Will we survive religion?

[Mirdath]

So I guess this admission indicates you really are ignoring parts of what I’ve said, right?

I’m not ignoring, I’m declining to respond. That’s perfectly within my rights.

Yes. Now I’ve had enough and I really am being sarcastic .

Oh dear my heavens to murgatroyd on a pogostick!

But I’m not the one who used the term ‘ignorant heathen’! He did! So don’t go accusing me of being flippant for using this term! I’m the one who’s arguing that heathen are not by definition ignorant, remember?

That was a general ‘you’ in case the specific ‘you’ missed it, which seems to be the case. Nobody said the heathen (wow, it’s a fun word) are ignorant; he asked you to explain what you were saying in simple terms and you chose to twist that into some kind of simultaneous accusation.

And if he’s asking me to answer his questions in simple terms as I would to a child or to someone not in the Church who does not have a good grasp of its history and teachings, **THEN HE CAN COME OUT AND SAY THIS! **

Take a good look at that post Mirdath.

He did, he just has a sense of humor and disagrees with you

I’m the one who’s arguing that heathen are not by definition ignorant, remember?

It’s irrelevant to the topic at hand and nobody brought it up, remember?

Take a good look at those posts above Mirdath and tell me what he hasn’t projected on me with these words? Please tell me if I’m reading too much into his words here.

Yep, you are.

You don’t think stating something like he said above isn’t highly insulting to someone who is actually engaged in fair ecumenical and inter-religious dialogue?

I would hesitate to call this ‘fair’. In any case, it would seem he takes exception with you drumming on a single point he doesn’t understand and failing to explain it when he asked before (and yes, he did). It’s pointed, but far less than offensive unless you happen to have an extraordinarily thin skin.

You don’t think that others on this multi-cultural section of this forum might take offence to to the phrase ‘ignorant heathen’?

If it is used seriously. It wasn’t.

I never said you were an ignorant heathen though, did I?

At least twice, in fact. With bonus cursing.

pretty damn ignorant

What I did say, however, was that your inability to actually formulate coherent thoughts concerning Catholic doctrines really does shine through repeatedly.

No, you called me ignorant, swore at me, flipped your lid at people who asked for explanations of your own obtuse points, beat dead horses into mushy pulp, and generally dug your own hole ever deeper. I have been quite coherent overall, I have chapter-and-versed you in your own bible and catechism, and I have defended my points with precise and valid logic.

And whenever you attempt to rudely malign my own reputation as a Catholic and claim that I’m misrepresenting the actual standards of the Catholic Church, I am going to bluntly remind you that you really do not actually understand what the Church actually teaches.

To my understanding of that faith, you have misrepresented it. I’ve provided quotes from your own catechism to back myself up too. If this understanding is some mystical thing that cannot be communicated, why does the Church still exist and why are you bothering?

 

[Mirdath]

You have insisted that Christ would never advocate any kind of violence whatsoever, not even in the name of justified self-defence. I displayed where that was wrong.

Nobody can know for certain what the Christ would or wouldn’t advocate – he isn’t here to tell us himself. Based on his biography and words, however, the general idea of it is clear. Jesus did not defend himself in Gethsemane, and rebuked those who would defend him. He drove the money-changers and merchants from the Temple with an improvised whip, but he was not attempting to maim or kill them. I am not wrong.

You have also insisted that entering heaven is not a painful process, that modern day Catholicism has abandonned this belief. I displayed where that was wrong too.

‘Entering heaven’ does not necessarily require purgatory, remember? Sure, you don’t believe it’s common, but it is one way. As for purgatory itself, I demonstrated that the rite of purification need not involve physical pain. I am not wrong.

You have also insisted that I’m talking about some kind of relativism regarding salvation, that modern day Catholicism does not teach that there is the potential for salvation for those outside the Church via extraordinary graces. But I’ve displayed where that was wrong too.

