Will we survive religion?

[Mirdath]

Right, by your definition fanaticism is evil even though there is fanaticism which is not evil. You can’t hold to both positions

I’m not holding to both definitions. Fanaticism by my definition is unequivocally immoral and evil. It’s possible to be really into something without being a fanatic.

No, I’m working from a realistic definition.

I used, for example, very dedicated sports fans as fanatics, and don’t tell me there are none. Some riot when their team win, others don’t.

Very dedicated sports fans are very dedicated sports fans. Nothing more. I do not include them in my definition of fanatic – and the fact that the word ‘fan’ derives from ‘fanatic’ is a sign of linguistic shift, nothing more; and it does not carry the same connotations as its root word. I’ve quite strongly defined my use of the word; why do you keep trying to tell me I’m not using the definition I have stated?

Again, stop confusing fanaticism with evil, when not all fanaticism is evil, and stop confusing zealotry with evil, when not all zealotry is evil.

Rail against evil, which is always bad. Not against zealotry or fanaticism which are not always bad, as you yourself have admitted. By railing against fanaticism and zealotry, you paint harmless zealots and fanatics with the same paint brush of evil you paint the evil ones.

Fanaticism and zealotry, in the senses in which I am using the words, are evil. All of it, all the time. And you have not redefined them, nor have you defined evil. So in the absence of a clear alternate definition from you, I use mine. Either provide one or please use mine for the sake of understanding.

 

[jimmy]

I am becoming more and more convinced that civilization cannot survive religion unless we are all willing to acknowledge that no religion has a monoply on absolute truth; that our scriptures are flawed, human documents; and that it is the height of folly to assume that the road to faith was perfected 3,500, 2,000 or 1400 years ago.

Any religous system that imposes ethical behavior, promotes civilization and discourages violence, must be respected, acknowledged and given equal value to one’s own religious system. Anything in one’s own religous system that does not fit this criteria needs to be changed. Otherwise, we’re doomed.

People are willing to die for beliefs that have as much evidence to support them as we have to support the belief that Zeus exists. In fact, people would rather kill or die their own set of stories than to acknowledge that their neighbors stories are just as “true.”

This has led to disasterous results in the past. In a nuclear age, it can only lead to the annihilation of civilization, unless things change.
If that doesn’t change, we’re doomed.

Strangely I have come to the conclusion that atheism will be the death of this world. It destroys the relationship between people. You say that people are willing to die for their faith. So, what is wrong with that? Thousands of people were willing to die for the US in the revolutionary war, hundreds of thousands died in the civil war. Atheism has nothing to offer. It tells us that there is no truth except what can be observed and even that can’t be known to be true. All we can know is that we exist. As Descartes said, I think therefore I am. That is all we know from an atheist position. Religion is the one thing that will keep this world from being destroyed. It is the one thing that can create peace. People, of all nationalities and races, come together for something greater than themselves. They forget their differences and they come together for the sake of love for God and for neighbor.

Religious are not responsible for violence any more than atheists are. Napolean, Stalin, and Hitler were all atheists who caused far more harm than any religious person ever caused.

 

[Mirdath]

Strangely I have come to the conclusion that atheism will be the death of this world. It destroys the relationship between people. You say that people are willing to die for their faith. So, what is wrong with that? Thousands of people were willing to die for the US in the revolutionary war, hundreds of thousands died in the civil war. Atheism has nothing to offer. It tells us that there is no truth except what can be observed and even that can’t be known to be true. All we can know is that we exist. As Descartes said, I think therefore I am. That is all we know from an atheist position. Religion is the one thing that will keep this world from being destroyed. It is the one thing that can create peace. People, of all nationalities and races, come together for something greater than themselves. They forget their differences and they come together for the sake of love for God and for neighbor.

I should note that Descartes was not an atheist; cogito, ergo sum is only the starting point of his philosophy of reason. He derived God a few steps later; however, a codified religion of faith is incompatible with a reasoned belief according to him. He was a theist but not religious.

