about you’. I mentioned it being similar to charismatic Catholics speaking in tongues. Think of it like that, a gift of the Holy Spirit.

No, because they’re not the ones doing anything wrong.

But they are the ones saying ‘separate ourselves from the world’. Allow me to quote you again:

The scripture and Early Church Fathers did clearly call on Catholics to separate themselves from heretics and have nothing to do with them.

This calls for Catholic ghettos, not everybody-else ghettos. You guys want to have nothing to do with the worldly, you go right ahead and do it. You are the one doing the separating.

Rome never corrupted its doctrine. Anyone who has deviated from it has been wrong. Priests have invented new doctrine from time to time- Martin Luther is a good example of that . As for bishops . . . I’d have to ask other Catholics here what they know about your claims on this and its reflection on apostolic succession. I don’t know enough on this point to give you an educated reply.

I too may have a flawed understanding of this, but as far as I know even heretic or schismatic bishops can ordain priests and continue the line of succession. Hence why both the Catholic and Orthodox churches maintain apostolicity.

I agree that ignorance doesn’t eliminate culpability, but does reduce it. That’s because, as you point out, the law is also engraved on the human heart. People can become blinded to this law through various means. One cannot so easily err ignorantly before the Law of the Old Covenant or the New.

If they have knowledge of it, yes, but the law is the law.

Or it is the completion of Judaism

Tell that to a Jew

But I’ll just add at this point that you may not want to say so freely that you think all religions are false, considering what you said above.

Interesting and enlightening does not mean ‘correct’. I found Goethe’s Faust just as fascinating and enlightening as any scripture. It’s still, for my money, possibly the greatest work of fiction ever conceived.

I’m asking you whether or not, assuming that I’m right that false religions damn souls, you’d agree that some kinds of restrictions or force against those spreading these religions seems appropriate. I’m not saying you have to agree that I’m right on this, but only if you were to assume I was right about this, does the response not follow? If the government has laws against hard drugs or murder, why shouldn’t it have laws against people spreading damnation?

Assuming you’re right, I would say that the government should still keep its fingers out of that pie. For the record, I think (from considerable experience and observation) that America’s drug legislation is a monstrous abuse of governmental jurisdiction, the nation’s citizens, and our very Constitution, fueled by the privatization of our prison system and the lobbies of corporate pharmaceutical manufacturers. What one person does to him- or herself is no concern of a just government: it exists to serve the populace in general, and in general what a person chooses to ingest or believe has a negligible effect on society.

 

[BlaineTog]

Although you are ‘as little children’ before God, first you have to decide to follow and be as a child.

You are your father’s son whether you like it or not, no matter how you act. Lief was making an ontological claim, not a psychological one.

 

[Mirdath]

You are your father’s son whether you like it or not, no matter how you act. Lief was making an ontological claim, not a psychological one.

Religion is a choice; lineage is not. And how, pray, are you able to read Lief’s mind?

 

[cynic]

Lief Erikson :

do you actually believe that a larger percentage of the population in middle ages europe were ‘saved’ than now?

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Although you are ‘as little children’ before God, first you have to decide to follow and be as a child. That’s a judgment, even though you may not think of it as such. Are you a convert? You weighed Catholicism against whatever other creed you subscribed to, and judged it better. Are you a cradle Catholic? You weighed Catholicism against the idea of leaving the Church, and judged it better to stay. This goes on every second of your life.

Your trust and hope in God comes after you have judged him trustworthy and caring.

Usually the personal experience of God’s love creates hope and trust in God. That’s what it did for me, anyway, first when the Lord came to me as a Protestant and second when he came to me and drew me to Catholicism. Experience first, questions answered later.

It’s the same way with a mother and her child. The mother holds her baby and feeds him and clothes him, sings to him and talks to him even before he can understand, and he understands that his mother loves him, and he loves his mother and cries for her when they’re separated. His relationship is built first on experience, and then all his positive judgments about his mother come from those experiences.

You experience God’s trustworthiness and caring first, and then because you have that experience, you “judge,” or “believe” him to be that way. It’s God’s-action>Our-reaction, not Our-thinking>our-judgment. The thinking and judgment part come as part of our reaction to God’s action, a reaction that is both emotional and intellectual. It’s also faith-based and focused on what little we can understand of God, rather than trying to make judgments about parts of his character or deeds that are far beyond our present comprehension. A child would be an idiot to try to judge his father’s management of the local bank. The child relies on his parents in faith that they’ll take care of him, without proof, but with a lot of evidence that comes from their past relationship.

We need that kind of relationship with God. We need to experience him, then we’ll love him, and we’ll grasp what we can and when we’re older we’ll understand the reasons for his actions better.

Yet love, joy, and wonder also come to exist for a reason.

Agreed . And I think that God loves us because of the intrinsic value he created in us.

To suggest that a thing is not ‘natural’ because it is a predicate of circumstances implies that everything that makes us human is ‘unnatural’ – no, more, it implies that the entire universe is ‘unnatural’ because it came to be, at least as far as your point of view is concerned.

From my point of view, everything is both unnatural and natural. Everything, including God, is natural in the sense that it exists. Everything is unnatural in the sense that it has a mystical depth and meaning beyond our human understanding of the ordinary.

That shouldn’t seem too far fetched, really, to a world that only recently (compared to the sweep of history) became sure of the existence of subatomic particles.

And here’s where the hypostatic union comes back and bites you. You partake of God, but the wafer is the flesh of ‘true God and true Man’, if you’ll recall the Credo. It is wholly human as well as wholly divine.

I knew you were going to say that, but it doesn’t matter, because as I said in my earlier post, partaking of God is not the same as partaking of a normal human. I’d say that this is the one way to consume the flesh of another human that is virtuous rather than hideous.