I was the first poster in the thread to say the words ‘baptism’ ‘of’ and ‘desire’ in that order. I am familiar with the teaching of the Church on that question and with the long and tedious discussion of the ‘noble savage’. I have read Dante and found Virgil in Limbo with the virtuous pagans. I’ve watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate… oops, wrong movie. I’m still not wrong, and especially here you are twisting those words of mine you choose not to ignore.

 

[Oneiron]

How have I misquoted anything?

Well, allow me to give you a few examples:

Oneiron:

That brings to mind someone driving a plane into the world trade center, someone who blows up abortion centers, someone who rounds up other cultures for extermination, a church in Utah that pickets at soldier’s funerals proclaiming thank god for dead soldiers. It brings to mind the same people that Mirdath believes are evil, and I must side with him.

Ex Nihilo:

So where is the word ‘evil’ found in the definition you provided from the American Heritage Dictionary?

I never said evil was in the definition. I merely said the definition brought to mind the same kind of people Mirdath was talking about, and stated I believed he was right. You drew the conclusion I put evil in the definition.

Valke2:

Historical opinions do differ. And I don’t need to go back 2,000 years to see proof of child sacrifice. It is happening today, only they use explosives instead of bronze statues.

Ex Nihilo:

So is the invention of explosives the result of religion or science?

Should we get rid of science since science created explosives specifically for the purpose of killing others?

I don’t even see how you logically went from Terrorists strapping bombs to kids in the name of religion to science being evil for inventing explosives. Science doesn’t make terrorists strap bombs to little kids, religion does.

Oh, and those were loaded questions as well.

Mirdath:

There are fanatics who riot after a win, there are people who really, really like sports who don’t. They aren’t fanatics or zealots in the sense in which I use the terms.

…

Did you read where I defined fanaticism as something that is without question evil? And where I said that there are people who are incredibly devoted and dedicated, but are not foaming-at-the-mouth fanatics

BobCatholic:

So according to you, both the sports fanatic who riot and don’t riot are equally evil

Mirdath:

That’s the exact opposite of what I said

Ex Nihilo:

But it’s not the opposite of what you actually said. At least, based on what I’ve read in your posts, you are actually claiming that all forms of fanaticism and zeal imply evil.

If you’re not intending to imply this, then I think you need to be more clear about what you’re actullay claiming.

Ok, this one should be evident. He specified that he did not call devoted people fanatics, yet you completely ignore that. Furthermore, you’re telling him what he said when what he said is as plain as can be. He is claiming that fanatacism is evil, and has already told you what he considers a fanatic. Whether or not you like his definition si irrelevant here. (Ignoring for a second the fact that he’s using that ever elusive standard dictionary definition ) You’re putting words completely into his mouth and trying to twist what he’s saying, all the while ignoring the argument.

Oneiron:

Treat me like an ignorant heathen and actually explain it to me instead of reiterating the same point over and over without thought.

Ex Nihilo:

When have I claimed anyone was an ignorant heathen?

I’ve actually argued in this thread that the ‘heathens’ were not as ignorant as many claim they were.

Wait, when exactly did I say that heathen were ignorant? I simply asked you to treat me as someone who had absolutely no clue about what you as a representative of Catholicism was talking about. Ignorant meaning I didn’t know, heathen meaning i wasn’t Christian at all.
No, I’m not ignorant about the Bible, but I am lacking in proper knowledge of Catholicism apparently even though I went to a Catholic Church and studied with several Fathers until i was 17. What they taught me and what you are saying about Catholicism are not the same thing, primarily in the just war section, and the murder in self defense section. They’ve always taught me to forgive and to defend myself, but never more than defense. If I killed someone in self defense, tehy all said to a person that it would still be a sin and that I should be repentant and seek confession.

Need more proof you misquote us and misinterpret us to suit your needs?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

I’m not ignoring, I’m declining to respond. That’s perfectly within my rights.

Fine.

Mirdath:

Oh dear my heavens to murgatroyd on a pogostick!

I don’t really have a sense of humor when it comes to death. And you persistently making lite of these deaths fairly well indicatates that you’re not really taking this conversation seriously at all.