Tell me why atheism will destroy the world? Atheists can still see beauty and love and friendship; they, no matter nationality or race, can come together to be a part of something greater than themselves – it simply isn’t divine in nature. They can forget their differences and come together as humans meeting humans, for their own sakes and for those of others. Without religious differences I’d even venture to say it’s easier to do that!

And tell me why religion will save it? Which religion? Or all of them? Why, given the historical track record of most religions, do you think it’s vital to the continuance of human civilization?

Religious are not responsible for violence any more than atheists are. Napolean, Stalin, and Hitler were all atheists who caused far more harm than any religious person ever caused.

Read up on my early posts – I covered that in somewhat exhaustive detail. Quick summary: religious people (even those who are faking it) have done more wrong throughout all history in the name of religion than atheists have since that movement got off the ground. If you gave cult-atheism a few thousand years to catch up it might do the same. But note I said cult-atheism – atheism as replacing belief systems with its own. Fanatics who subscribe to that are just as bad as fanatics with a religion and a deity backing them up. Ordinary live-and-let-live atheists really haven’t done much of anything so earth-shattering.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

I’m not holding to both definitions. Fanaticism by my definition is unequivocally immoral and evil. It’s possible to be really into something without being a fanatic.

Yes. But this is your definition of fanaticism, a definition that not all people use-- not even by a long shot.

Mirdath:

Very dedicated sports fans are very dedicated sports fans. Nothing more. I do not include them in my definition of fanatic – and the fact that the word ‘fan’ derives from ‘fanatic’ is a sign of linguistic shift, nothing more; and it does not carry the same connotations as its root word. I’ve quite strongly defined my use of the word; why do you keep trying to tell me I’m not using the definition I have stated?

Because the definition that you are using is not the standard definition of fanaticism. You definition of fanaticism basically seems to boil down to an inherently fatalistic world view which will always seek to inflict harm on themselves or others around them due to their convictions, religious or otherwise.

And that’s not always what fanaticism is.

Fanaticism =/= Nihilism

I think BobCatholic is really trying to get you to see this, and yet you refuse to be open to a more standard definition. More to the point, I think he’s presented some very reasonable arguments against your strict usage of it-- which you’ve fairly well ignored in favor of your own definition for whatever reason. But if you define fanaticism as something inherently evil, then this is going to skewer your perception of evil-- and, then, of course, you will always perceive all aspects of fanaticism as evil as well.

Mirdath:

Fanaticism and zealotry, in the senses in which I am using the words, are evil. All of it, all the time. And you have not redefined them, nor have you defined evil.

What are you talking about?

He doesn’t have to redefine anything.

You’re the one who’s redefining fanaticism and zealotry so as to absolutely always imply something inherently evil.

Mirdath:

So in the absence of a clear alternate definition from you, I use mine. Either provide one or please use mine for the sake of understanding.

How convenient.

I can’t speak for BobCatholic, but I know I will not be using your definition of fanaticism and zealotry. Like other topics within this thread, you’re apparently conflating concepts and ideas that do not always imply what you think they must absolutely always imply.

Then again, you’ve apparently already got your mind made up on more than a few issues-- so I’m not even sure why I’m trying to get you to see this. If you’re not even open to what we’re suggesting to you, then there’s really not much point in debating any of this with you either.

Nonetheless, we can still hope, right?

 

[jimmy]

Tell me why atheism will destroy the world? Atheists can still see beauty and love and friendship; they, no matter nationality or race, can come together to be a part of something greater than themselves – it simply isn’t divine in nature. They can forget their differences and come together as humans meeting humans, for their own sakes and for those of others. Without religious differences I’d even venture to say it’s easier to do that!

And tell me why religion will save it? Which religion? Or all of them? Why, given the historical track record of most religions, do you think it’s vital to the continuance of human civilization?

They can not come together. It is a nice idea to think that they can without some superior reason to bring them together but the problem is that people will not simply come together for the sake of coming together. You can look at the world that has resulted from the revolution against religion. People have become completely disconnected from the community. They continue to seperate mankind.