Eating the flesh of any other human reduces the dignity of both the consumer and the consumed, by saying that man’s flesh is mere meat rather than an image of God. Or in the case of your home-made religion, all matter is evil and so the consumed flesh is evil too, which certainly degrades the intrinsic human dignity God fashioned in us. Some tribes of people have probably consumed human flesh as an act of worship to their gods, giving such food to the gods or eating it themselves to show the gods how much they’ll offer for them. These frenzied, barbarous acts cannot be related to the holy Eucharist, however, as they shatter the relationship between God and man by suggesting that it should be based on violence rather than on love, and again, these people unconsciously commit gross indecencies against the dignity of man through this perversion.

If we eat the human flesh of God himself, however, our humanity is united with his. We and God become fused together, made one. There is no higher glorification of human dignity than for him to be united with God. This also brings glory to God, for having the humility to allow mere humans to become so completely one with himself.

Also, I’d point out that the flesh of Christ we eat is living flesh, and within us it remains living flesh. Christ is constantly alive, no part of him ever able to die since his resurrection, so our eating is partaking of complete life, whereas human>human cannibalism either causes death of flesh or follows the death of flesh. It is bound to physical death even as it produces spiritual death, whereas the Eucharist is bound to physical life even as it produces spiritual life.

God’s godliness makes the Eucharist a glorifying union rather than the degrading separation at the heart of human>human cannibalism.

The rape analogy doesn’t fly, as members of this religion would implicitly consent, or even desire, the consumption of their earthly remains.

My point with the rape analogy was that there can be good ways of partaking of flesh and bad ways of doing it. Partaking of flesh in the Eucharist partakes of life and creates life, physically and spiritually. It is wholly life-giving, dignifying humanity and glorifying God for his grace. Cannibalism either consumes physical death or causes physical death, degrading humanity, the image of God, and thus insulting the one who made us.

Don’t be so quick to draw conclusions like that. As I said, the religion would regard these visitations primarily as a manifestation of God’s real, infinite Good.

Remember, it’s Catholicism the state would be supporting, so even if this other religion teaches that this is fine, that won’t make it so. But I wouldn’t be quick to jump to any conclusions on the matter. That’s why I said there’d be an investigation.

Nothing is even necessarily being taught – it’s just God saying ‘hey guys, haven’t forgotten about you’. I mentioned it being similar to charismatic Catholics speaking in tongues. Think of it like that, a gift of the Holy Spirit.

A spirit that causes this while it itself is not doctrinally orthodox would be seen as a demon, for no angel will lie when describing the life-giving doctrines of God. In fact, speaking in tongues is seen in Catholic teaching as a sign of either demonic or godly influence. If the spirit teaches lies and manifests itself through foreign tongues, it is a demon. If it teaches nothing, it still may well serve as an affirming sign for the truth of the belief system, and thus may be demonic. Or might be from God, affirming the elements of truth that exist in the religion to people who believe even worse things. As I said, we’d have to have an investigation.

But they are the ones saying ‘separate ourselves from the world’. Allow me to quote you again:

This calls for Catholic ghettos, not everybody-else ghettos. You guys want to have nothing to do with the worldly, you go right ahead and do it. You are the one doing the separating.

The references actually say that Christians aren’t to invite heretics into their homes or associate with them at all. These teachings were originally given in a generally non-Christian environment. It would have been nonsense for the teachers to say that all the non-Christians should be put in ghettos, as the non-Christian government would have heard it, laughed and then ground their heel even further into the Christians.

The point of the teaching was that separation should exist so that the Christian community would not be tainted and the heretical community not be supported or affirmed by orthodox believers. If the non-Christians are the majority, then the separation is going to mainly be Christians self-enclosing themselves. If the majority is Christian, then heretics will automatically find themselves isolated by the simple fact that most of the population doesn’t associate with them. But if the government is Christian, it might validly enforce separation for the spiritual protection of its Christian population.

I too may have a flawed understanding of this, but as far as I know even heretic or schismatic bishops can ordain priests and continue the line of succession. Hence why both the Catholic and Orthodox churches maintain apostolicity.

You’re probably right. I can’t discuss this matter with you, intelligently.

If they have knowledge of it, yes, but the law is the law.

The law is not going to be enforced so rigorously on people who are more ignorant, though. God is merciful as well as just.

Tell that to a Jew

I have, and we debated it a long time . That’s how I learned a number of their views about Christianity.

Interesting and enlightening does not mean ‘correct’. I found Goethe’s Faust just as fascinating and enlightening as any scripture. It’s still, for my money, possibly the greatest work of fiction ever conceived.

My point was that you don’t know anything about most of the thousands of religions that exist or have existed. So you can say your random guess is that all religions are false, but if you are reasonable, you cannot be even the tiniest degree sure.

Assuming you’re right, I would say that the government should still keep its fingers out of that pie. For the record, I think (from considerable experience and observation) that America’s drug legislation is a monstrous abuse of governmental jurisdiction, the nation’s citizens, and our very Constitution, fueled by the privatization of our prison system and the lobbies of corporate pharmaceutical manufacturers. What one person does to him- or herself is no concern of a just government: it exists to serve the populace in general, and in general what a person chooses to ingest or believe has a negligible effect on society.

Well, that’s why my biggest problem with false religion is with its evangelism.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Lief Erikson :

do you actually believe that a larger percentage of the population in middle ages europe were ‘saved’ than now?

Yes, I certainly do. I’d go further than that too and say I think they were also generally much happier than people today are, in spite of our technological and economic advances.

There are a lot of unfounded Enlightenment and Reformation spawned lies circulating in modern society about that era, which modern scholarship has been effectively invalidating. They still are broadly accepted in the population at large, though, unfortunately.

 

[Mirdath]

From my point of view, everything is both unnatural and natural. Everything, including God, is natural in the sense that it exists. Everything is unnatural in the sense that it has a mystical depth and meaning beyond our human understanding of the ordinary.