Mirdath:

That was a general ‘you’ in case the specific ‘you’ missed it, which seems to be the case. Nobody said the heathen (wow, it’s a fun word) are ignorant; he asked you to explain what you were saying in simple terms and you chose to twist that into some kind of simultaneous accusation.

And yet you are still claiming that I’m misrepresenting Catholic teaching. And Oneiron is insisting that I have to defend myself against your claims.

It appears that your innuendo against me has worked Mirdath.

Mirdath:

He did, he just has a sense of humor and disagrees with you

I’m not laughing at the question will we survive religion when there are plenty of other reasons why people murder throughout history.

Mirdath:

It’s irrelevant to the topic at hand and nobody brought it up, remember?

It’s only irrelevant to you because you don’t think it’s important.

Mirdath:

Yep, you are.

I see.

Mirdath:

I would hesitate to call this ‘fair’. In any case, it would seem he takes exception with you drumming on a single point he doesn’t understand and failing to explain it when he asked before (and yes, he did). It’s pointed, but far less than offensive unless you happen to have an extraordinarily thin skin.

It’s an unfair tactic to claim that someone who is explaining Catholic teaching is misrepresenting their own Catholic faith.

Mirdath:

If it is used seriously. It wasn’t.

I see.

Mirdath:

At least twice, in fact. With bonus cursing.

I never said you were an ignorant heathen!

I said it was damn ignorant to accuse me of being heterodox in order to win a debate.
Mr. Ex Nihilo:

You’ve essentially accused me of being heterodox, which is pretty damn ignorant when someone’s actually trying to take the time to politely explain something to you.

Mirdath:

No, you called me ignorant, swore at me, flipped your lid at people who asked for explanations of your own obtuse points, beat dead horses into mushy pulp, and generally dug your own hole ever deeper. I have been quite coherent overall, I have chapter-and-versed you in your own bible and catechism, and I have defended my points with precise and valid logic.

I see. And nothing I’ve presented you’ve actually agreed with. There’s not one example that I can think of in this thread where you actually agreed with me about anything.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

cont.

Mirdath:

To my understanding of that faith, you have misrepresented it. I’ve provided quotes from your own catechism to back myself up too. If this understanding is some mystical thing that cannot be communicated, why does the Church still exist and why are you bothering?

What have I misrepresented?

Why are you doing that?!?

Mirdath:

And the things which I believe are fundamental tenets of Jesus the Christ’s moral teachings (as I stated way back then) are ‘love God, and love thy neighbor as thyself’. Are you saying that’s irrelevant to a Catholic?

No. I’m saying that this commandment has the potential to break down when your ‘neighbor’ is attempting to murder you, your family, or your loved ones.

Don’t you understand this?

Mirdath:

I never said he expected his followers to be martyred. However, if you are going to live your lives in imitation of the Christ, shouldn’t you expect that and make your peace with it as he did?

But Christ also gave food to the poor, healed the sick, took care of his family (especially his own mother), and was a loving husband to his church, and many other things.

Furthermore, Jesus was coming back in three days. And although I do believe that we can pray for our loved ones from above, I still think you’re forcing this particular imitation of Christ beyond what Christ actually intented.

Wouldn’t a person who is a father not be failing to imitate these other aspects of Christ if they were to go to extremes and allow someone to murder them as a testimonial to their faith?

Not all people are called to be martyrs. There’s many other ways that we can imitate Christ without becoming martyrs too.

Mirdath:

Again, in imitatio Christi? You are to take up your cross and follow him, not to try to strike down those who would put it on you as Peter cut off the slave’s ear.

If somone were coming at my family or loved ones with the intent to hurt or kill them, and I had the means to stop them and yet just sat back and did nothing so that their lives could be a testimony to their faith in Christ, I can assure that Christ would call be a foolish evil servant and eject me straight to hell on judgement day.

Martyrdom is only necessary for us if it’s a last resort and we have no other options. Likewise, it’s fundamentally easier for a priest or celibate believer without biological family to do this than those who are married.