Atheism can’t offer anything to the world to inspire men to live. The philosophers of atheism are the likes of Nichie(I don’t know how to spell his name). They tell us that the only thing we have to live for and die for is what we create for ourselves. The only purpose to life is that which we create for ourselves. It produces philosophers like Peter Singer who have destroyed any understanding of sanctity of life.

I am not saying that simply having religion will save mankind. There will always be bad people who will be a threat. But religion offers something for the common man to live by. It offers a reason for people to come together. It offers a reason to be good. It offers a solid truth to live by(love your neighbor as yourself and love God with all your heart, mind and soul).

What religion? I deliberately didn’t mention that above. I would obviously say that Christianity is the greatest religion since I am a Christian. But people must live in understanding that there are other faiths. We must accept the idea that people will pursue faith in a different way(even though that way is false). Religion doesn’t demand that you force your own religion upon them. Christ told the apostles that if they weren’t accepted in a city to simply shake the dust off. Love your enemy. We can hope that they will come to the truth.

Read up on my early posts – I covered that in somewhat exhaustive detail. Quick summary: religious people (even those who are faking it) have done more wrong throughout all history in the name of religion than atheists have since that movement got off the ground. If you gave cult-atheism a few thousand years to catch up it might do the same. But note I said cult-atheism – atheism as replacing belief systems with its own. Fanatics who subscribe to that are just as bad as fanatics with a religion and a deity backing them up. Ordinary live-and-let-live atheists really haven’t done much of anything so earth-shattering.

You try to seperate the fanatical atheists from the normal atheists but say the same can’t be done with religion? If religion must claim Osama bin laden or the kings who lead the crusades, then atheism must claim Hitler and all the fanatics.

The three atheists I mentioned above caused more damage than all the religious combined throughout history. Hitler killed tens of millions, Stalin killed tens of millions, and Napolean killed a lot of people(not sure how many). No religious person can be compared.

 

[Mirdath]

They can not come together. It is a nice idea to think that they can without some superior reason to bring them together but the problem is that people will not simply come together for the sake of coming together. You can look at the world that has resulted from the revolution against religion. People have become completely disconnected from the community. They continue to seperate mankind.

Perhaps the people you know; in my experience non-theists are quite capable of ‘coming together’ and forming happy and un-isolated communities. And what global revolution against religion are you talking about? People are being ‘disconnected’ from reality whether or not they are religious.

Atheism can’t offer anything to the world to inspire men to live. The philosophers of atheism are the likes of Nichie(I don’t know how to spell his name). They tell us that the only thing we have to live for and die for is what we create for ourselves. The only purpose to life is that which we create for ourselves. It produces philosophers like Peter Singer who have destroyed any understanding of sanctity of life.

It’s Nietzsche. He was not an atheist, he was a Deist (‘God is dead’, not ‘God never existed’). I highly recommend reading him, by the way – sure, he was the philosophical equivalent of a highly literate internet troll, but he had some great ideas (and a wicked sense of humor) and conveyed them well.

Atheism doesn’t offer any inspiration to people – instead, it posits that there is already plenty to inspire without needing to rely on the supernatural. And there is: have you never looked at the beauty of a sunset for its clouds and colors instead of a divine idea? Or enjoyed the company of friends for who they are, instead of God’s chess-pieces?

I am not saying that simply having religion will save mankind. There will always be bad people who will be a threat. But religion offers something for the common man to live by. It offers a reason for people to come together. It offers a reason to be good. It offers a solid truth to live by(love your neighbor as yourself and love God with all your heart, mind and soul).

I fear people whose only motivation to behave themselves is that they read it in a book. I fear for them as well – it is not a happy situation to be in.

There’s much value in much of what religion teaches. For those to whom it provides support and meaning, all the better; I find meaning enough in the world I can see.