A = !A ?!?! I’m willing to suspend logic in discussions of the supernatural, as I hold that divinity is outside the scope of reason, but in discussions of reality, A is A and not simultaneously its opposite.

Eating the flesh of any other human reduces the dignity of both the consumer and the consumed, by saying that man’s flesh is mere meat rather than an image of God. Or in the case of your home-made religion, all matter is evil and so the consumed flesh is evil too, which certainly degrades the intrinsic human dignity God fashioned in us.

Yes, the flesh is evil, and so it is better to be rid of it, no? Let us say the ritual is conducted with the utmost dignity and respect for the person, assuming that he or she is now in better hands and consuming the flesh so as to remove all earthly/evil traces of it, as well as participating in the apotheosis of the deceased. As the deceased is hoped to be among the Elect, it is eating the flesh of a living, translated angel or godling, not that of a mere evil human. A communion with the divine, just as much as your Eucharist. And it involves no violence, not even the blood sacrifice your religion commemorates.

Also, I’d point out that the flesh of Christ we eat is living flesh, and within us it remains living flesh. Christ is constantly alive, no part of him ever able to die since his resurrection, so our eating is partaking of complete life, whereas human>human cannibalism either causes death of flesh or follows the death of flesh. It is bound to physical death even as it produces spiritual death, whereas the Eucharist is bound to physical life even as it produces spiritual life.

Same in Shacathormodoun. The deceased is alive in God and as God. It is bound not to a physical death, but to a resurrection in spirit.

If the majority is Christian, then heretics will automatically find themselves isolated by the simple fact that most of the population doesn’t associate with them.

Then what happens to the spiritual works of mercy, to instructing the ignorant, counseling the doubtful, admonishing the sinner? Will no one perform them? How would the Christians be able to save souls if they do not eat and drink with them? In your zeal to keep Christianity ‘pure’, would you let it stagnate? You fisher of men, will you hang up your net, or will you do as your God commands?

The law is not going to be enforced so rigorously on people who are more ignorant, though. God is merciful as well as just.

Short shrift for mercy, so far as the Old Testament tells. But that’s a bit beside the point (and I rarely get a chance to use the word ‘shrift’ ). Are you familiar with the Noahide Laws? Although most of them are fair enough, there’re still a couple that basically disqualify anyone else, if one views them from a conservative (not political or religious, just ‘minimalist’, let’s say) standpoint.

On the off-chance you’re correct, I’d hope to be graded on effort, but I’m not exactly expecting much in the way of mercy.

I have, and we debated it a long time . That’s how I learned a number of their views about Christianity.

Excellent start! How much did you learn about how they see themselves? That’s actually more important when considering the relationship between religions.

And don’t just stop there, find a few scriptures that look like interesting reads and go through them. The Zend Avesta is fascinating; Zoroastrianism is a very interesting and ancient religion, predating Judaism even. It’s still practiced, but their numbers are few; their attitude towards converts is even less open than Judaism’s. It’s got a good deal in common with the Abrahamic religions, although it’s very distinct in its own right. From a removed (I don’t want to say ‘secular’ because it’s not quite right) standpoint, one can see its influence in the development of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

My point was that you don’t know anything about most of the thousands of religions that exist or have existed. So you can say your random guess is that all religions are false, but if you are reasonable, you cannot be even the tiniest degree sure.

They all say pretty much the same thing: there is a reality beyond this one. I see no evidence for that super-reality, so I consider the likelihood of any religion’s being correct rather minuscule.

 

[BlaineTog]

Religion is a choice; lineage is not. And how, pray, are you able to read Lief’s mind?

My apologies, I misread Lief’s quotation. Christians are God’s children, but so is the rest of humanity.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

A = !A ?!?! I’m willing to suspend logic in discussions of the supernatural, as I hold that divinity is outside the scope of reason, but in discussions of reality, A is A and not simultaneously its opposite.

Show me how what I said was illogical. God, spirit and matter are natural in the sense that they exist. In fact, God could be said to be the most natural thing of all, as he has always existed, whereas humans have a linear point of origin. So everything is natural in that sense.

However, nothing is “ordinary,” so nothing is natural in the sense that everything that exists has deeper layers of spiritual, symbolic and material depth than we are currently capable of perceiving.

These two views are not contradictory. Please show me how they are.

Yes, the flesh is evil, and so it is better to be rid of it, no? Let us say the ritual is conducted with the utmost dignity and respect for the person, assuming that he or she is now in better hands and consuming the flesh so as to remove all earthly/evil traces of it, as well as participating in the apotheosis of the deceased.

According to the religion itself, its behavior might not degrade the dead, but in reality it does. Therefore, for the reasons I pointed out, this behavior would be banned.

As the deceased is hoped to be among the Elect, it is eating the flesh of a living, translated angel or godling, not that of a mere evil human. A communion with the divine, just as much as your Eucharist.

On the contrary, yours suggests that people eat dead flesh, not living flesh, thus making them participants in death rather than life. Also, they are eating what is evil rather than what is sacred. Again, a marked contrast.

And it involves no violence, not even the blood sacrifice your religion commemorates.

Eating dead human flesh is committing violence to the corpse. Eating the living flesh of Christ is immersing oneself in the healing of the Passion. It brings unity through ending the separation of sin and joining a soul, spirit and body with God.

Same in Shacathormodoun. The deceased is alive in God and as God. It is bound not to a physical death, but to a resurrection in spirit.

Yet those who are eating it are participants in physical death by eating of the corpse, and are committing a gross indecency against the glory of the human body. This would be a very sick, grievous sin.

Here’s what catholic.com has to say about this issue:
“It would have been cannibalism if a disciple two thousand years ago had tried literally to eat Jesus by sinking his teeth into his arm. Now that our Lord is in heaven with a glorified body and made present under the appearance of bread in the Eucharist, cannibalism is not possible.”