This is actually one of the reasons why Paul prefered people to remain single-- if they could accept this kind of calling. Not all people are called to this though. Even Christ admits this and agrees with Paul 100% in this regard.

Mirdath:

I agree with many of the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. I do not agree with many of the teachings of the people who claim to follow him, both Catholic and otherwise. I have said this many times.

Bingo! And yet you claim that I’m the one who’s distorting Catholic teachings. Like I said, if you don’t agree with Catholic thoughts, then fine.

But you are accusing me of being heterodox in order to win a debate Mirdath. And I’m tired of this. In order for me to prove your assertions wrong, however, I’m going to have to sit here for long time going back and forth-- and there seems to be very little precedent offered in this thread that indicates we will come to any real agreement anytime soon.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

cont.

‘Love God, and love thy neighbor as thyself’? That’s what I said I thought were the Christ’s fundamental teachings – and considering he himself said so in the gospels, I think I have plenty of reason to think that. Are those commandments then somehow different from what the Church actually teaches? If so, please, enlighten me.

I’ve never said that we are not to love God, and love thy neighbor as thyself. I’ve never said that we are not supposed to do this.

I’m saying that this commandment has the potential to break down when your ‘neighbor’ is attempting to murder you, your family, or your loved ones.

Mirdath:

As I’ve said, I believe self-defense in exactly appropriate measure is morally neutral. As to what the Church teaches, here:
Catechism of the Catholic Church 3:2:2:5:2263:

The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not.

ibid:2264:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.

‘Lawful’ does not translate to ‘good’, only ‘permissible’.

Saving the lives of others is not merely ‘lawful’. Saving lives is ‘good’-- that why Jesus alowed himself to be murdered by the way-- to save our lives.

Think about it.

Could we have been saved if Jesus didn’t die on the cross?

In opposition to this, can other people be saved without being martyred?

Mirdath:

I’m not allowed to point out when I see what might be an error and ask if it is one? Are you seriously claiming that I should only be permitted to debate while rhetorically crippled? Am I that difficult for you?

You’re allowed to ask any and all questions you want. Just take the time to respect others beliefs when doing so.

No one’s ever forbidden you from asking tough, though-provoking questions. I actually enjoy that part a lot-- and it’s highly encouraged here in this section of Catholic Answers (which is why I love to hang around here a lot).

But you were using loaded questions in order to accuse me of being heterodox-- specifically done in order to win a debate Mirdath. And I’m tired of this.

Mirdath:

I have not been deceptive. I have defined my terms, clearly stated my arguments, cited my sources, and defended myself from attacks, and generally argued in good faith; faith that you would actually make an attempt to understand me, faith that you would try to debate on equal and civil terms without swearing at me, calling me ignorant, dragging in irrelevant nonsense, or declaring part or all of my points invalid by fiat. Apparently I was mistaken, and for that and that alone I am sorry.

Fine. Then you can debate on your own terms with Oneiron and agree amongst yourselves without further debate from me. I’ve done my best to explain this to you. If you can’t continues to debate without accusing me of being heterodox, then you can have your victory in this debate.

This is finished.

 

[Mirdath]

No. I’m saying that this commandment has the potential to break down when your ‘neighbor’ is attempting to murder you, your family, or your loved ones.

Don’t you understand this?

I do understand it, and that is not only a heterodox position, it is heretical. God’s commandments do not ‘break down’. Jesus specifically said to love your enemy as well, and he wasn’t just talking about the guy who beat you up in high school.

But Christ also gave food to the poor, healed the sick, took care of his family (especially his own mother), and was a loving husband to his church, and many other things.

All those are good too.

Furthermore, Jesus was coming back in three days. And although I do believe that we can pray for our loved ones from above, I still think you’re forcing this particular imitation of Christ beyond what Christ actually intented.

Really? When the brothers asked him if they could sit at his right and left hand, he asked them if they knew just what they’d be getting themselves into. They didn’t, and he ended up crucified between two thieves. Most of the apostles were in fact martyred later on, carrying that same cross. Where does it say ‘in imitatio Christi’ only goes partway?