What religion? I deliberately didn’t mention that above. I would obviously say that Christianity is the greatest religion since I am a Christian. But people must live in understanding that there are other faiths. We must accept the idea that people will pursue faith in a different way(even though that way is false). Religion doesn’t demand that you force your own religion upon them. Christ told the apostles that if they weren’t accepted in a city to simply shake the dust off. Love your enemy. We can hope that they will come to the truth.

thank you! This hasn’t been said often enough in here :x

You try to seperate the fanatical atheists from the normal atheists but say the same can’t be done with religion? If religion must claim Osama bin laden or the kings who lead the crusades, then atheism must claim Hitler and all the fanatics.

No, I don’t. I’ll claim Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot (whose cult of state actually included tenets of Theravada Buddhism, so that’s iffy) as atheists – never said otherwise. Hitler, however, professed to be religious.

The three atheists I mentioned above caused more damage than all the religious combined throughout history. Hitler killed tens of millions, Stalin killed tens of millions, and Napolean killed a lot of people(not sure how many). No religious person can be compared.

Napoleon was Catholic – to the point of forcing the pope to crown him Holy Roman Emperor. I covered Hitler above.

Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot undoubtedly were responsible for many horrible crimes in the name of their cult-atheism. If you’re counting simply number of deaths, they can maybe compete with what has been done in the name of religion over millennia. However, they also had much greater technology for killing at their disposal, and a much higher population to dispose of. As a percentage of total population slaughtered, they lose quite handily. I covered this in my first post in the thread. And as Valke and I have been saying, it isn’t necessarily a good idea for anyone to bow to anything greater than themselves and their fellow human beings – religion or state-cult.

 

[jimmy]

Perhaps the people you know; in my experience non-theists are quite capable of ‘coming together’ and forming happy and un-isolated communities. And what global revolution against religion are you talking about? People are being ‘disconnected’ from reality whether or not they are religious.

It’s Nietzsche. He was not an atheist, he was a Deist (‘God is dead’, not ‘God never existed’). I highly recommend reading him, by the way – sure, he was the philosophical equivalent of a highly literate internet troll, but he had some great ideas (and a wicked sense of humor) and conveyed them well.

Atheism doesn’t offer any inspiration to people – instead, it posits that there is already plenty to inspire without needing to rely on the supernatural. And there is: have you never looked at the beauty of a sunset for its clouds and colors instead of a divine idea? Or enjoyed the company of friends for who they are, instead of God’s chess-pieces?

I fear people whose only motivation to behave themselves is that they read it in a book. I fear for them as well – it is not a happy situation to be in.

There’s much value in much of what religion teaches. For those to whom it provides support and meaning, all the better; I find meaning enough in the world I can see.

thank you! This hasn’t been said often enough in here :x

No, I don’t. I’ll claim Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot (whose cult of state actually included tenets of Theravada Buddhism, so that’s iffy) as atheists – never said otherwise. Hitler, however, professed to be religious.

 

[Mirdath]

Hitler may have claimed to be Catholic but the thing is he also spoke out against religion and he spoke of religion being a crutch for the weak. He also put Catholic monks in the death camps with the Jews. Pope Pius XI had to send his encyclical secretly to the priests. A man who claims to be Catholic then puts Catholic monks in the camps is not much of a Catholic.

Yes, he forced the pope to crown him emperor. That doesn’t make him Catholic any more than you believing in free will makes you Catholic. He also planned on destroying the Church.

My point here is not that either of these people are scintillating paragons of religious virtue. They aren’t, quite simply. However, like I’ve said many times before in this thread, they hid behind religion’s metaphorical skirts – crimes they committed they committed in the name of religion. I am not holding religion responsible for their acts, I hold them responsible; but merely the fact that they were able to do these things under a religious pretext is a terrifying vote of no confidence in humanity’s ability to survive religion as applied by evil people in positions of power.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Statement 1: Given that I wrote ‘personally’ I’d have to say it’s relative. I don’t claim to be absolutely correct, I just try as best I can (and I’ve yet to be convinced of a better way).

Statement 2: By your standards

I think you missed my point in asking these questions.

Since you like to speak on my behalf I’ll just ask you to compare Statement 1 with Statement 2 and see if you can see what mean when I ask you these questions.

