Why Catholics Fail to Convince Modern People

[Cheiron]

No offense, man, but I never said that. It is a commonly peddled meme among Christians, I admit, but I never said it…

Actually, You did say that…

You have evidence to the contrary, then?

So you would say most atheists can look at all the good in Catholicism, admit it, admit that there is evil in the Church, yet are willing to set both aside so as to look at the premises of Christianity and Catholicism in particular, as she understands them? And only then say that, weighing them against atheism (not secular humanism, captialism, communism, Marxism, etc etc etc, but just the premise that there is no God), they find the truth lacking in the Church’s claims?

Because, frankly, putting aside the atrocities done in the name of atheism in the past 100 years, and putting aside the scientific progress made under Enlightenment thinking, I do not think I could ever honestly be an atheist, even though I have to admit focussing on the world, here and now, has produced a lot of good (even from my perspective).

…And that’s why.

I only noted that there seemed, for some reason, to be a tendency of atheists towards a negative fascination with religion in my humble, humble experience. I never said it was because of atheism. I don’t know why it is; only that it is, in my experience.

That is correct. I agree with that, but you wrote earlier that it was from a desire to hate the Church, which ticked me off, because it implied some sort of natural inclination of atheists to dislike religion.

I would argue that the recent pushback (the emergence of New Atheism for example) comes from bad experience with religion in the 21st century. The coverup of pedophilia in the Church; the terrorist attacks all across the world and Jerry Falwell blaming it on the pagans, the LGBT community and the ACLU; the prosperity gospel… And to top it off, some religious leaders still assume the moral highground and act as if atheists are the immoral ones. That stings. That’s where the anger comes from. That’s what the religious need to grasp if they want to convince modern people.

I think we are on the same page.

I think so too.

Unfortunately no religion (except deism) is as simple as atheism. Accepting the Catholic God does not automatically make one automatically believe and act the way He wants. Therefore Catholics are capable of ignoring, if not openly defying, what God and His Church say.

I agree with that too. I don’t think pedophilia among priests is a result of Catholicism. But religion can inspire to commit evil acts that are particular to religion. The genital mutilation of boys in Judaism and Islam for example.

And, as Bradski pointed our earlier, I’d also happily agree there are good moral statements in Christianity. No religion is completely good or completely evil.

Thankfully, there have been thousands of threads on the topic. I say thankfully, as I’m a tad tired.

Haha, I am too. And I don’t want to spoil this topic with yet another discussion about God’s existence.

 

[ralfyman]

Increasing secularism brought about by more prosperity, and in turn made possible through industrial civilization. Unfortunately, the latter is based on increasing resource use, which is not possible in the long run because of physical limitations of the planet.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

And please, we can skip the teachings of the church and the catechism and the bible. They are guides. I want to know who the best person is who can interpret all this correctly. I keep asking, but it remains a mystery.

God gave you a conscience for a reason. Search your soul and the mystery will be solved.

Refuse to be open to the Holy Spirit and it will never be solved.

You appear to be searching.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Any idea where this person can be found? Or do we, you know, make up our own minds?

We must use our own minds is a recipe for moral chaos.

Conforming our minds to the mind of God … an approach to moral sanity.

The Catholic Church (which wrote the Bible) is a reliable guide.

We refuse to use it because we think we are smarter than God.

 

[TarkanAttila]

Actually, You did say that…

My apologies.

As I say, it is a phrase engrained in the modern American Christian phraseology, so I do apologise.

Mind you, for all Enver Hoxha’s work to making the world’s first “atheist state”, from a purely atheist POV he’s no better than Atheism 3.0.

That stings. That’s where the anger comes from. That’s what the religious need to grasp if they want to convince modern people.

So we brought up Mao, Stalin, Hoxha, and white supremacists so we could put forth atheists we could be angry at, too. Christians playing the blame game. Playing the same game as the rest of the world.

Yeah. In light of the Protestant side of the debate, you know, I don’t entirely blame New Atheism.

