In the interests of balance...
...I feel it only fair, given the amount of debate I seem to have sparked following my earlier digs at the Holy Father, that I present a little of the other side of the argument. (And let's face it, of the two elections that have made the news recently, this is by far the most interesting!)
So, the following are reasons why Benedict XVI will make a good Pope.
1. He's male
2. He's Catholic
3. He isn't a paedophoile
4. Or a murderer
5. But seriously...
6. He has worked at the Vatican for many years so now how things work, and thus how to get things done.
7. He has a huge amount of concern and respect for the human person, and these views, especially his views on abortion, will be welcomed.
8. He speaks ten languages and as such can reach out to Catholics all over the world. He is also extremely intelligent ans as Pope I'm sure he will write even more which, because of his fame, will be read by many more people than before.
9. He is a keen spokesperson for peace - although he has been criticised for being in the Hitler Youth and Army (and let's face it, it was rather the Done Thing in the 1940s if one was German) he actually deserted at the end oft he war, which was a very brave thing to do.
10. He is very supportive of the work of charitable organisations such as CAFOD and hopefully this will extend to a concern for world poverty etc, whihc will build on the work done by Pope John Paul II.
Best of luck to Benedict XVI, our new Bishop of Rome, or The Artist Formerly known as God's Rottweiler.
So, the following are reasons why Benedict XVI will make a good Pope.
1. He's male
2. He's Catholic
3. He isn't a paedophoile
4. Or a murderer
5. But seriously...
6. He has worked at the Vatican for many years so now how things work, and thus how to get things done.
7. He has a huge amount of concern and respect for the human person, and these views, especially his views on abortion, will be welcomed.
8. He speaks ten languages and as such can reach out to Catholics all over the world. He is also extremely intelligent ans as Pope I'm sure he will write even more which, because of his fame, will be read by many more people than before.
9. He is a keen spokesperson for peace - although he has been criticised for being in the Hitler Youth and Army (and let's face it, it was rather the Done Thing in the 1940s if one was German) he actually deserted at the end oft he war, which was a very brave thing to do.
10. He is very supportive of the work of charitable organisations such as CAFOD and hopefully this will extend to a concern for world poverty etc, whihc will build on the work done by Pope John Paul II.
Best of luck to Benedict XVI, our new Bishop of Rome, or The Artist Formerly known as God's Rottweiler.
posted by RLS at 5:20 pm
32 Comments:
What can I say? I agree whole-heartedly! (That must be among the shortest posts I've ever put on the internet...)
Peace be with you,
The Cavalier
“Firstly old bean, dialogue is not a verb, please refrain from using it as such, as it really doesn't help your case.”
Well, actually, “old chap”, “dialogue”, whilst its primary function is as a noun, can also be used as a verb i.e. “to take part in dialogue”, “to dialogue with ---“, “to provide a film or play with dialogue”. That’s derived from the definition provided by the eleventh (2004) edition of the “Concise Oxford English Dictionary”, so I think I’ll take that as my guide thank you very much.
“Secondly, the Bible is a book, in the sense of it being a collected set of texts, which are frequently published together in between two pieces of pasteboard or other rigid material.”
“Book” in its most simplistic definition, is, as you say, “a written or printed work consisting of pages glued or sown together along one side and bound in covers.” So, form a purely physical reductionist perspective, yes, the Bible is a book, in that it has covers, pages, ink, etc.
Yet, it is also defined (again, I am using the 2004 Concise Oxford English Dictionary) in the second section of that primary definition as “> a main division of a literary work OR OF THE BIBLE” (capitals added) if that is the case, then it is a “book of books”.
So, the reason I object to calling the Bible a “book” is because such a term carries assumptions with it – that the Bible is somehow a unified and singular text like “Pride and Prejudice” or the French Constitution, when in fact it is more properly understood as a collation of many different texts.
I actually also object, for the very same reasons, to calling the Bible “the Bible”, because the word “Bible” is drawn from the Greek “ta Biblia” meaning “the books” and thus, it more correctly is understood as the “Holy Scriptures”, a term which correctly communicates the multiplicity, diversity and variety of the thing signified.
This is an academic point that I derive from scriptural study, and so one that I simply put in as a matter of intellectual accuracy.