Not all people are called to be martyrs. There’s many other ways that we can imitate Christ without becoming martyrs too.

According to St Gregory of Nazianzus, it is folly to seek death, but cowardice to refuse it.

If somone were coming at my family or loved ones with the intent to hurt or kill them, and I had the means to stop them and yet just sat back and did nothing so that their lives could be a testimony to their faith in Christ, I can assure that Christ would call be a foolish evil servant and eject me straight to hell on judgement day.

Defense of yourself, your family, and your property is permissible according to the catechism. But that doesn’t make it good. Not necessarily evil either, as long as you don’t go overboard with it.

Martyrdom is only necessary for us if it’s a last resort and we have no other options. Likewise, it’s fundamentally easier for a priest or celibate believer without biological family to do this than those who are married.

Martyrdom is only necessary

Bingo! And yet you claim that I’m the one who’s distorting Catholic teachings. Like I said, if you don’t agree with Catholic thoughts, then fine.

Just because I do not agree with those teachings anyway does not make you a divinely inspired teacher of them, nor does it mean you even necessarily know more about them than I. Based on what I know, you are distorting them – and I have only now said you are holding to heterodoxy based on your comment that Jesus’ most central teachings are meant to be broken.

Saving the lives of others is not merely ‘lawful’. Saving lives is ‘good’-- that why Jesus alowed himself to be murdered by the way-- to save our lives.

Think about it.

Could we have been saved if Jesus didn’t die on the cross?

In opposition to this, can other people be saved without being martyred?

Saving lives is good; I’ve never said otherwise. Committing violence to do so is not ‘good’.

This is finished.

For the…fourth time?

 

[LilyM]

Martyrs are saints for giving over their lives to the violent because of their faith, no? And, much like Jesus himself, this is an example you are encouraged to emulate. Yet martyrs are not canonized for killing for their faith, but for dying for it. As with my example from your quotes above, this example should lead to the conclusion that it is supremely Moral to avoid retaliating for offenses done you, and of course also moral not to be the offender in the first place.

Got to butt in here Mirdath - I haven’t been paying attention to this thread till now but you’re seriously wrong here.

There are numerous ordinary soldiers (St George for one, St Martin of Tours for another) who doubtless fought - in wars both justified and unjustified - and yet became saints.

I would especially draw your attention to Saint Louis IX of France and Blessed Charles the Good - both of whom participated in the Crusades. In fact they along with St George were named as PATRON SAINTS of crusaders.

Not to mention St Joan of Arc who was ORDERED BY GOD to fight and defend her country - France.

Were these people canonised for dying for their faith, or rather for waging war to preserve faith, nation and other things dear to God???

In Joan’s case, of course, the answer is in fact BOTH since she was wrongly executed as a witch. But even that was politically motivated - her enemies the English using a pet bishop and church courts to conveniently rid themselves of her. The two (fighting for the faith and dying for the faith) aren’t mutually exclusive

So the true position of the Church (and God if one, as a Catholic is bound to, believes that Joan did indeed receive messages from him) is not one of pacifism at any price.

 

[BobCatholic]

You still aren’t hearing what I’ve been saying, are you?

I find no reason to believe that irreligion of any sort is more harmful to individual people or to society as a whole than religion itself. I’ve backed this statement up with examples – your turn.

Those who call themselves “irreligious” tend to believe in relativism, and relativism says evil is allowed since there is no such thing as evil.

 

[BobCatholic]

How can you blame him for loaded questions when you refuse to even debate logically. many times he offered a definition of fanatic, I even pulled out dictionaries and researched word after word and found he was right.

No, because his definition of “fanatic” only includes those who do evil. His definition doesn’t cover all those fanatics that don’t do evil.

Same thing for “zealot”

I’ve come to the conclusion that he’s just not speaking English. After all, he has to redefine words so he can attack innocent people who are fanatics and zealots, and include the innocent in the same group as the guilty and then dehumanize them all.