If only they could see past that anger - righteous though it is - and tease out for themselves A) whether this actually had anything to do with Christianity proper (just as we should ask whether Hoxha (or Atheism 3.0) really have anything to do with atheism proper) and B) see whether, in spite of its more base elements, it is true or not.

I agree with that too. I don’t think pedophilia among priests is a result of Catholicism. But religion can inspire to commit evil acts that are particular to religion. The genital mutilation of boys in Judaism and Islam for example.

Which brings me to the point of this thread. I think talking about whether something is true can help enlighten us as to whether a different thing is also good. There’s no point talking about good or evil until we’ve established truth.

We start on two different moral POVs. You come from a humanist background where, for reasons of which I am ignorant, any forced body modification (I presume?) is considered evil. I am a Catholic, and in light of the Abrahamic covenant, I see circumcision as morally neutral.

It seems silly for me to “have” to defend my leniency on circumcision by secular standards which you or any atheist would accept, when I believe as much on religious grounds.

There is, I think, only one way to figure out which of our moral rulebooks is truly moral. And it is to tease out whether either of the sources for our morals conforms to reality. The source has to conform to reality.

Haha, I am too. And I don’t want to spoil this topic with yet another discussion about God’s existence.

Good.

 

[Bradski]

We must use our own minds is a recipe for moral chaos.

The Catholic Church (which wrote the Bible) is a reliable guide.

So how do we use this guide without using our own minds?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

We start on two different moral POVs. You come from a humanist background where, for reasons of which I am ignorant, any forced body modification (I presume?) is considered evil. I am a Catholic, and in light of the Abrahamic covenant, I see circumcision as morally neutral.

Sorry, but you are mistaken. Male circumcision is medically useful, especially in the geographical areas where it was developed (Middle East, mostly). Just like the prohibition of consuming certain foods (pork).

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

So how do we use this guide without using our own minds?

Haha! I almost had my coffee come back through my nose.

 

[TarkanAttila]

Sorry, but you are mistaken. Male circumcision is medically useful, especially in the geographical areas where it was developed (Middle East, mostly). Just like the prohibition of consuming certain foods (pork).

True that, but how do we know that being medically useful is good? I’m not saying it isn’t, but - I presume you are irreligious? - even you and Cheiron, being atheists, do not agree as atheists. Do you understand why?

You cannot because your moral authorities are different. (Are almost certainly different.) And those need to be examined and evaluated - as being either true or false - before we examine whether particular issues are good or bad.

 

[inocente]

You cannot because your moral authorities are different. (Are almost certainly different.) And those need to be examined and evaluated - as being either true or false - before we examine whether particular issues are good or bad.

Everyone on this thread may agree that our ultimate moral authority is our own conscience.

Anyone who claims we ought to obey his conscience instead of our own will Fail to Convince Modern People.

 

[inocente]

The Catholic Church (which wrote the Bible)

Modern people know that Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, etc. were Jews. And that “Jesus was and always remained a Jew” as this Vatican document says.

Anyone who claims different will Fail to Convince Modern People.

 

[Aloysium]

So how do we use this guide without using our own minds?

We surrender to it, the same way we surrender to our parents and teachers as we grow and learn about ourselves and the world. We surrender our minds not only to people and societal institutions, but also to our wishes and desires. We give our trust to techniques and sources such as empiricism, logic, text books, Google, the Upanishads, and the Bible. On the search for the only truth that will satisfy, people will fail, science will fail, as will philosophy and parodies of religion. We learn to mistrust as we become aware of the depths of our ignorance.

What does not fail is conscience, being one’s connection with God, made stronger through the doing of His will.

I don’t know if anyone can be convinced, not anyone who comes wanting to argue, at least. But as today’s reading from Timothy says " But if we deny him, he will deny us. If we are unfaithful he remains faithful, for he cannot deny himself." He will always be there to turn to, when we finally decide to do so.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

So how do we use this guide without using our own minds?

We use our own minds by submitting intelligently to a higher Mind, the Mind of God.

That takes intelligence, as you imply, but it also takes humility, an intellectual quality lacking in too many intellectuals who think they are smarter than God, so therefore there cannot even be a God.