“Thirdly, God is a myth in the sense that there is a whole lot of talk about him that goes on, but no evidence that he actually exists.”
That entirely depends on how you define 'evidence' – if you mean evidence in the sense that you demand that God be a thing that you can touch, smell, feel, see and hear, then yes, there is no direct empirical evidence for God. God is not empirical, as every good philosopher from Kant to Wittgenstein has recognised. But that just begs the question: why should evidence be restricted to the empirical, the phenomenal, the sensory?
The dictionary definition (2004 Concise OED, again) of evidence as “information indicating whether a proposition is true or valid” does not entail a necessarily empirical nature to that inforamtion.
Thus, in a sense, you have betrayed your essentially Empiricist/Logical Positivist metaphysics – you believe that the only meaningful statements are those that can be empirically verified – like “the tree is green”, but not those that can’t, like “God exists”.
The problem with this belief is that it is essentially illogical. It bases itself in what is called the “verification principle”, which is the principle that sensory experience is the arbiter and determinant of meaning. The problem with this principle is that it can’t be empirically verified, therefore by the logic of empiricism, it is meaningless.
It tries to deny metaphysics, but its problem is that it IS metaphysics. It is, one might say, a self-referentially incoherent foundationalism that by its very nature, commits logical suicide.
Thus your metaphysical assumptions are illogical, and therefore they are wrong.
The fact remains: I do not NEED to have empirical proof that God exists in order for that belief to be logical, meaningful, and philosophically tenable, and any demand that I DO need to have such evidence is manifestly irrational for the reasons stated above.
This is all ignoring the fact of course, that there IS evidence – philosophical and spiritual, for the existence for God. I could cite the beauty of the universe, the ordered nature of the universe, the fact that life just happens to exist (which any research will tell you is extremely unlikely, as Stephen Hawking puts it:
“If the density of the universe one second after the Big Bang had been had been greater by one part in a thousand billion, the universe would have re-collapsed after ten years. On the other hand, if the density of the universe at that time had been less by the same amount, the universe would have been essentially empty since it was about ten years old. How was it that the initial density of the universe was chosen so carefully? Maybe there is some reason why the universe should have precisely the critical density.” (“Black Holes and Baby Universes and Other Essays”, Prof. Stephen Hawking, Bantam Press, 1993)
Indeed, as another scientific account puts it:
“In the early expansion of the universe there has to be a close balance between the expansive energy (driving things apart) and the force of gravity (pulling things together). If expansion dominated then matter would fly apart too rapidly for condensation into galaxies and stars to take place. Nothing interesting could happen in so thinly spread a world. On the other hand, if gravity dominated the world would collapse in on itself again before there was time for the processes of life to get going. For us to be possible requires a balance between the effects of expansion and contraction which at a very early epoch in the universe’s history (the Planck time) has to differ from equality by not more than 1 in 1060. The numerate will marvel at such a degree of accuracy. For the non-numerate I will borrow an illustration from Paul Davies of what that accuracy means. He points out that it is the same as aiming at a target an inch wide on the other side of the observable universe, twenty thousand million light years away, and hitting the mark!” (“One World”, by John Polkinghorne, pg. 57. He cites Paul Davies, a popular science writer and author of “God and the New Physics” as well as a series of other works, and who is notably unsympathetic to Christianity.)
… these scientific accounts suggest to us that there was something more than just sheer chance behind our existence) and let’s not even start on the ontological argument!
Additionally, there are religious experiences. I have religious experiences – as do many, many other people. This includes great intellectuals, scientists, philosophers and world leaders, as well as Third World ill-educated agricultural labourers, in case you were wondering).
We (believers) all feel we have a spiritual relationship with God. This experience is unique and not similar to any other experience recorded. Does not the fact that so many people throughout history EXPERIENCE God, suggest the existence of a personal God is extremely plausible?
If I could communciate this experince to you, I would, but in the absence of that ability it's frustrating. It's like trying to prove the existence of light to a blind person (or at least someone who won't open their eyes).
Hence, no, God is not a myth, since myths are either demonstrably false, internally illogical and inconsistent, or rely for their veracity completely on empirical evidence, which Christianity doesn’t.