Don’t rail against evil, just rail against this group called “zealots” and “fanatics” - which includes innocent people. Then one can easily dehumanize them and kill them.

Include the innocent with the evil. Dehumanize them all because you consider them all evil - even if no evil is done.

This was done many times during history.

Hitler. All Jews are evil. Including those who didn’t do evil.

Stalin. All capitalists are evil. Including those who didn’t do evil.

Pol Pot. All intellectuals are evil. Including those who didn’t do evil.

Now we have all zealots and fanatics are evil, according to the relativistic religion haters here. I wonder when the brown shirts will come for us now? Should I get my bug-out bag now or wait until they knock on my door when this way of thinking becomes mainstream in the USA?

I’ve tried to use reasoning with the haters of religion in this thread. It didn’t work. The hatred of religion has basically blinded them to what they’re doing wrong: including the innocent with the guilty.

 

[Valke2]

I’ve tried to use reasoning with the haters of religion in this thread. It didn’t work. The hatred of religion has basically blinded them to what they’re doing wrong: including the innocent with the guilty.

By “hatred of religion” are you referring to the Catholics that hate Islam, the Muslims who hate Christians, the Cathoclis who hate JWs, the JWs who hate Catholics, the Presbyterians who hate Catholics, the Catholics who hate Presbyterians, the Christians who hate Mormons, the Catholics who hate Jews, or the Atheists who hate Christians?

 

[BobCatholic]

By “hatred of religion” are you referring to the Catholics that hate Islam, the Muslims who hate Christians, the Cathoclis who hate JWs, the JWs who hate Catholics, the Presbyterians who hate Catholics, the Catholics who hate Presbyterians, the Christians who hate Mormons, the Catholics who hate Jews, or the Atheists who hate Christians?

I’m talking about the hatred of religion you have.

The examples you show are inconsistent:

Catholics hate islam: that’s a group of people hating a religion.
the rest: one group of people who hate another group of people.

I’ll rail against Christians hating anyone, but that’s because it is against my religion to hate other people. Love thy neighbor.

Since you hate religion, on what basis do you rail against hatred while at the same time hating?

 

[Valke2]

I’m talking about the hatred of religion you have.

The examples you show are inconsistent:

Catholics hate islam: that’s a group of people hating a religion.
the rest: one group of people who hate another group of people.

I’ll rail against Christians hating anyone, but that’s because it is against my religion to hate other people. Love thy neighbor.

Since you hate religion, on what basis do you rail against hatred while at the same time hating?

I don’t hate religion. The point is that these people hate each other because they cling to an unsupportable belief that their understanding of what God is, what God wants, and what one needs to do to be with God, is the only true understanding.

 

[BobCatholic]

I don’t hate religion.

Well, I am having trouble getting this vibe.

The point is that these people hate each other because they cling to an unsupportable belief that their understanding of what God is, what God wants, and what one needs to do to be with God, is the only true understanding.

Who makes the authoritative judgment if a belief is supportable? Why should I accept their magisterial authority?

 

[Oneiron]

No, because his definition of “fanatic” only includes those who do evil. His definition doesn’t cover all those fanatics that don’t do evil.

Same thing for “zealot”

I’ve come to the conclusion that he’s just not speaking English. After all, he has to redefine words so he can attack innocent people who are fanatics and zealots, and include the innocent in the same group as the guilty and then dehumanize them all.

really, because he distinctly said that those who are not willing to commit evil acts in the name of whatever they are fanatical about are not fanatics.

I also did give you dictionary definitions of words, and more definitions to help define the word and found that you’re not using it properly. You lump the devoted in with the fanatics and attempt to say he’s not defining it correctly. By definition, someone must be unreasonable to be a fanatic. Any reasonable person wouldn’t commit atrocities in the name of their cause. An unreasonable person would. Just accept the definition of fanatic or come up with what you feel is a better word (dictionary definition here) to use for pitchfork wielding fanatics.

 

[Mirdath]

There are numerous ordinary soldiers (St George for one, St Martin of Tours for another) who doubtless fought - in wars both justified and unjustified - and yet became saints.

