The immaculate misconception

[MindOverMatter2]

Well, here is a typical line of “reasoning”:

Atheist: What would you do if God commanded you to rape and murder? Would you follow his command?
Theist: But God never would do such horrific things! God is pure love!
Atheist: Read your Bible. God did preciesly that and more. God ordered Abraham to sacrifice Isaac and stopped the process in the last minute. God ordered the Israelis to kill all the men, women and boys and keep the virgins for themsleves. God personally killed all the humans and all the animals. Is that a sign of love?
Theist: You are not qualified to interpret the Bible. You are not supposed to take every line of the Bible in a literal fashion.
Atheist: I see… so you indulge in cherry picking, deciding which verse is literal and which one is allegorical.
Theist: That is not cherry picking!
Atheist: It sure is.
Theist: No, it is not. I do not decide these questions.
Atheist: So who does?
Theist: Only the Catholic Church has that authority.
Atheist: So where is the official, infallible interpretation of every verse, where we can all look it up and see them? A Catholic-annotated-Bible, so to speak?
Theist: There is no need for it. If there were such a book, it would prevent us from arguing both sides of the coin, when the need arises.

That is how you guys argue. Refuse to answer a simple hypothetical, immediately diverting the question into something else. When cornered there, you lash out and try to blame the other party for taking the “Holy Scriptures” too literally, even though your assumed “official interpreter” never did the interpretation… What did the Church Lady say? “How conveeeeinient!!”… This is your “theology”.

And observe. The original question was never addressed and never answered.

?

I can tell that you have a degree in Christian theology.

 

[Spock]

I can tell that you have a degree in Christian theology.

As usual, you are wrong. I never claimed to have a degree in theology. But I sure can read and comprehend and summarize what I read. You just demonstrated the usual attitude around here: if you are unable to answer, divert into something irrelevant. Pitiful, really.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

I sent him a PM about stuff like this. Virtually every atheist with the lone exception of Bohm Bawerk (who is cool) doesn’t know jack about the proofs for the existence of God, biblical history, Church teaching and theology, natural law morality, etc. etc. etc. It’s been 5 years since the God Delusion. These guys are still at the sophomoric level of that text.

I’m stunned. Most ‘Catholics’ are still using Pascal’s Wager and you say something like that about the atheists here? Come on, man!

 

[MindOverMatter2]

As usual, you are wrong. I never claimed to have a degree in theology. But I sure can read and comprehend and summarize what I read. You just demonstrated the usual attitude around here: if you are unable to answer, divert into something irrelevant. Pitiful, really.

I can tell that you have a degree in Christian theology.

 

[Marybeloved]

It all depends on the definition of “murder”. The quoted dictionary definitions all say “the premeditated and unlawful taking of someone’s life” (and sometimes even add “with malice aforethought”). As such, in those places where abortion is legally permitted, it cannot be considered “murder” since the “unlawful” part is missing. It is interesting to contemplate that if the “malice aforethought” is an integral part of the definition, then a “mercy killing” is not murder. As I suggested before, the best definition of “murder” would be “intentionally taking the life of another human being, who does not want that life to be taken”.

I agree with your definition, but I would add the word “unjustly” at the beginning, or “without justifiable reasons” at the end.

I can imagine the Iraqi/Afghan Soldiers in 2001 and 2003 did not want their lives taken. I however do not consider the American soldiers who shot them or dropped grenades at them/ their buildings etc murderers, nor would any Court. Nor do I believe the Germans killed in WW1 and 2 desired to die at the hands of the Bristish and others. I also do not consider the executioner who presses the button in accordance with the laws, a murderer.

You say: “unjust laws”… which is very nice, but how do you decide if a law is “just” or “unjust”? Now, I am the last one who would say that just because something is legal it should be considered “right or just or preferred, etc…” but in this case we talk about the legal concept of “murder”.

In Law, in jurisprudence, there’s both natural law jurisprudence and positive Law- So “unjust laws” is very much a valid legal concept. Without it, there’s no basis for overthrowing slavery, colonialism, nazism and apartheid- Even more than that, there would be no basis for trying the individual nazi officers for actions they carried out while acting perfectly within the existing legal bounds.

Yes, that was the case. It was legally permitted to harass, beat, maim, torture and kill (murder) all those who did not belong to the “aryan race”.