I haven’t even begun on other more fantastic proofs, such as the occurrence of miracles at Lourdes for example, but since I haven’t experienced them, I won’t comment on them. I do know people who have experienced healings however, and I find their testimony quite compelling.
We may safely conclude therefore, that to say that “God is a myth” and that “there is no evidence” for Him, is not only to ignore a heavy amount of plausible evidence, but to make certain untenable metaphysical epistemological assumptions that do not stand up to the light of reason and logic. Therefore, you are quite clearly mistaken in your assertions.
“Fourthly, there is nothing inherently anti-scientific about theism, although theism demands belief without proof, whereas science demands proof.”
Which is merely to state the obvious, and to assert something that I find completely unproblematic. Religion does not need sensory experience to ‘prove’ it. Science does. Religion deals with the ‘noumenal’, science deals with the ‘phenomenal’. You can’t disprove one with the other. They rely on each other.
“But Catholicism is inherently anti-scientific, to the degree that Catholics burnt some of the greatest scientific minds of all time, and still oppose various research areas solely on Theistic grounds. In this sense Catholicism is very anti-scientific.!”
Firstly, some of the greatest scientific minds have been Catholics, and the Church has been one of the institutions that have led the way in science – the number of academies and universities founded by the Church, many of which are extremely well-respected to this day, is testament to this. As for the “burning”, who is it that Catholics have burnt? The Church locked up Galileo, but that’s about it. The Church has never burned “some of the greatest scientific minds of all time” at all, actually.
The only area that the Catholic Church opposes scientific research is in the use of embryos for stem-cell research based on the entirely reasonable assertion (from a scientific and philosophical basis, apart from religion) that since human life begins at the point of conception, to cannibalise embryos is tantamount to murder.
Stem cell research per se is not opposed by the Church at all, only reserach that invloves the destruction of embryos (stem cell research can be carried out also on "adult" stem cells).
Thus, to assert that the Church opposes “various research areas solely on Theistic grounds”, simply because it opposes ONE METHOD of research in ONE AREA, is, demonstrably, utter unfounded nonsense.
One final fact: the reason science exists is because Christianity exists – the first proper Western scientists were Christian natural philosophers who believed that the Universe was worth studying because they believed it was ordered and could be understood through physical laws. Why did they believe this? Because they believed that a Creator God made an orderly universe. Thus, science has only preceded from a CHRISTIAN metaphysical assumption. Buddhist science (if that had ever existed, which it didn’t) is a non-starter, because it doesn’t recognise the simple fact that the universe is CREATED.
So, to sum up, in the words of Einstein, “Religion without Science is blind; Science without Religion is lame.” They rely on one another, and thus cannot disprove one another at all.
“Fifthly, a question. Do you believe that transubstantiation actually happens, or is that also an allegory. I'm sure that this point divides Catholicism from other branches of Christianity, and that as a Catholic you are required to believe in transubstantiation actually happening.”
Yes, I do believe in Transubstantiation literally. I believe that the Bread and Wine literally become the Body and Blood of Chris in the Eucharist, and I am quite satisfied by the Church’s Aristotelian philosophical explanation of this Sacrament.
“Sixthly, I love my girlfriend, she loves me back. I feel that very deeply. An eternity devoid of love? I don't think so.”
You’re assuming that you’d spend eternity with her, and you’re assuming that love is possible in Hell. I find either assertion suspect. Since God is love according to Holy Scripture, then by denying Him, and rejecting Him, separating yourself from Him is denying yourself love for all eternity. QED.
“Seventhly (if there is such a word) you are right, in that almost all other religions believe that they are right and that you are wrong. What upsets us Atheists is that you seem to be unable to do what the better of us do, which is leave everyone else to their own devices.”
As I have already explained, if we believe that Atheism, or that other religions in many cases, are errors that lead to an eternity of suffering, then what is the more reasonable and loving thing for us to do, to “leave you to your own devices” and spend eternity in love-deprived torment, or to try to convince you that there is a better way to live, and offer you eternal salvation, happiness and love?
It might infuriate you, but try to recognise that, certainly in the vast majority of cases (due to the vast majority of decent ordinary Christians), it is done out of love.