I’ve never said all the Crusaders were evil people, only that the wars themselves were not wars of self-defense as some people here claimed and that they were not, in my opinion, just wars. The injustice committed in going to war does not prevent individuals who are part of it from doing great good.

Were these people canonised for dying for their faith, or rather for waging war to preserve faith, nation and other things dear to God???

If they are recognized as martyrs, the answer is by definition the former. Martin of Tours, I believe, gave up his occupation of Roman army grunt to become a bishop as soon as he could get out – please correct me if I’m wrong.

In Joan’s case, of course, the answer is in fact BOTH since she was wrongly executed as a witch. But even that was politically motivated - her enemies the English using a pet bishop and church courts to conveniently rid themselves of her. The two (fighting for the faith and dying for the faith) aren’t mutually exclusive

I would say that in Joan’s case, waging war was at best fourth on the list. While she was heroic in battle and fought for her faith, that is overshadowed first by her martyrdom, second by the good she did in unifying and inspiring the French Catholics, third for her virtue and visions of the divine. She’d have been canonized anyway without having lifted a finger against another.

So the true position of the Church (and God if one, as a Catholic is bound to, believes that Joan did indeed receive messages from him) is not one of pacifism at any price.

I’ve said (and quoted relevant passages from the Catechism) that self-defense is permissible if it does not go overboard.

BobCatholic:

Those who call themselves “irreligious” tend to believe in relativism, and relativism says evil is allowed since there is no such thing as evil.

Nonsense – or at least, not the way I understand it. Being irreligious and being a relativist may be traits commonly found together, but correlation is not causation. Many non-theists have a solid code of ethics they apply universally (ie, absolutism) without having a divine source for a moral code; and many religious people profess relativism.

Now, answer my question, please? How is a lack of religion actively damaging to society?

I’ve tried to use reasoning with the haters of religion in this thread. It didn’t work. The hatred of religion has basically blinded them to what they’re doing wrong: including the innocent with the guilty.

I’ve had it with you and Ex quibbling over definitions; that’s a vanishingly minor semantic argument intended to distract everyone from the real issues here you are not addressing. Until you or he provides a solution amenable to all, I will keep using those terms.

Moving on, I do not hate religion; Valke’s Jewish, so if he hates religion there’s some serious cognitive dissonance going on; and Oneiron has his own faith, inchoate as it may be. I can’t speak for them (they’ve spoken for themselves already both here and elsewhere on the board), but for myself I merely disagree. I do not hate, even when adherents of a particular religion choose to attack me – I try to view such attacks as errors, misunderstandings, even sometimes human malice, and I pity them. Let me disagree without being called hateful and other verbal abuses for it.

Who makes the authoritative judgment if a belief is supportable? Why should I accept their magisterial authority?

I don’t know, why do you accept the magisterial authority of the Pope? Same principle goes for followers of other religions.

 

[LilyM]

I’ve never said all the Crusaders were evil people, only that the wars themselves were not wars of self-defense as some people here claimed and that they were not, in my opinion, just wars. The injustice committed in going to war does not prevent individuals who are part of it from doing great good.

Mirdath, let me make it really simple for you. The Catholic Church has declared three people - St George, St Louis IX and Blessed Charles the Good - actually and specifically to be PATRON SAINTS of crusaders.

Are you seriously trying to tell us that the Catholic Church appoints patron saints of ANY activity that is inherently or mostly wrong in its opinion? If they were declared patrons AGAINST crusading then maybe you’d have a point - they’re not. Are there any patron saints of heretics? adulterers? fornicators? Women who want to become priests? Homosexuals? People who swear too much? No. Because these ARE activities that the church frowns on.

I would say that in Joan’s case, waging war was at best fourth on the list. While she was heroic in battle and fought for her faith, that is overshadowed first by her martyrdom, second by the good she did in unifying and inspiring the French Catholics, third for her virtue and visions of the divine. She’d have been canonized anyway without having lifted a finger against another.