Yet, the Nuremburg trials determined that they were still criminals and treated them accordingly. So even if there was a law in place legalizing it, that law was itself “illegal” and should have been disobeyed. Obeying unjust laws was no excuse at the trials of the nazis. Basically, an unjust law purports to deny the most fundamental human rights, such as the right to exist. If the entire world passed a law at the UN and national levels that legalized genocide, it would be unjust, no matter how many people supported it.

 

[Spock]

I agree with your definition, but I would add the word “unjustly” at the beginning, or “without justifiable reasons” at the end.

Those additions would only make the definition vague.

I can imagine the Iraqi/Afghan Soldiers in 2001 and 2003 did not want their lives taken. I however do not consider the American soldiers who shot them or dropped grenades at them/ their buildings etc murderers, nor would any Court. Nor do I believe the Germans killed in WW1 and 2 desired to die at the hands of the Bristish and others. I also do not consider the executioner who presses the button in accordance with the laws, a murderer.

It is always “nice” to create exceptions to “justify” one’s actions. What is “treason”, for example? It is an action against the established goverment. Does it matter if you are “right”? No, it does not.

In Law, in jurisprudence, there’s both natural law jurisprudence and positive Law- So “unjust laws” is very much a valid legal concept.

“Natural law” is an oxymoron. Every law is artificial.

Without it, there’s no basis for overthrowing slavery, colonialism, nazism and apartheid- Even more than that, there would be no basis for trying the individual nazi officers for actions they carried out while acting perfectly within the existing legal bounds.

Sure there is. The only basis that counts: the “rights of the winners”.

Yet, the Nuremburg trials determined that they were still criminals and treated them accordingly. So even if there was a law in place legalizing it, that law was itself “illegal” and should have been disobeyed. Obeying unjust laws was no excuse at the trials of the nazis.

Of course you are aware that history is always written by the victors, and not the losers. If the Nazis would have won (a horrible thought) the history would be very different. It was not the “right philosophy” which won the war, it was the fact that the allies had more money and more weapons. Whoever has more power, will declare what is “right”, and what laws are “just”.

Basically, an unjust law purports to deny the most fundamental human rights, such as the right to exist.

Unfortunately there is no such “right”. Any “right” is a social construct, where the stronger one (currently the governments) declare that some activity can be carried out without fear of repercussions. There are no “rights” on a desert island, there are no rights outside a society.

If the entire world passed a law at the UN and national levels that legalized genocide, it would be unjust, no matter how many people supported it.

The difference between a “just” and an “unjust law” is that if we agree with it, it is considered “just”, and if we disagree with it, it is “unjust”. Just consider this dilemma: “what is the difference between a heroic freedom fighter, and a despicable terrorist”? The answer is simple: if he was on your side, you will consider him a freedom fighter, if he was against you, he is a terrorist.

Now, I want to emphasize something: I am very unhappy that this is the case. I would very much like a “kind, loving, just, powerful” overseer to make enforce a world that both you and I consider “proper and just”. That would be the job for a God, if there were one.

 

[Marybeloved]

Hello, AngryAtheist,

Oh, I really wish you’d call yourself happy atheist! Your name kinda makes me scared of you. Anyway, You’re entitled to your beliefs (and choice of name) but you’ve made some inaccurate statements about our faith which I’d like to clarify for the sake of those who are reading this thread.

These are not mere ideals.According to Catholic theology (as well as most other Christian theology) we are all deserving of Hell for not meeting these impossible standards.

You’re right, they’re not mere ideals, but failure to meet them perfectly does not automatically mean Hell. To be accurate, willfully rejecting the grace offered to you, and hating God are what Catholicism teaches will send you to hell.

For sin, there’s an objective element (God’s law) and subjective element (the state/disposition of the person sinning). For sin to be capable of sending one to hell, the objective element must be serious, and the person must do it completely willfully, and at the same time fully appreciating it’s seriousness and nature- (That it means separating oneself from God, possibly forever aka Hell). This amounts to what I called earlier hating God. Two people could do the same thing, but one could have a serious weakness of passion that very much interferes with unencumbered exercise of free will, and another could easily avoid it but chooses not to. They could also have different levels of knowledge due to many factors. There could be many reasons why people believe or choose certain things. Only God knows who is truly guilty of willfully rejecting the truth and who is not. Only the first group will go to hell.

The idea is that since God is the strongest (omnipotent) his will ultimately always prevails.