See what I’m getting at?

Mirdath:

Also, define ‘evil’ and ‘good’.

The Ten Commandments are a good place to start…

As Psalm 19:7 says, “The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul. The statutes of the LORD are trustworthy, making wise the simple.”

These laws are structured about God’s very essence.

We shall not have any strange gods before God.
Why? God is the true God above all gods.

We shall not take the Lord’s name in vain.
Why? God’s name is the name above all names.

We shall remember to keep the Sabbath day holy.
Why? God is our eternal Sabbath rest.

We shall honor our father and mother.
Why? God is our Father in heaven.

We shall not murder.
Why? God is our eternal life.

We shall not commit adultery.
Why? God is our eternal husband who is faithful and true.

We shall not steal.
Why? God is our eternal gift freely offered to all.

We shall not bear false witness.
Why? God is our eternal truth.

We shall not covet our neighbor’s spouse?
Why? God is our eternal covenant between husband and wife.

We shall not covet our neighbor’s goods.
Why? God is our eternal covenant between between man and his possessions.

In other words, to break any of these commandments is to break oneself away from God’s very essense.

Mirdath:

Do you mean ‘does not/does believe the way I do’ ?

To some extent yes. The natural law is evident to all regardless of whether they believe in God, gods or no divinities at all.

This is why Paul says…
Romans 2:14:

Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law…

Mirdath:

And if so, is offensive war against those now defined as ‘evil’ morally justifiable?

But what you’re defining as ‘offensive’ I’m defining as ‘defensive’.

An offensive attack is never morally justifiable.

A defensive response, however, is certainly morally justifiable.

If we can’t agree on this, there really is no point in debating it further. We simply don’t see eye to eye on this one point at all.

Mirdath:

Calling the Crusades inherently, completely good is quite a stretch at best.

But I didn’t say that all aspects of things that happened during the Crusades were inherently, completely good. You’re the one who is claming that all aspects of the Crusades were inherently, completely evil.

Please don’t confuse my position with the antithesis of your own position. I’ve only claimed that some aspects of the Crusades were inherently, completely good and that some aspects of the Crusades were inherently, completely evil.

My post where I explained the good which came from the Crusades considered the aspects of the Crusades which were inherently, completely good.

My post where I linked to Pope Innocent III’s response considered the aspects of the Crusades which were inherently, completely evil.

Mirdath:

So whether something is good or not depends on the situation and background? Hello relativism.

You’re really claiming to have been raised Catholic and you’re still not getting this?

I’ve never said that whether something is good or not depends on the situation and background. If any of the Ten Commandments are broken, then it is a sin. There’s never a time when not breaking one of these Ten Commandments is not a sin either. This is absolutely true regardless of the situation and/or background.

However, in regards to the question of forgiveness, some sins can be easilly forgiven whereas others cannot be easilly forgiven, cf. venial vs. mortal sins. Read through Section IV. THE GRAVITY OF SIN: MORTAL AND VENIAL SIN and you should understand this better.

In short, sins are rightly evaluated according to their gravity. But I suggest that you read further to understand this better before you claim I’m distorting Catholic doctrines.

This is why I said this before…
Mr. Ex Nihilo:

God is relatively absolute.

The devil is absolutely relative.

See the difference?

I haven’t distorted anything Mirdath. You are, however, distorting my own reputation as a Catholic by making those claims you made against me.

I would ask you to stop doing that please.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

You try to seperate the fanatical atheists from the normal atheists but say the same can’t be done with religion? If religion must claim Osama bin laden or the kings who lead the crusades, then atheism must claim Hitler and all the fanatics.

Excellent point jimmy!

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

First of all, I start with the ending…

Sorry to hear you’ve all got it Good luck to your family.

Thank you. This is much appreciated.

Mirdath:

Having been forced to memorize the Baltimore Catechism as a child (among many, many other things), I think I probably have a better understanding of it than most who profess it.

Perhaps so. And yet you are (apparently?) not a practicing Catholic today?