“Eighth, and final point, as far as proving that you are mistaken, there isn't time in the world. Nothing can be proven to be impossible, only extremely improbably, and a Catholic God's existence can be shown to be orders of magnitude more improbably than the claim that we are all bloodcells swimming round a giant Elvis.”
For the reasons I’ve given above, and others that I haven’t the time to state, that clearly is not the case.
“For starters, the fact that you upset Polly through your thoughtlessness would be proof that there are some major flaws in your thinking - in your social life if not in your religious choices.”
I am unaware of upsetting Polly at all! If I did, I’m sure that she would tell me, so I do not accept the premise of your argument. Even if I had, however, simply upsetting people by telling them the truth does not mean that my thinking is “flawed” – that is a very strange, illogical (and quite puzzling) conclusion to draw.
“:D have fun, but not too much or you'll be consigned to an eternity of damnation.”
Or, if there’s no God, have all the fun you like! – Rape, steal, murder, ‘cause why not? There’s no God, we’re all going to oblivion when we die, so why not enjoy life as much as you can while you’re here? If you can profit from other’s suffering, then why not do it? After all, there’s no God, so you’re only answerable morally to yourself!
Ah yes, Atheism and its wonderful antinomian hedonistic consequences, great stuff… :)
Peace be with you,
The Cavalier
(That one was for "Chees'm")
Rachel,
“"I can see there isn't much point in us dialoguing" Yet oddly you go on to do so...”
Enjoying myself far too much, obviously…
“"as dialogue is based on respect, which you clearly don't have to anyone who disagrees with your outlook on life" Anyone? Since you don't know me at all, I'd ask you restrain from such generalisations. I have unlimited respect for all people. I will defend my beliefs thoroughly - by saying I didn't want to argue with you wasn't a lack of respect - it is something I have learned with experience. I cannot argue with a Catholic about their faith vs. mine. For the reasons I have already given.”
I think you can, because the truth of a religious proposition depends on it being logical and/or plausible, which you can dialogue on. I only deduced a lack of respect because you seemed to suggest that you don’t talk to believers about this sort of thing because you dismissed their logic as being decided by a book set down by cult followers… etc. This dismissal seemed to me to indicate that you thought believers stupid or retarded in some way, this I deduced you must not respect them.
"If you were really rational a person, you'd allow me and others to dialogue with you on that" I have explained why I do not wish to partake in theological debate. I think it is a reasonable reason. Obviously you think not.”
Obviously.
“" - especially given that what you just said is so AMAZINGLY contrary to any sensible historical view." Sensible from YOUR point of view you mean? What I posited there has been researched by historians - just obviously not Christian ones - here again we are into theological matters. Pointless.”
No, history and theology are not necessarily inter-connected. If you think the Holy Scriptures unreliable, etc. then you can prove it, using textual evidence, etc. I see that the evidence completely points the other way, hence my statement.
"[there's your first mistake - the Bible is not "a book" I really couldn't care less if it's a book, a text, or a damn pamphlet - you knew what I was referring to, so why you feel the need to nit pick at my use of the word book is beyond me. I have a high regard for "books", as it happens, so it certainly wasn't dismissive.”
I was making an academic point for the sake of accuracy in the discussion, which I explain in my reply to Chees’m.
“"this argument tells me nothing of why I shouldn't trust St. Paul or St. Peter or St. John" I'm not telling you you shouldn't. I am simply stating what I believe.”
You must however, have a reason for this belief, and it must be based in your opinion of the veracity and trustworthiness of the authors of the New Testament, amongst others. Are they just “cult followers”, or reliable eye-witnesses to a true story? That is the question, and again, the evidence seems to me to point necessarily the way of trusting these men.
"it just tells me that you are prejudiced towards them - probably because you don't know enough history to know any better" Prejudiced? Hardly. Indifferent. Yes. Did they exist? I didn't deny they did. I just don't believe they write the word of God. Again, somewhere we will permanently disagree. So what?”
You dismissed them as mere cultists, and so you clearly have a prejudiced view of them, whether it is passive or assertive (in this case, passive).
"Firstly, how can you possibly know for sure that God is a mythical being? Answer: you can't - that's an assertion you base entirely on faith." In response: Firstly, how can you possibly know for sure that God ISN'T a mythical being?”