Actually, for catholicism, it’s because God is the ultimate good and deserves to be loved of his own goodness above every other thing. Loved here means preferred to all other lesser goods. We believe that the will tends to good as much as the intellect tends to truth. Since it’s the will that loves (chooses between goods) it’s the will that sins by loving a lower good more than a higher good, or loving inappropriately by giving undeserved love to what deserves less by virtue of being a lesser good, or less to what deserves more. Our faith says there’s a hierarchy of beings/goods and that humans have a natural intuition of this hierarchy, much as they have a natural ability to know and pursue truth by reason (intellect)

Catholicism teaches that Humans have a natural compass (natural moral law) that tell them the hierarchy of goods, and therefore how to treat them. This is what informs all the moral teachings- That God always takes first place, that other people have as much value as you, that they and we have intrinsic value and should not be reduced to utility by us or others, that people matter more than animals etc.

According to Christian theology God does not forbid things because their bad, things are bad because God forbids then.According to this principal: if God commanded everyone who was not a virgin to rape all the virgins, such rape would become a moral act.

Actually, for Catholicism, God is good and he’s the author of the goodness/intrinsic value of each thing. Evil means a failure, lack of goodness where it should be, or a disorder. Blindness for humans is a type of ‘physical evil’ (not moral)- something lacking that according to human nature should be there, but not so for bats which are properly that way. Immorality is a failure to act according to the moral law, which is the will of God who has ordered all things and their intrinsic value/goodness.

Moreover, God doesn’t feel bound by any of the laws he places on us.
That is why whenever God kills (or commands others to kill) its not murder.
Because anything God does is right and moral by definition.

You’re perfectly right. God is no more bound to our laws than J.R.R Tolkien is bound to the rules of middle-Earth, or Da Vinci was bound to paint a certain way/piece.

If he was, I’d say he would not be God. If there really is a being that is unlimited and the ultimate cause of everything, how could he be bound by anything but his own nature? He has absolute creative freedom- everything exists because he wants it to- Saying he cannot take way or alter existence says he’s not the ultimate being/God- Might as well believe like the atheists. I think for a theist, it’s more reasonable to believe as we do, that if God exists (he does) he is infinite intelligence in absolute freedom.

Because if the only reason you don’t act like a monster is fear of punishment then you’re a sociopath. Are you suggesting most people are sociopaths?

I think you’re right. But if you read the saints, and psychologists have also discovered this, we humans actually do many things for purely selfish reasons but we don’t realize it because the rewards we strive for and the punishments we fear are emotional/psychological.

So, in reality we really are just like the sociopaths!- The difference is that the sociopath does not have the incentives for doing good (good feelings and psychological satisfaction), or avoiding evil (guilt, shame and other psychological “punishments”) that the rest of us do. So he pursues his selfish desires in the external world unencumbered by them. You may think you act out of goodness, but mostly it’s to get the psychological carrots and avoid the punishments. True goodness is to pursue good for it’s own sake, not out of utility, even when there’s zero psychological benefit, or great cost to it- That’s the point of the phenomena of the “dark night” when all the sensible/emotional/psychological goodies are removed so that one must pursue goodness unselfishly.

Peace!

 

[RobbyS]

Sounds nice, but that is not what the text says. “If he takes your coat, also give your shirt”… “Turn the other cheek”… “Do not resist evil”… You must give your life for your enemy… etc. It is unconditional and says not one word about making a decision how to treat the enemy.

You beg the question: WHO is my enemy? The passivity you associate with these teachings was not there in Jesus’s dealing with the Pharisees and Sadducees, with the overturning of the money-changers tables in the Temple. Resist not evil? But he cast out demons, the source of evil. You have to counterbalance the hard things that Jesus said and did with these “soft” words you quote. Read the whole story, don’t just proof text. Who IS this guy we are reading about? Forgiveness is at the heart of his message, breaking down barriers, such as between the Jews and Samaritans, but also between friends.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Mercenary has a certain meaning, does it not?

Can you answer the question directly or not?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

That would means that the Church has wasted a lot of money patronizing artists.

So I must use strong terms, such as grotesque. It in fact revels in such forms. So the different is intend, such as the intent to pander and deceive, to divert from better purposes.

You sound so Puritan

Nothing can be tolerated unless its productive then?
There is no room in moral Christian life for leisure or entertainment?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

?

I can tell you have degree in Christian theology.

You don’t need a degree to notice the obvious.