Mirdath:

ooh, the gloves finally come off! Scary!

I’m not even going to bother responding to that beyond what I’ve said – we’re here to discuss whether or not humanity will eventually destroy itself through either religious fanaticism or the use of religion by evil people, or a combination of both. My answer’s been sliding steadily farther towards ‘no’.

First of all, thank you for (as far as I’m aware) not continuing in that line of questioning.

It’s one thing to use a debate in an attempt to convince someone that they don’t actually believe what they claim to believe-- I do this myself in many debates since this is in the spirit of a good debate.

But, unless they are flat out contradicting their own beleifs, it’s another thing entirely to go to someone and claim they do not belong to the faith they claim to adhere too.

Mirdath:

Last I checked, accidents aren’t sinful, nor are actions committed by people with good intent (according to yourself, no less).

Which goes against what you just said…?

‘Sin is sin, regardless of whether people realize they are sinning or not’. ‘Valid conditions of invincible ignorance’ exist – ie, people who don’t realize their actions are wrong can be considered excused from the state of sin. Which is it?

Sin is sin regardless of conditions or circumstances. A more detailed discussion of sin can be found here. And check back to this post to see the flip side of sin, the issue of forgiveness too.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

continued

Mirdath:

The operative word there is could. He was permitted, as Satan well knew during the temptation in the desert; he even wished that ‘this cup would pass’ from him. But he accepted it, as it was his father’s will.

But if the operative word there is could, then why are you saying this?

Mirdath:

And it shows how Jesus himself accepted violence done to him without retaliation, even to the point of death. Aren’t Christians supposed to emulate Jesus, or are you conveniently skipping the parts that’d be hard for you?

I’d like to know what parts I am skipping here.

Mirdath:

As I believe the Church now expresses it, Hell is the absence of God from which people have voluntarily withdrawn themselves through sin. This doesn’t require any vengeful action on God’s part – they’ve done it themselves.

Stating that man sends himself to hell doesn’t absolve Christ of the final judgement when he will appear in glory to judge the living and the dead.

It doesn’t change the fact that the catechism says this either…

The Church’s ultimate trial

675 Before Christ’s second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers.573 The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth574 will unveil the “mystery of iniquity” in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh.575

676 The Antichrist’s deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgment. The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism,576 especially the “intrinsically perverse” political form of a secular messianism.577

677 The Church will enter the glory of the kingdom only through this final Passover, when she will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection.578 The kingdom will be fulfilled, then, not by a historic triumph of the Church through a progressive ascendancy, but only by God’s victory over the final unleashing of evil, which will cause his Bride to come down from heaven.579 God’s triumph over the revolt of evil will take the form of the Last Judgment after the final cosmic upheaval of this passing world.580

While I highly doubt that Christ will be literally employing a sword on that day (this is almost certainly a metaphor, but I could be wrong), we do know full well that when that time comes, Christ really will literally return and destroy some by the brightness of his coming…

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

…continued.

And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming.

And again…

All this is evidence that God’s judgment is right, and as a result you will be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are suffering. God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well.

This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.

They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed. This includes you, because you believed our testimony to you.

And again…

Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men: “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”

And again…

At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

Consequently, many feel we’ve already seen the theophany of the Lord Jesus Christ raining fire down on Sodom and Gomorrah way back in the Hebrew Scriptues prior to his Incarnation in the Blessed Virgin…
Genesis 19:24:

Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the LORD out of the heavens.

Many believe that this double reference to the Lord means the Son rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah from the Father out of the heavens-- the Lord’s will be done on earth as it is in heaven so to speak.

This is actually very consistent with Jesus’ own words regarding the end of days…

"It was the same in the days of Lot. People were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building. But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all.

It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed."

Even if one argues that Christ will simply obliterate the sinful people who deserve damnation by revealing the fullness of his glory to them, this still nonetheless indicates that Christ has come to judge the nations knowing full well the effects that his glorius second coming will produce.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

And finally, either way you look at it, he’s not a pacifist all the time. Even his overturning of the tables of the money lenders indicates that he can get royally ticked off at people and lash out at them if necessary.