In other words, the fact that his body is glorified and transformed causes it to not be the sort that can be cannibalized. It is real flesh and blood, but it is glorified and the nature of its transformation, whatever this might be, eliminates the possibility that it is cannibalized at Eucharist. The nature of the glory of this body also is what makes the human experience of eating God in the Eucharist possible.

Then what happens to the spiritual works of mercy, to instructing the ignorant, counseling the doubtful, admonishing the sinner? Will no one perform them? How would the Christians be able to save souls if they do not eat and drink with them? In your zeal to keep Christianity ‘pure’, would you let it stagnate? You fisher of men, will you hang up your net, or will you do as your God commands?

Christians called to evangelism can still evangelize nonbelievers or heretics. A lot of Christians aren’t all that knowledgeable, though, and many also are weak. These kinds of people could be and are severely harmed by the free proliferation of false beliefs. I believe Jesus once said, “I saw these people wandering like sheep without a shepherd.”

But evangelists can certainly meet with them, challenging the devil and attacking his territory through their love and compassion for unbelievers. And they should feel free to give charity to non-Christians as much as to Christians. People who feel called to carry the gospel to non-Christians or to initiate for them acts of charity, or who wish to engage in loving relationships with them, should be allowed to do so if they are prepared for the lies they might encounter and are mature in their faith. The Church can decide who is so prepared and who is not. And I understand that the government also would have rights to have its followers interact in those communities according to its will, though hopefully it would pay attention to what the Church says on the subject.

Short shrift for mercy, so far as the Old Testament tells.

God’s mercy is the entire subject of the Book of Jonah. Are you aware of the atrocities the Assyrians committed? Look at how God deals with them in the Book of Jonah. The Book of Jonah is purposefully written with the primary purpose of revealing God’s mercy.

God’s love and compassion for his people are clearly evident in most of the Books of the Prophets. He mourns for Israel as much as he smites them.

However, I agree with you that God’s justice seems a primary theme in the Old Testament, which is why people can get the false impression of a cruel deity there. In my experience, non-Christians reading the Old Testament usually ignore the numerous passages revealing God’s mercy that exist in the Old Testament, and center their focus instead on every act of justice that doesn’t correspond with their own sense of justice. Then they judge the God of the Old Testament on those acts alone, ignoring all the rest of his character as revealed in those books, and usually not looking very hard to find out if there’s a good answer to their objections.

That’s what I’ve seen in all the non-Christians I’ve talked with on this subject.

But that’s a bit beside the point (and I rarely get a chance to use the word ‘shrift’ ). Are you familiar with the Noahide Laws? Although most of them are fair enough, there’re still a couple that basically disqualify anyone else, if one views them from a conservative (not political or religious, just ‘minimalist’, let’s say) standpoint.

Looks them up. They look pretty good to me.

On the off-chance you’re correct, I’d hope to be graded on effort, but I’m not exactly expecting much in the way of mercy.

A key blessing of the New Covenant is that you don’t need to be “graded on effort.” All the other major religions require that man work his way up toward God. Christianity alone, of all the major religions, teaches that God came to us, and that he comes to each person individually to bring them to his heavenly kingdom because he wants us to be with him for eternity. Simply pray, sincerely, that he will reveal himself to you. For he promises that those who seek find and to those who knock, the door will be opened. If you can’t pray that sincerely, though, then please pray that God will make you able to pray it sincerely. You don’t have to work your way up to Him. Just pray that he’ll come to you, and that he will cause you to become wholly open to receive him. Then sit back and be amazed at the way God intervenes in your life.

If you want, I’ll pray for you too.

You don’t have to be graded on effort. Human effort is full of human weakness and marred by human failings. I’m sure that God appreciates your effort, but just relax and open yourself to him to come to you.

And since you have doubts about the God of the Old Testament, I’d recommend that you read the Old Testament Book of Jonah. The Assyrians weren’t only worshipping idols- they were torturing people and ripping them limb from limb, butchering the nations around them whether they yielded or not. The Assyrians were like the Nazis of their time, or worse, so Jonah the Prophet was very logically terrified to go near them.

How much of the Old Testament have you read, by the way?

Don’t make the mistake of taking a few Bible passages from the Old Testament and reading the God of Christianity only through those verses. He is one God, and all of his actions in the scripture are part of his character.

Excellent start! How much did you learn about how they see themselves? That’s actually more important when considering the relationship between religions.

Some. Like how self-inclusive they are. Obviously there’s a whole lot to learn that I don’t yet know.

And don’t just stop there, find a few scriptures that look like interesting reads and go through them. The Zend Avesta is fascinating; Zoroastrianism is a very interesting and ancient religion, predating Judaism even. It’s still practiced, but their numbers are few; their attitude towards converts is even less open than Judaism’s. It’s got a good deal in common with the Abrahamic religions, although it’s very distinct in its own right. From a removed (I don’t want to say ‘secular’ because it’s not quite right) standpoint, one can see its influence in the development of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

Hmm. Interesting.

They all say pretty much the same thing: there is a reality beyond this one.

That is a gross over-simplification.

I see no evidence for that super-reality, so I consider the likelihood of any religion’s being correct rather minuscule.

I’d love to get into some of the evidence with you. I think I’ll open another thread soon, for us to discuss this. Perhaps some other Christians or non-Christians can get contribute in that discussion too.

 

[Mirdath]

Show me how what I said was illogical. God, spirit and matter are natural in the sense that they exist. In fact, God could be said to be the most natural thing of all, as he has always existed, whereas humans have a linear point of origin. So everything is natural in that sense.

You said that things are both natural and unnatural. This is the most basic logical fallacy one can commit, to say that a particular idea A is equivalent to its opposite. Come on, you guys have a thing for Aristotle, this is lesson #1.