Well you’d say wrong. Waging war was THE task God himself ORDERED her to do, her successful battles were the way she unified and inspired French Catholics, as you put it, which was God’s job for her. She would have sinned grievously in failing to do this duty (fighting) which was laid upon her by heaven.

She wasn’t told by her voices to submit to burning at the stake, in fact her death was a byproduct of her fighting - she was tried and executed purely because the English had to get rid of her since she was beating them soundly! No fighting on Joans part = no heroic martyrdom and no sainthood. She would NOT have been canonised had she failed to do God’s will for her, which above all was to fight for France.

I’ve said (and quoted relevant passages from the Catechism) that self-defense is permissible if it does not go overboard.

Yes but you’ve totally ignored the just war doctrine. Which is just that, doctrine. I believe it’s in the catechism, although you appear to have skipped that bit. Not to mention that the death penalty is permitted in certain cases, I believe that’s also in the Catechism. There are times when more than mere last-ditch self-defence is allowed. Otherwise it would be impermissible, for example, for any Catholic to be a soldier in peacetime, but only in war.

 

[Valke2]

Well, I am having trouble getting this vibe.

Who makes the authoritative judgment if a belief is supportable? Why should I accept their magisterial authority?

I don’t see how any belief by a finite being about an infinite God can be supportable, except by faith.

 

[Mirdath]

Mirdath, let me make it really simple for you. The Catholic Church has declared three people - St George, St Louis IX and Blessed Charles the Good - actually and specifically to be PATRON SAINTS of crusaders.

Are you seriously trying to tell us that the Catholic Church appoints patron saints of ANY activity that is inherently or mostly wrong in its opinion? If they were declared patrons AGAINST crusading then maybe you’d have a point - they’re not. Are there any patron saints of heretics? adulterers? fornicators? Women who want to become priests? Homosexuals? People who swear too much? No. Because these ARE activities that the church frowns on.

I’m trying to tell you that the action and the person are not the same thing. How about St Nicholas of Myra, patron saint of murderers and thieves? The Church definitely frowns on those actions, but holds the people still reachable by God’s grace and love unless they die unrepentant.

Yes but you’ve totally ignored the just war doctrine. Which is just that, doctrine. I believe it’s in the catechism, although you appear to have skipped that bit. Not to mention that the death penalty is permitted in certain cases, I believe that’s also in the Catechism. There are times when more than mere last-ditch self-defence is allowed. Otherwise it would be impermissible, for example, for any Catholic to be a soldier in peacetime, but only in war.

CCC 3:1:1:4:1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation.

CCC 3:1:1:4:1756b There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

I do not see where those leave a whole lot of room for justifying an offensive or even a preemptive war.

 

[LilyM]

I’m trying to tell you that the action and the person are not the same thing. How about St Nicholas of Myra, patron saint of murderers and thieves? The Church definitely frowns on those actions, but holds the people still reachable by God’s grace and love unless they die unrepentant.

Read this - it is very clear that he is patron AGAINST murder and robbery (theft), because the Church frowns on these things. Where is there a patron AGAINST the Crusades? None - because they aren’t intrinsically evil!!! Instead there are patrons of Crusaders. Because more often than not they WERE just.

CCC 3:1:1:4:1756b There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

I do not see where those leave a whole lot of room for justifying an offensive or even a preemptive war.

You’re begging the question - you’re starting from the assumption that pre-emptive or offensive military action is a) murder and b) evil, therefore falls under this section.

Again, look at the example of St Louis IX, the sainted Crusader King. He did a lot of prayer and penance, but I don’t think anyone with a brain believes for a second that he viewed going on those Crusades as sinful in the least. And yet, don’t you agree that at least some of his activities there were pre-emptive, possibly even to a degree offensive?

And God, who worked miracles through his intercession so that he could be canonised, doesn’t disagree with that pre-emptive or offensive warwaging either. Nor does he disagree in the case of the numerous other sainted Kings, Dukes and rulers who unrepentantly fought - at least some of them would have done so pre-emptively or offensively.