Mirdath:

I hope you realize that moderate irreligious people, like you say God is, are being patient with those who claim to know God (and often enough try to force him on us).

Perhaps I’ve spoken too soon. Could you explain the ‘like you say God is’ part a little bit more clearly?

Mirdath:

Raise your kids better. Seriously, as a parent you have all-but-absolute control over what they’re exposed to. If you don’t want them to be exposed to the dangers of thinking for themselves, isolate them completely, homeschool them, and never let them out of the house except to go to church. You can do it – sadly, you can.

Are you actually giving me instructions on how to raise my kids?

Mirdath:

Where to start?!

Christ is divine, Crusaders were human.

And yet Christ lives within us by the Holy Spirit. The credible words of spiritual instruction we speak are God speaking through us to the world. In fact, God often acts through those who believe in him.

Mirdath:

Christ comes to purify and redeem, the Crusaders said they did but ended up looting, pillaging, and murdering.

Some of the Crusaders ended up looting, pillaging, and murdering. Some of the Crusaders came to purify and redeem.

Which Crusaders do you think God was acting through?

Or do you even believe it’s possible that God was acting through any of them?

Mirdath:

Christ’s mercy and fairness will be apparent to all in the general judgement; the Crusaders in general showed precious little of either quality.

Some of the Crusaders in general showed precious little of either mercy or fairness. Some of the Crusaders in general showed a vast amount of both qualities.

Which Crusaders do you think God was acting through?

Or do you even believe it’s possible that God was acting through any of them?

Mirdath:

There’s a few off the top of my head.

Got any more?

Mirdath:

Oh, I do. I just don’t agree with it. Does the fact that I happen not to think such-and-such is true completely invalidate everything else I know about it?

No. But it does cause my eyebrow to raise a tad bit when I hear an ex-Catholic claim that I’m distorting Catholic teachings.

Do you believe that the reason that you [may have?] left Catholicism was because you understood Catholicism better than most Catholics did?

Just checking.

 

[nby]

How is saying I like Southpark disrespecting you or anyone else? It’s a funny cartoon, imo. I have no problem with poking fun at religion – your’s or mine. I have no probelm with you hating Southpark. I’d be hard pressed to think of a single episode that doesn’t make at least one joke at the expense of Judaism. What this has to do with this thread is beyond me.
It seems you just had the need to attack my motives, rather than my position.

You’re right. It is beyond you.

 

[Mirdath]

To some extent yes. The natural law is evident to all regardless of whether they believe in God, gods or no divinities at all.

Natural laws like the law of gravity, perhaps. Natural law as you define it – a system of beliefs – is defined differently for every creed.

This is why Paul says…

According to your belief, virtuous pagans can be saved even though they do not believe in the Christ. I’m familiar with the ‘noble savage’ discussion.

But what you’re defining as ‘offensive’ I’m defining as ‘defensive’.

An offensive attack is never morally justifiable.

A defensive response, however, is certainly morally justifiable.

If we can’t agree on this, there really is no point in debating it further. We simply don’t see eye to eye on this one point at all.

The Crusaders defended their way all across the Middle East. I’ve heard some Muslims use the same argument for their invasion of north Africa and Spain.

You’re probably right, there’s no way we’re going to agree those are morally equivalent

But I didn’t say that all aspects of things that happened during the Crusades were inherently, completely good. You’re the one who is claming that all aspects of the Crusades were inherently, completely evil.

Not at all! If not for the Crusades Europe wouldn’t have developed the spice trade, for one; and while that led to a great deal of harm itself, it also had undeniable benefits for everyone. We simply disagree on the motive for the Crusades: you say good, I say otherwise. Let’s just move on

You’re really claiming to have been raised Catholic and you’re still not getting this?

I’ve never said that whether something is good or not depends on the situation and background. If any of the Ten Commandments are broken, then it is a sin. There’s never a time when not breaking one of these Ten Commandments is not a sin either. This is absolutely true regardless of the situation and/or background.