On the contrary, yours suggests that people eat dead flesh, not living flesh, thus making them participants in death rather than life. Also, they are eating what is evil rather than what is sacred. Again, a marked contrast.

Ah, but it only appears to be dead flesh – that is, it has the accidents of dead meat. Its substance has been transubstantiated into the living body of an angel, and therefore it is no more cannibalism than the Eucharist is.

Yet those who are eating it are participants in physical death by eating of the corpse, and are committing a gross indecency against the glory of the human body. This would be a very sick, grievous sin.

But the human body has no glory of its own, according to this religion. This ritual cannibalism is a participation in the divine mystery, much as your less-messy ritual cannibalism is the same. Once again, show me the canon that forbids this.

Christians called to evangelism can still evangelize nonbelievers or heretics. A lot of Christians aren’t all that knowledgeable, though, and many also are weak. These kinds of people could be and are severely harmed by the free proliferation of false beliefs. I believe Jesus once said, “I saw these people wandering like sheep without a shepherd.”

Then why ban what you hold to be false religions, instead of allowing people their ‘God-given’ freedom to choose and taking the opportunity to evangelize? By constraining choice, you only make those ‘falsehoods’ stronger; by allowing open dialogue, you allow for a possible Truth to emerge and be accepted by all.

If God did not want humans to have the freedom to worship him ‘correctly’, ‘incorrectly’, or not at all, he wouldn’t have put the damn apple tree in the garden.

God’s mercy is the entire subject of the Book of Jonah. Are you aware of the atrocities the Assyrians committed? Look at how God deals with them in the Book of Jonah. The Book of Jonah is purposefully written with the primary purpose of revealing God’s mercy.

I’m quite aware of the cruelties of most empires in that period (the Assyrian empire was pretty much par for the course), and of Jonah’s misery waiting for his popcorn to cook under the gourd outside Nineveh. I’m also quite aware of how God is supposed to have dealt with that empire in a different time – ‘The Assyrian came down like the wolf on the fold, and his cohorts were gleaming in purple and gold’ and all that. Sennacherib met with a rather different treatment.

God’s love and compassion for his people are clearly evident in most of the Books of the Prophets. He mourns for Israel as much as he smites them.

‘Baby, I love you, why do you make me hit you so much?’ is the vibe I get from that whole thing. It’s one of many arguments for the non-omnibenevolence of the God of Abraham.

However, I agree with you that God’s justice seems a primary theme in the Old Testament, which is why people can get the false impression of a cruel deity there. In my experience, non-Christians reading the Old Testament usually ignore the numerous passages revealing God’s mercy that exist in the Old Testament, and center their focus instead on every act of justice that doesn’t correspond with their own sense of justice. Then they judge the God of the Old Testament on those acts alone, ignoring all the rest of his character as revealed in those books, and usually not looking very hard to find out if there’s a good answer to their objections.

You underrate us. We can read of his mercy (Rahab), his justice (Joseph in Egypt), and his cruelty (everyone in Jericho except Rahab). He has his moments, I’ll give him that, and I have never said anything but. However, he is not Good. He is human, but on a vast scale: he is glad, he is wroth, he is jealous, he is joyful, he is often apparently bored. He is distinctly not what I think of as divine.

Looks them up. They look pretty good to me.

How do you propose someone who never heard of the ‘One God’ and hence is, say, an animist, but lives a virtuous life, would be shown that God’s mercy?

A key blessing of the New Covenant is that you don’t need to be “graded on effort.” All the other major religions require that man work his way up toward God. Christianity alone, of all the major religions, teaches that God came to us, and that he comes to each person individually to bring them to his heavenly kingdom because he wants us to be with him for eternity.

Are you familiar with the idea of ‘invincible ignorance’?

Simply pray, sincerely, that he will reveal himself to you. For he promises that those who seek find and to those who knock, the door will be opened. If you can’t pray that sincerely, though, then please pray that God will make you able to pray it sincerely. You don’t have to work your way up to Him. Just pray that he’ll come to you, and that he will cause you to become wholly open to receive him. Then sit back and be amazed at the way God intervenes in your life.

I’ve tried that. I’m not agnostic by choice; I’m agnostic because it is the only position I find reasonable. I was raised Catholic, and pretty hardcore Catholic at that. I have never felt God in my life, ever, and finally came to the conclusion that I don’t really need what I never had and never seemed able to have.

If you want, I’ll pray for you too.

Hey, I take what I can get! And you’ll be in my heathenish thoughts as well, for whatever that’s worth.

How much of the Old Testament have you read, by the way?

All of it, multiple times. I don’t think my parents were too keen on my reading Song of Songs at age ten… although I must admit it’s served me well since!

That is a gross over-simplification.

It’s not an oversimplification, it’s the one thing all religions have in common: that there is more to ‘reality’ than what we perceive – not just that, but a spiritual super-reality. And that is Problem #1 from a skeptic’s point of view.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

You said that things are both natural and unnatural. This is the most basic logical fallacy one can commit, to say that a particular idea A is equivalent to its opposite. Come on, you guys have a thing for Aristotle, this is lesson #1.

As I’ve said twice already, I’m using the word “natural” in two different ways. It’s not a logical fallacy to say that A1 is natural and A2 is unnatural. It’s only a logical fallacy if I’m saying A1 is both natural and unnatural.

The universe is all natural in one sense and all unnatural in another sense. I’m not saying it’s all natural and unnatural in the same sense. If I did, that would be a fallacy. But I’m not, so there is no inconsistency.

Ah, but it only appears to be dead flesh – that is, it has the accidents of dead meat. Its substance has been transubstantiated into the living body of an angel, and therefore it is no more cannibalism than the Eucharist is.

It doesn’t matter that this is what they believe. It has no relationship with Christian theology and is in fact based upon beliefs that are lies, as they conflict with Catholic teachings about the nature of the human body. It is probably demonic, certainly sick, and it is banned.