Well, I have evidence behind me, such as philosophical reason, spiritual experience, and historical veracity, what do you have?
“Answer: You can't - that's an assertion you base entirely on faith. You see our problem here?”
Again, I do not base my belief on blind faith alone, but on reason as well – the last Pope told us we should have “fides et ratio” faith and reason behind our Christian belief, and I believe very strongly that each Christian should have the “motiva credibilitatis” – motives of credibility, for believing in Christianity.
“"I'm a Theistic Evolutionist, because I recognise that Genesis 1 is ALLEGORY, and not literal history" I apologise - I was under the assumption (from the way you talk about other issues), that you were hard line Catholic - in that you took everything in the Bible as written. Obviously you're more selective. May I ask why some parts of the Bible are taken literally and others as an allegory? (I have nothing against this method, but it does leave me wondering why you allegorise the bible's standpoint on evolution, but not homosexuality)”
Simply because whilst some Holy Scriptures are written as literal history (such as 1 and 2 Kings, the four Gospels, Chronicles, 1 and 2 Maccabees, etc.), some are written as Poetry (Song of Songs, Psalms, etc.) – these may have multiple meanings, including allegorical, and tropological (moral) – Song of Songs is written as a long allegory of Yahweh and Israel for example. Other parts are literal written legal codes (Leviticus, parts of Deuteronomy, etc.), whilst others are letters written in particular situations (the New Testament Epistles are all like this, because they are Epistles), others still are Visions and Prophecies (Revelations, Amos, Hosea, Jeremiah, etc.). Thus, depending on their format, and the way they are written, we can see how they are meant to be read.
Hence, the Levitical injunctions against Homosexuality, the description of it in Romans 2, etc. can be clearly seen to be meant as literal moral laws (the Kosher Dietary laws in Leviticus and elsewhere obviously being made null and void by Christ, whilst he retained the moral laws), Genesis 1 can be seen to be allegorical. Indeed, the literal way it has been translated might be part of the problem – the Hebrew word used for ‘day’ in Genesis 1 (i.e. God created the world in seven ‘days’) is ‘yom’ – a word that ACTUALLY means “periods of time” and not literally “days”. Thus, the Genesis account does not seem to me to be literal for various reasons like that.
“"So dismissing all Christians and their beliefs because of the interpretations of a wacky few, is just daft" I have done no such thing. I do not dismiss - I just know our opinions will ultimately differ. Hence not wanting to get into heafty and probably pointless dialogue like this.”
You seemed to tar all Christians with the same Creationist brush, which I think is irrational.
“"But almost all the other religions believe the same thing! They believe I'M in error, and so what?" So nothing. As long as they don't try and ram their religion down your throat, I'm sure it's all great.”
Yeah, but your definition of “ramming something down my throat” appears to be “someone coming up to me, talking about religion, and trying to convince me that they’re right”, which just closes down any discussion at all – this, to me, seems narrow-minded.
“"I also am potentially perfectly open to the idea that I'm wrong - if someone can prove to me that the existence of God is impossible, then I'd have to change my mind" How convenient no one ever can.”
Well, only because the existence of God ISN’T impossible. It is perfectly possible to try to prove that the concept of God is irrational however.
“Funnily enough, no one can prove to me he exists - you see once more, the predicament we're in”
Only because you are not willing to listen to anyone who would prove you wrong. I think Atheism, in its positive sense, utterly irrational, because it is. But you don’t want to hear it. The problem is not that we can’t dialogue, we can. It’s that you don’t want to. Which I think could be construed as narrow-minded.
“"The reason I pray for people who are Atheists is because, having rejected God, they are consigning themselves to an eternity devoid of love. Now, let me ask you, which would be worse: me, knowing all of this, and doing NOTHING, or me, knowing all of this, and doing something to prevent this awful thing from happening? HMM?" I have no problem with praying. I don't know if you have intentionally misunderstood my point - I have a problem with praying in the patronising sense - this holier-than-though attitude that I have come across. Maybe you have it, maybe you don't. I don't know, I haven't met you.”