However, in regards to the question of forgiveness, some sins can be easilly forgiven whereas others cannot be easilly forgiven, cf. venial vs. mortal sins. Read through Section IV. THE GRAVITY OF SIN: MORTAL AND VENIAL SIN and you should understand this better.

In short, sins are rightly evaluated according to their gravity. But I suggest that you read further to understand this better before you claim I’m distorting Catholic doctrines.

So, is a ‘just’ war still sinful because it involves killing, then?

I haven’t distorted anything Mirdath. You are, however, distorting my own reputation as a Catholic by making those claims you made against me.

I would ask you to stop doing that please.

Where have I claimed to speak for anyone else? Your reputation is your own, it’s not my responsibility. I might be able to slander it – something I’ve been quite careful to avoid, it’s not good for civil debate – but only you can tarnish it.

 

[Mirdath]

Perhaps so. And yet you are (apparently?) not a practicing Catholic today?

Nope. I still find it academically interesting, however.

It’s one thing to use a debate in an attempt to convince someone that they don’t actually believe what they claim to believe-- I do this myself in many debates since this is in the spirit of a good debate.

But, unless they are flat out contradicting their own beleifs, it’s another thing entirely to go to someone and claim they do not belong to the faith they claim to adhere too.

I’ve said I believe you’re adhering to positions the teachings of Jesus reject, yes. And you’ve contradicted yourself as well: see above where you claim going against the fifth Commandment is always sinful no matter what, yet you’ve argued for the existence of just (hence ‘moral’) wars throughout this thread.

I’d like to know what parts I am skipping here.

Little things like most of the ‘turn other cheek’ speech, ‘shake the dust from your sandals’.

While I highly doubt that Christ will be literally employing a sword on that day (this is almost certainly a metaphor, but I could be wrong), we do know full well that when that time comes, Christ really will literally return and destroy some by the brightness of his coming…

Even if one argues that Christ will simply obliterate the sinful people who deserve damnation by revealing the fullness of his glory to them, this still nonetheless indicates that Christ has come to judge the nations knowing full well the effects that his glorius second coming will produce.

He didn’t destroy people by the brightness of his first coming; even transfigured, he’s quite capable of toning it down for mortal eyes.

As to the judgment – yes, he is going to send people to hell; however, they’ve already placed themselves there by dying in the state of mortal sin. They have already separated themselves from God; the last judgment simply makes it official.

And finally, either way you look at it, he’s not a pacifist all the time. Even his overturning of the tables of the money lenders indicates that he can get royally ticked off at people and lash out at them if necessary.

Yet he did not kill or even seriously injure them, merely drove them away from a place they were desecrating.

Perhaps I’ve spoken too soon. Could you explain the ‘like you say God is’ part a little bit more clearly?

Just drawing parallels for examples of patience

Are you actually giving me instructions on how to raise my kids?

If you choose to take it that way – yes. Raise your children how you see fit, don’t let society do the job for you if you don’t want it to. I think we’d all be much better off were that principle applied universally.

Or do you even believe it’s possible that God was acting through any of them?

Possible, yes; that doesn’t excuse the actions of the rest of them though. Nor does it make the Crusades just wars in my opinion – I thought we closed that one though!

Do you believe that the reason that you [may have?] left Catholicism was because you understood Catholicism better than most Catholics did?

I left because I did not believe in it.

 

[Valke2]

You’re right. It is beyond you.

Stop trying to provke me and respect my atoritay!

 

[Damascus]

Hey, you know us tolerant liberal revisionsts. Always willing to change to get along

What got changed? The religion part?

And how do you know your interests would not bother anyone? are you serious? On this forum I bet you could find a lot of prudes who would take issue with wich way you put the toilet roll on. And claim there is a moral reason to do it their way.

You are assuming too much here Valke2, as per usual.

 

[Damascus]

Stop trying to provke me and respect my atoritay!

I vote this post gets funniest post of the day!

You are good Valke2!