But the human body has no glory of its own, according to this religion. This ritual cannibalism is a participation in the divine mystery, much as your less-messy ritual cannibalism is the same. Once again, show me the canon that forbids this.

The opinion of this religion that the human body has no glory is completely contrary to the teaching of the Christian faith that we are made in the image of God. Its cannibalistic practice therefore doesn’t have a legitimate place in society and so is banned.

I don’t have a list of all the canon laws, so I can’t find you specifics. Surfing the Internet, though, it’s easy to find sources showing that the Church condemns cannibalism.

Then why ban what you hold to be false religions, instead of allowing people their ‘God-given’ freedom to choose and taking the opportunity to evangelize? By constraining choice, you only make those ‘falsehoods’ stronger; by allowing open dialogue, you allow for a possible Truth to emerge and be accepted by all.

Force has, historically, repeatedly led to the successful suppression of heresies. Donatists, Arians and Cathars were all successfully suppressed. They ceased to exist because they were not from God. On the other hand, the Church, when persecuted, has historically flourished under strife because it holds to the truth.

God didn’t give people any “right” to choose evil. He gave them that ability so that their good choices would have value, but when they chose evil he punished them. We would have missionaries to these people spreading God’s truth amongst them, however. The activities of missionaries in the communities of nonbelievers wouldn’t be hindered, and these trained believers could give charity and be the presence of Christ for unbelievers.

If God did not want humans to have the freedom to worship him ‘correctly’, ‘incorrectly’, or not at all, he wouldn’t have put the damn apple tree in the garden.

If he thought they should be free to “worship him incorrectly,” as you put it, he wouldn’t have punished them after they ate of the fruit from that tree. He gave them the ability to choose, but he never gave them any “right” to choose. They were rightfully condemned for making an evil choice.

The tree was a physical manifestation of the ability of a person to choose evil. It was the option of selecting evil made visible, “the knowledge of good and evil.” If God had refrained from putting that tree in the garden, he would have been refraining from giving them free will to choose evil. It was only a physical manifestation of an inner choice.

Adam and Eve chose themselves above God. The tree is the outward sign of their decision, spiritual realities in their souls made visible in the physical realities around them because the material and supernatural worlds were so intimately tied together when humanity was in so pure a state.

I’m quite aware of the cruelties of most empires in that period (the Assyrian empire was pretty much par for the course), and of Jonah’s misery waiting for his popcorn to cook under the gourd outside Nineveh. I’m also quite aware of how God is supposed to have dealt with that empire in a different time – ‘The Assyrian came down like the wolf on the fold, and his cohorts were gleaming in purple and gold’ and all that. Sennacherib met with a rather different treatment.

Different times, situations and people often call for different responses.

‘Baby, I love you, why do you make me hit you so much?’ is the vibe I get from that whole thing. It’s one of many arguments for the non-omnibenevolence of the God of Abraham.

Completely unfair analogy. A guy and his girlfriend share a very equal relationship. God and humanity do not. A more fitting analogy in this circumstance is the father/child analogy, with the father spanking the child occasionally when the child deserves it but doesn’t think he does.

You underrate us. We can read of his mercy (Rahab), his justice (Joseph in Egypt), and his cruelty (everyone in Jericho except Rahab). He has his moments, I’ll give him that, and I have never said anything but. However, he is not Good. He is human, but on a vast scale: he is glad, he is wroth, he is jealous, he is joyful,

Rather than saying he is like us, I’d say we have similarities to him because we are made in his image. I agree that there are similarities, yet God is so high above us too . . . As he said in Isaiah, “as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my thoughts than your thoughts and my ways than your ways.”

he is often apparently bored.

Eh?

How do you propose someone who never heard of the ‘One God’ and hence is, say, an animist, but lives a virtuous life, would be shown that God’s mercy?

Invincible ignorance. It wouldn’t necessarily prevent idolatry from leading some of them to hell, but it would probably mitigate against the sins of a good number of them.

Are you familiar with the idea of ‘invincible ignorance’?

Yes, and people who are ignorant of much of God’s will but follow him to the extent that he reveals himself to them are going to be saved by this means.

I’ve tried that. I’m not agnostic by choice; I’m agnostic because it is the only position I find reasonable. I was raised Catholic, and pretty hardcore Catholic at that. I have never felt God in my life, ever, and finally came to the conclusion that I don’t really need what I never had and never seemed able to have.

I certainly sympathize with your struggle. I grew up in the Protestant faith because my family was Protestant, and I didn’t know much at all about what I believe. But then, when I was fifteen I realized that I needed a personal experience of God, something aside from my parents’ experiences so that I could know for myself that God was real and my religion wasn’t fake. I prayed for six months that God would give me this, and I hungered desperately for God all that time, always asking and yearning and never hearing an answer. Finally, at the end of that time, God came to me and he answered.

I don’t know why it can take so horribly long for some people to receive that, when they are searching. My feeling is that the Lord took me down that path partly so that I could come to rejoice in the experience of him all the more, at the end of it, and stick to him all the more steadfastly.

I don’t know all of what you’ve tried in your own search, but I would just ask, have you been to Confession in a while? When I went to Confession for the first time a month or two ago, it was an amazing spiritual experience, and it has been for many people. Even if you only were to confess things that you yourself believe to have been wrong, rather than including things that Catholics would believe are wrong but you as an agnostic don’t believe to have been wrong, this might help.

I wish I knew you better.

Hey, I take what I can get! And you’ll be in my heathenish thoughts as well, for whatever that’s worth.

Thanks .

All of it, multiple times. I don’t think my parents were too keen on my reading Song of Songs at age ten… although I must admit it’s served me well since!

Heh.