I find “holier-than-thou” attitudes arrogant and un-Christian, which is why I don’t have it. I’m sorry that others have been such bad examples of Christianity to you.
“"Part of loving someone means telling them when they're wrong." And part of loving means standing by someone no matter what, even if you think they're wrong. Once more, a difference of opinion.”
Er, standing by someone, even as they go over a cliff? Nope, can’t see that as a good thing in any way. This isn’t just a matter of opinion over the tastiness of food, or the merits or de-merits of an artist, this effects your immortal life! Any Christian who just stands by and lets you go in dangerous error is being an extremely bad friend. If your friend thought he could fly and wanted to jump off a ten-storey building without a parachute or whatever, would you let him continue in that error? Would that be loving?
“"the straw dog image of an evil fundamentalist that you have of me" I do not think you are evil. Where did you get that impression?”
You appeared to think I was a) a deluded follower of 2000-year old cultists b) homophobic (that isn’t evil?), and c) attacking Polly in a mean-spirited and nasty way. Hence my conclusion.
“"it's just your way of justifying not having anyone challenge your irrational beliefs by making them into this evil boogey-man that you can easily despise" First off, I have no problem with challenging my beliefs (although you calling them irrational doesn't exactly warm me to your opinion). I am a baptised and confirmed Catholic, as is my mother. Up until about 16 I prayed nightly. Then I thought again. I know what it's like to believe, I know why people believe. I also know I cannot argue with them, cause no one could argue with me when I believed. I know what it's like to be that side of the fence. I don't say I won't argue because I'm frightened of another point of view. I already KNOW your point of view. All I did was tell you my beliefs so you would understand that such a debate would be pointless, exhausting, and ultimately boring.”
I don’t find it boring, and I don’t expect you do either or you wouldn’t have kept on responding. I might only suggest that if your belief was able to knocked simply by “thinking again”, perhaps it wasn’t very strong in the first place? PLEASE NOTE: I’m not saying this WAS the case, because I don’t know you. I’m suggesting it might have been the case – I can’t honestly see what would convince someone who had faith that there wasn’t a God – what possible argument could have convinced you of Atheism of all things? This is what I find fascinating.
“"she and I get on fine because we're both NICE PEOPLE" Do NICE PEOPLE try and imply others aren't? From a small amount of dialogue? I don't know if I qualify as a nice person - but I am Polly's friend, and if I feel she's being attacked I will rally up. That and I do get pissed off when people make homophobic comments. But that again, is something I can tell we will never agree on.”
Indeed? I don’t recall having attacked Polly or making homophobic comments. Then again, I guess you have a far more liberal definition of ‘homophobia’, to mean “any criticism of active homosexual lifestyles”, whilst I see real homophobia to be hatred towards Gay people, which I have never displayed here.
“"I know no-one who "bitches" about Polly at all - some criticise what she thinks on some issues, yes, but I know no-one who would want to attack Polly personally, she's a lovely person. OK?" Um, yes, I'm quite aware she is. I apologise if I misconstrued. I got this impression from comments on another forum and also, I believe, a campaign to ban her from Mass. How Christian.”
I am unaware of any such campaign, and I find it hard to believe it exists – no one I know would try to do such a thing (actually they can’t, even if they wanted to, a Priest can deny someone the Eucharist for whatever reason, and that’s it).
“"I truly believe that if you opened your mind and your heart on these issues you could have a much better and happier dialogue and relationship with the lots of other people out there who disagree with you" I am open to anything. Maybe there is a God, I don't say there never could be. I just disagree with Christianity and it's teachings. (Let's not get into that debate shall we? I think we would be retreading old ground). I'm open to reincarnation, to ghosts, and to the theory that we're a giant experiment put here by aliens (please PLEASE note sarcasm) - but I do not live my life according to these beliefs. Oh and me and my fella disagree all the time - but we've managed a perfectly happy relationship so far. So thanks for the concern, but it's really not a problem for me”
Obviously I meant disagreement on religion, but anyhoo… Surely you should base your belief on logic and reason – I see no logic and reason for Atheism, so when Atheists make derogatory comments about Christianity, I rather like them to back up their claims rather than just say “Oh well, I believe it”. If you’re open to anything, then you should be open to debating, discussing, or exchanging on any of those things.