The Marquis de Sade thought he was smarter than God.

Read his “Dialogue between a Priest and a Dying Man.”

He thought by denying God he could justify any vile cruelty.

That only justified keeping him locked up in a prison for lunatics.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

True that, but how do we know that being medically useful is good? I’m not saying it isn’t, but - I presume you are irreligious? - even you and Cheiron, being atheists, do not agree as atheists. Do you understand why?

I don’t have the foggiest idea what you mean by “good”? In my world, “useful”, “beneficial” and “good” are synonyms. The trouble is the lack of common dictionary, so we keep talking past each other.

 

[PRmerger]

Wrong… FACTUALLY incorrect.

So is this a moral fact: it is wrong to rape a child.

If it’s not a moral fact, what is it? Is it an opinion? A preference?

 

[PRmerger]

Of course the “should’s” and “ought’s” are part of CONDITIONAL propositions - in other words, they are relative (not absolute). Just two examples:

IF you want to be respected, you SHOULD respect others.
IF you wish to get good grades, you OUGHT to study the subject (or cheat).

And millions of others. Relative (or conditional) propositions, as usual. Savvy?

This is a nonsequitur (not to mention just plain wrong.)

If there are no moral absolutes, there cannot be any SHOULDS or OUGHTS.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The Catholic Church regards its own deepest routes in the Old Testament of the Jews.
Therefore, Abraham, Moses, Isaiah and Jesus form a continuum of God’s truth and salvation promise culminating in Jesus’s establishment of the reformed Church he built, the Church he put Peter in charge of and promised would never perish from the earth. It has not perished, despite many assaults upon it throughout history, including the assault of Protestantism in all its varied heresies throughout the 2,000 years since Christ.

It is no surprise that Catholics fail to convince modern people. Jesus failed to convince the temple priests.

As Bishop Sheen rightly pointed out, most people are deliberately or invincibly ignorant of what the Catholic Church is even all about. How do you convince stubbornly ignorant people?

Not that many Catholics are not also stubbornly ignorant people who need to be evangelized, a theme promoted by both John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

“There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.”
Fulton J. Sheen

 

[adamhovey1988]

What were you hoping to win … the conversion of Catholics to atheism?

I don’t think that’s going to happen. I mean, I would miss the music, after all, (other than sub-par religion rant songs by otherwise excellent rock bands), atheists don’t got no songs!

 

[adamhovey1988]

The biggest problem I see with the atheist argument, and we’ve all heard it, is “you can be good, without God”. Really? Says whom? What, exactly, is good? I’m sorry, but if there is no basis for your argument, you haven’t got an argument. It is a irrational argument, because the atheist cannot use logic to defend his argument and when someone suggests that religion is the only way to know for sure, they shrug it off. I like the argument of good from natural law, we know it’s wrong to kill another person in cold blood, but why? Well, because you wouldn’t want someone to do that to you. But why shouldn’t I kill them? Because they’re human. But why are they human? Because that’s their species, they share a common ancestor with great apes (and contrary to what Wikipedia says, humans are not great apes, my mother’s background is in biology and we had this discussion). Okay, so what about being descended from a common ancestor with great apes makes us special? We’re smart. Well, African Greys are smart. Okay, so do you think cats should stop eating birds because they’re smart? No. Do you think humans should be able to kill other living things, at least for survival? Yes. Okay, so why are humans special? The answer to this, and the only one theists can give, that sums up, why we’re intelligent, why we have the dignity we have, and why we’re capable of logic, is that we were created in the image and likeness of God. You haven’t got to believe it, but it’s the best reason I have. Start from natural law, follow into philosophy, into religion.

 

[inocente]

Charlemagne III;14208863:

The Catholic Church (which wrote the Bible)

Modern people know that Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, etc. were Jews. And that “Jesus was and always remained a Jew” as this Vatican document says.

The Catholic Church regards its own deepest routes in the Old Testament of the Jews.

Those who change their claims from day to day will Fail to Convince Modern People.

btw I think Jews refer to it as the Hebrew Bible, not the OT.