It’s not an oversimplification, it’s the one thing all religions have in common: that there is more to ‘reality’ than what we perceive – not just that, but a spiritual super-reality. And that is Problem #1 from a skeptic’s point of view.

Well, I agree with you that that’s the one thing all the religions have in common. What I meant is that it’s an oversimplification to say they’re all the same because of that single parallel. Unitarians sometimes say that, but it seems I was misinterpreting your words. You weren’t making a Unitarian comment. What you’re actually saying is that this single commonality is something you disagree with, and therefore you can logically discard all of them.

Why is the existence of a spiritual reality a problem to you? The reported experiences of it, including miracles and many impressive signs, are reported cross-culture worldwide. Science is uncovering new, unseen particles or aspects of the universe constantly, and acknowledges that there are many deep truths of the universe that will never be uncovered by our limited technological scope. Science only relatively recently discovered the existence of thousands of different forms of light beyond the “visible light” that we can see. That an extremely high spiritual reality, invisible to the naked eye, should be tied in with all the other mysteries of the universe is not so peculiar an idea, in view of the astounding mysteries science is in the process of unveiling.

Or is your objection that this is unprovable?

 

[Tracyms1974]

I voted no, but the only reason I voted no is because there is no guarantee that being atheist in and of itself will cause immediate or even potential harm to other people. Atheists don’t necessarily make a point to go around assaulting people or robbing banks, even though in NOT doing those things they are, without admitting it, in full compliance with the Ten Commandments. (Crazy, huh? All the effort - none of the (eternal) benefits.) However, I think I would be in favor of making some of these other religions like Satanism and these crazy polygamist cults illegal because hurting people is part of the deal. White/Racial Supremacy groups would fall under this “hurt people” umbrella, too. I have heard that in order to join the Satanic cult (they don’t deserve the title of “church!”) you must break all the Ten Commandments as sort of an “initiation.” Polygamist cults are notorious for extreme child abuse and Supremacy groups have been known to get out of hand with their hate crimes - often times lethal. So, I think the government/law enforcement should have A LOT more leverage in being able to at least monitor these groups for wrongdoing or just somehow make them illegal. Just about all other religions of the world favor peace and respect for your fellow man. Wait, I forgot the extremist Muslims - they need to be watched too.

Tracy

 

[cynic]

God didn’t give people any “right” to choose evil. He gave them that ability so that their good choices would have value, but when they chose evil he punished them.

And if he punishes them here and now (or wishes a government to do it for him) then that effects their ability to choose evil (with regards to their own mind or body), interfering with free will.

In other words people are detered from evil not out of recognition of good, or respect for a God, but out of fear of being punished.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

And if he punishes them here and now (or wishes a government to do it for him) then that effects their ability to choose evil (with regards to their own mind or body), interfering with free will.

It doesn’t interfere at all with their ability. No one, even under torture, can be forced to do anything without making a free will choice to do that thing. It might be a heavily pressured choice, but the final choice nonetheless belongs to them. That is Catholic doctrine, and that is what every human experiences in life.

People all have the ability to make free will decisions and no laws or earthly events can remove that from them. God meant for everyone to have the ability to do or think either good or evil, because that gives value to our good actions. However, he never gave anyone a right to do or think evil, and ability to do something neither requires nor creates a right to do or get away with that thing. Ability and right are very different issues.

In other words people are detered from evil not out of recognition of good, or respect for a God, but out of fear of being punished.

Well, fear of being punished is at least a start. Better to refrain from raping someone out of fear of punishment than to rape someone because you have no fear of punishment.

Fear of punishment can greatly reduce the number of people participating in crimes. When that number is reduced, the culture itself can come to more effectively reject those crimes as evil. Because if there are less people around you committing those crimes, you feel less social pressure to be accepting of those evil deeds. Then, when that more wholesome culture is promoted, people will be deterred from evil more frequently out of recognition of the good and respect for God.

Fear of punishment, when applied to evil, can support recognition of the good and respect for God. These things are mutually supporting and it serves no good purpose to separate them.

 

[Exalt]

Wow, this thread is still kicking. Interesting. Thanks for all the discussion.

As a side note, I am an atheist and the fact that just a hair under 10% of respondents would make my beliefs illegal scares me. I suppose there is more work to be done.

 

[Mirdath]

Apologies for the delay – yesterday left me in no shape for this

The universe is all natural in one sense and all unnatural in another sense. I’m not saying it’s all natural and unnatural in the same sense. If I did, that would be a fallacy. But I’m not, so there is no inconsistency.

Alright then, I see what you’re getting at; you may want to be a bit more careful about word choice though Say, ‘natural and not self-subsisting’.

It doesn’t matter that this is what they believe. It has no relationship with Christian theology and is in fact based upon beliefs that are lies, as they conflict with Catholic teachings about the nature of the human body. It is probably demonic, certainly sick, and it is banned.

From a Catholic theological standpoint, I must of course grant that you are correct (and given the likelihood of kuru, ‘sick’ is pretty accurate however you look). However, you’re not thinking like a good politician or monarch at all. Repression makes religions thrive – just look at what it did for Christianity!

A theologian has only the abstract to work with: it’s a lot clearer. You, even as the Autocrat, have to deal with people. You are never going to exterminate this religion once it has taken root, so which would you rather have: a reasonably happy and prosperous state that, being earthly, is imperfect but realizes that all earthly states are but pale shadows of the kingdom to come; or a totalitarian dystopia that still doesn’t achieve its goals?

It comes down to a question I asked earlier but got no answer for – and although I phrased it lightly, I am seriously asking. Francisco Franco: great dictator or greatest dictator? Feel free to give me a completely different answer than the false dichotomy provided; in fact, I hope you do.

Force has, historically, repeatedly led to the successful suppression of heresies. Donatists, Arians and Cathars were all successfully suppressed. They ceased to exist because they were not from God. On the other hand, the Church, when persecuted, has historically flourished under strife because it holds to the truth.