How often do Catholics (or for that matter other Christians) say that without God there is no morality (and visa versa)? Or that a thing is moral based on whether or not God approves of it?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I sent him a PM about stuff like this. Virtually every atheist with the lone exception of Bohm Bawerk (who is cool) doesn’t know jack about the proofs for the existence of God, biblical history, Church teaching and theology, natural law morality, etc. etc. etc. It’s been 5 years since the God Delusion. These guys are still at the sophomoric level of that text.

Actually reading the Bible was a big part of what convinced me that Christianity is BS.
The God depicted in the O.T. is clearly not benevolent, even by Christian standards.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

?

I can tell that you have a degree in Christian theology.

Perhaps that’s what helped Spock form his current convictions:shrug:

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I can tell that you have a degree in Christian theology.

I am glad to see that you have such high regard for Spock’s understanding of the issue

 

[Windfish]

I’m stunned. Most ‘Catholics’ are still using Pascal’s Wager and you say something like that about the atheists here? Come on, man!

Ah. Let me fix my post:

I sent him a PM about stuff like this. Virtually every atheist with the lone exception of Bohm Bawerk (who is cool) doesn’t know jack about the proofs for the existence of God, biblical history, Church teaching and theology, natural law morality, Pascal’s Wager, etc. etc. etc. It’s been 5 years since the God Delusion. These guys are still at the sophomoric level of that text.

There.

AngryAtheist8:

Actually reading the Bible was a big part of what convinced me that Christianity is BS.
The God depicted in the O.T. is clearly not benevolent, even by Christian standards.

Whoops, I have to fix it yet again:

I sent him a PM about stuff like this. Virtually every atheist with the lone exception of Bohm Bawerk (who is cool) doesn’t know jack about the proofs for the existence of God, biblical history, Church teaching and theology, natural law morality, Pascal’s Wager, the Old Testament, etc. etc. etc. It’s been 5 years since the God Delusion. These guys are still at the sophomoric level of that text.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Hello, AngryAtheist,

Oh, I really wish you’d call yourself happy atheist! Your name kinda makes me scared of you. Anyway, You’re entitled to your beliefs (and choice of name) but you’ve made some inaccurate statements about our faith which I’d like to clarify for the sake of those who are reading this thread.

You’re right, they’re not mere ideals, but failure to meet them perfectly does not automatically mean Hell. To be accurate, willfully rejecting the grace offered to you, and hating God are what Catholicism teaches will send you to hell.

For sin, there’s an objective element (God’s law) and subjective element (the state/disposition of the person sinning). For sin to be capable of sending one to hell, the objective element must be serious, and the person must do it completely willfully, and at the same time fully appreciating it’s seriousness and nature- (That it means separating oneself from God, possibly forever aka Hell). This amounts to what I called earlier hating God. Two people could do the same thing, but one could have a serious weakness of passion that very much interferes with unencumbered exercise of free will, and another could easily avoid it but chooses not to. They could also have different levels of knowledge due to many factors. There could be many reasons why people believe or choose certain things. Only God knows who is truly guilty of willfully rejecting the truth and who is not. Only the first group will go to hell.

Actually, for catholicism, it’s because God is the ultimate good and deserves to be loved of his own goodness above every other thing. Loved here means preferred to all other lesser goods. We believe that the will tends to good as much as the intellect tends to truth. Since it’s the will that loves (chooses between goods) it’s the will that sins by loving a lower good more than a higher good, or loving inappropriately by giving undeserved love to what deserves less by virtue of being a lesser good, or less to what deserves more. Our faith says there’s a hierarchy of beings/goods and that humans have a natural intuition of this hierarchy, much as they have a natural ability to know and pursue truth by reason (intellect)

Catholicism teaches that Humans have a natural compass (natural moral law) that tell them the hierarchy of goods, and therefore how to treat them. This is what informs all the moral teachings- That God always takes first place, that other people have as much value as you, that they and we have intrinsic value and should not be reduced to utility by us or others, that people matter more than animals etc.

Actually, for Catholicism, God is good and he’s the author of the goodness/intrinsic value of each thing. Evil means a failure, lack of goodness where it should be, or a disorder. Blindness for humans is a type of ‘physical evil’ (not moral)- something lacking that according to human nature should be there, but not so for bats which are properly that way. Immorality is a failure to act according to the moral law, which is the will of God who has ordered all things and their intrinsic value/goodness.

You’re perfectly right. God is no more bound to our laws than J.R.R Tolkien is bound to the rules of middle-Earth, or Da Vinci was bound to paint a certain way/piece.