Donatism I don’t know about, but I think you can still find some Arians if you look hard enough and there are definitely still a few Cathars – although one must certainly note the Dominicans’ sheer brutal speed in putting them in their place back in the Albigensian Crusade.

Like the old joke: what’s the same about the Dominicans and the Jesuits? Both established to combat heresy, Catharism and Protestantism respectively. What’s different? Meet a Cathar lately? It’s funny, but bitterly so.

God didn’t give people any “right” to choose evil.

Then wherefore ‘free will’? If we have not the right, God erred in giving us the ability. And yes, according to your scripture, we took the right and used it to render ourselves unworthy – but you must remember that as created beings, we are supposedly only as worthy as God allows in the first place. He made us, gave one rule, and gave us the choice and the ability to blow it.

You would have it that God’s love requires us to return it in full. There’s a word for that kind of ‘love’: rape.

Different times, situations and people often call for different responses.

Are you espousing… dare I say it… a situational morality?

Okay, that’s not quite fair, given city of jerks vs. invading army, but – why was it a moral imperative to commit genocide against a city minding its own business in the book of Joshua, yet now to do the same would be considered a great sin?

Completely unfair analogy. A guy and his girlfriend share a very equal relationship.

Not always, particularly in abusive relationships, which are practically defined by a gross inequality.

Rather than saying he is like us, I’d say we have similarities to him because we are made in his image.

Or, perhaps, did humans take the idea of the divine and make it easier to relate to by ascribing very, very human characteristics to it?

Eh?

‘Hm, what will I do this week, and so much nothing… oh, I know! Create a universe!’ ‘Mm, my prosecuting angel bets me he can turn my servant Job against me… ehh, sure, whatever.’

It’s supposed to be funny

Invincible ignorance. It wouldn’t necessarily prevent idolatry from leading some of them to hell, but it would probably mitigate against the sins of a good number of them.

But the Noahide Laws do not, as they are written, contain a provision for invincible ignorance. How fair is that?

Finally, at the end of that time, God came to me and he answered.

Well, for that you have my sincere congratulations, my hope that you will do well by your beliefs, and maybe occasionally a funny look now and then But seriously, I am glad you have found peace.

I don’t know all of what you’ve tried in your own search, but I would just ask, have you been to Confession in a while? When I went to Confession for the first time a month or two ago, it was an amazing spiritual experience, and it has been for many people. Even if you only were to confess things that you yourself believe to have been wrong, rather than including things that Catholics would believe are wrong but you as an agnostic don’t believe to have been wrong, this might help.

I am an apostate, I think I’m excommunicate latae sententiae, I do not consider myself Catholic in any way, shape, or form, and in any case I do not believe the Sacraments are a way of ‘reaching’ any God that may exist. For those four reasons, especially the last two, I would not presume to profane your faith. It would be highly disrespectful.

I do, however, attend Mass with family when they visit me, sit, stand, kneel, and all that, but do not go up the Communion line. I did get my throat blessed on St Blaise’s feastday though.

I wish I knew you better.

I’m here for the forseeable future, Mod willing

What you’re actually saying is that this single commonality is something you disagree with, and therefore you can logically discard all of them.

Not quite so much ‘disagree’ as ‘fail to see the evidence for’, but other than that, you’re dead on.

Why is the existence of a spiritual reality a problem to you? The reported experiences of it, including miracles and many impressive signs, are reported cross-culture worldwide.

How am I to tell whether these miracles and signs are of natural (even if not yet explainable) origin, of supernatural origin, or just plain made up? Really, the universality of supposed miracles is much more a problem for the believer who says ‘this is the only right way’ than it is for the skeptic. How do you regard the milk miracle reported worldwide by Hindus in the 90s?

Science is uncovering new, unseen particles or aspects of the universe constantly, and acknowledges that there are many deep truths of the universe that will never be uncovered by our limited technological scope.

Yet our scope is continuously expanding. The sky’s the limit, we just haven’t reached it yet. Eventually, I think it will be possible to scientifically explain all natural occurrences. Whether there is more to reality than that is not a question for science.

Science only relatively recently discovered the existence of thousands of different forms of light beyond the “visible light” that we can see.

Bit of a long ‘relatively’ there!

That an extremely high spiritual reality, invisible to the naked eye, should be tied in with all the other mysteries of the universe is not so peculiar an idea, in view of the astounding mysteries science is in the process of unveiling.

Conflict of scope: those astounding mysteries are still natural phenomena, no matter how wondrous and beautiful. The supernatural is something science cannot answer to. Or is God a particle?

Or is your objection that this is unprovable?

Unprovable by observation and by reason. I do admit that direct revelation may be an excellent reason to believe for the recipient; however, that’s about the extent of it.

 

[cynic]

It doesn’t interfere at all with their ability. No one, even under torture, can be forced to do anything without making a free will choice to do that thing. It might be a heavily pressured choice, but the final choice nonetheless belongs to them. That is Catholic doctrine, and that is what every human experiences in life.
.

Then you’ll apply the same logic to people being ‘influenced’ by atheism?

People all have the ability to make free will decisions and no laws or earthly events can remove that from them. God meant for everyone to have the ability to do or think either good or evil, because that gives value to our good actions. However, he never gave anyone a right to do or think evil, and ability to do something neither requires nor creates a right to do or get away with that thing. Ability and right are very different issues.
.

First of all the kind of society you want would take away the ability to do certain things. What makes you think he doesn’t give the right to an individual to do or think evil - and suffer the consequences.

Well, fear of being punished is at least a start. Better to refrain from raping someone out of fear of punishment than to rape someone because you have no fear of punishment.
.

Why muddy the waters with things like rape or murder. We are talking here about peoples freedom with regards to their own bodies, their own minds.