If he was, I’d say he would not be God. If there really is a being that is unlimited and the ultimate cause of everything, how could he be bound by anything but his own nature? He has absolute creative freedom- everything exists because he wants it to- Saying he cannot take way or alter existence says he’s not the ultimate being/God- Might as well believe like the atheists. I think for a theist, it’s more reasonable to believe as we do, that if God exists (he does) he is infinite intelligence in absolute freedom.

I think you’re right. But if you read the saints, and psychologists have also discovered this, we humans actually do many things for purely selfish reasons but we don’t realize it because the rewards we strive for and the punishments we fear are emotional/psychological.

So, in reality we really are just like the sociopaths!- The difference is that the sociopath does not have the incentives for doing good (good feelings and psychological satisfaction), or avoiding evil (guilt, shame and other psychological “punishments”) that the rest of us do. So he pursues his selfish desires in the external world unencumbered by them. You may think you act out of goodness, but mostly it’s to get the psychological carrots and avoid the punishments. True goodness is to pursue good for it’s own sake, not out of utility, even when there’s zero psychological benefit, or great cost to it- That’s the point of the phenomena of the “dark night” when all the sensible/emotional/psychological goodies are removed so that one must pursue goodness unselfishly.

Peace!

Even though I still disagree with you, you seem so friendly and reasonable it takes me off guard. Frankly I’m more used to Christians like MindOverMatter and the departed Betterave.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Ah. Let me fix my post:

There.

Whoops, I have to fix it yet again:

Ah, you’re trying to be clever.
Well let me know when you’re done

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Quote:
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Actually reading the Bible was a big part of what convinced me that Christianity is BS.
The God depicted in the O.T. is clearly not benevolent, even by Christian standards.

Whoops, I have to fix it yet again:

Quote:
I sent him a PM about stuff like this. Virtually every atheist with the lone exception of Bohm Bawerk (who is cool) doesn’t know jack about the proofs for the existence of God, biblical history, Church teaching and theology, natural law morality, Pascal’s Wager, the Old Testament, etc. etc. etc. It’s been 5 years since the God Delusion. These guys are still at the sophomoric level of that text.

:

Because reading the Bible makes you ignorant of it?

 

[LittleSoldier]

Sure. Imagine a country where voluntary euthanasia is legal. In that country taking the premeditated taking the life of someone is not “murder”. Imagine another country where the “voluntary” part is omitted. In that country even the involuntary euthanasia is legal, and as such it is not murder. Making the definition of “murder” contingent upon the current law will bring forth such problematic scenarios. My favorite definition is: the premeditated talking the life of a nother human, aganist their wishes. Clear cut, and universal.

What is premeditation? Is it possible for a ten year-old to use premeditation? What about someone who is retarded? Is there a specific IQ cut-off point? Is there a time limit as to premeditation? How do you measure premeditation? Take a very ill elderly woman who mumbles as she lies in her bed. She is in pain and she is perhaps demented. She says “Kill me.” Or at least that is what she *appears *to say. To some of her family around her that is what it sounds like. To others it does not. One of her family members kills her. Is it murder? Was there premeditation? How do you know? What about the alleged Mormon concept of “blood atonement?” Is that murder? In another post you said that killing the enemy during war is murder. It doesn’t seem to fit this new definition. What about self-defense? If an enemy soldier pops up from where he has been hiding and I react by shooting him have I shown premeditation?

You collected too many things here. Not the “collective unconscious” or any of the other psychological mumbo-jumbo. Being kind etc… generally elicit a similar response from others. The idea of “loving one’s enemies” is a mathematical nonsense. Game theory will tell us why the unconditional “turning the other cheek” is a very bad and ineffective strategy. This simple fact tells me that Jesus could not have been any kind of god. It is ridiculous to assume that God would not know any better than advocating a bad strategy for conflict resolution.

That’s the problem with having to give short responses. At least it’s not like FaceBook.

I don’t think the concepts of the “collective unconscious” or Kohlberg’s stages are any kind of “mumbo-jumbo.” What they are are attempts to explain human behavior and both hint at the truth - at least to me. Catholicism blasts the truth at me - in a very good way.

Why is ‘turning the other cheek’ “a very bad and ineffective strategy?” What does “turning the other cheek” do, in your opinion?

 

[LittleSoldier]

These are not mere ideals.

According to Catholic theology (as well as most other Christian theology) we are all deserving of Hell for not meeting these impossible standards.

Of course we are all deserving of hell! That is why Jesus died for us. He paid for our sins with His life.