“"Please think about it, and please, if you think I'm so mistaken in my thinking, PROVE IT to me" I'd say prove it to me too, but I know that would be pointless. I'm sure you're an intelligent person. Therefore I'm sure you realise a Catholic debating with an Atheist is pointless - because NEITHER can prove what they're saying. You're right, it is down to faith. You're wasting my time, I'm wasting yours. I think we should leave it at that.”
One can prove that what the other is saying is irrational and/or illogical. Thus, one can “disprove” individual’s reasons for belief or unbelief, hence, no, debate is never pointless. I’ve never believed it to be pointless, and I never will. Open-mindedness and good logic will always win the day if the people involved are open and logical. That’s why I always aim for dialogue.
Peace be with you,
The Cavalier
Hi Polly!
Just to respond to your post on the other comment section:
“1. I would call myself religious in the sense that I do believe in God and I do pray, and I would say that especially in regards to social awareness (even the job I do) my faith affects my life, and all my friends know this. I do find it ironic, though, that Rachel and Chees'm, who are both atheist, are actually more accepting of this than some of my other friends (and actually Peter I don't necessarily mean you here) who are also religious but criticise me for being religious in the WRONG WAY, i.e. not agreeing with them.”
Well Polly, I would hope that they criticise you for the right reasons – i.e. not wanting you to exist in error and falsehood and wanting you to accept the full truth of the Gospel, rather than simply having an arrogant and superior attitude. The first is Christian, the second is obviously not. If it is the first I would say that you should listen to them, whilst if it is the second, you should a) ignore them, and b) then concentrate on your better (and nicer!) Christian friends!
Besides which, everyone should be accepting of others, though not necessarily of everything that others do and say. I am greatly glad and gratified you don’t count me in the unaccepting category! :)
2. I am quite happy with the term "liberal" and you are right, Peter, to describe me as such, and also, of course, to disagree with me, in the same way as you are welcome to describe yourself as a conservative (in both senses of the word.)
Absolutely! Its great to have friends with whom you can disagree, and still love them as your friends, as well as your brothers and sisters in Christ!
“3. There are only really two things I take offence at. The first is being told that my beliefs are "deficient". Firstly, of course, I don't believe they are any more deficient than anybody else's. Secondly, if we are gong to be theological about this, all our views are to an extent deficient as we can never really know God as He is beyond human understanding. (I am reading a pretty good book at the moment by Gerald Hughes called "God in all Things" that discusses this. Have you read it?)”
Well, you’re right in the sense that we are all fallible Human beings and therefore none of us possess ALL of the truth in whole of existence – we’re not God, so we’re not omniscient. However, we can know the truth for certain through what has been revealed to us- particularly for us as Christians through the Gospel of Jesus Christ (which I believe is through the Holy Scriptures, the Sacred Tradition, and the Church’s teaching. Thus, you shouldn’t take offence at others thinking your beliefs are ‘deficient’ – I wouldn’t put it like that of course because I think that’s an unnecessarily offensive way of putting it – I would simply say you’re ‘mistaken’ or ‘wrong’. And, of course, you disagree with me, so you think I’m ‘wrong’, which is perfectly O.K. with me, so long as there is still respect and love, what’s the problem? As long as we can discuss it, and as long as we are both open to correction by the Holy Spirit through the revelation of Our Lord Jesus Christ, we shouldn’t mind that we both think each other in error and mistaken, surely?
“I also take offence at the way many "Christians" talk about homosexuals. I don't believe generally that homosexuals choose their homosexuality (why especially would a Catholic "choose" this, knowing the response they were likely to get?) and I dislike the insinuations (again, not made on this blog) that all gay people are promiscuous as this has certainly not been my experience.”
I also think that the way some Christians talk about homosexuality is insensitive and therefore completely unproductive. I obviously take the orthodox Christian view that active Gay lifestyles are wrong, but I’m not going to go up to a Gay person and judge them! That’s not just un-Christian (“Judge not…”) but also will engender a response that is the complete opposite of what one would want! If you want a Gay person to come to the Gospel of Christ, you should show love and sensitivity, and witness the truth of the Gospel to them honestly, but with “gentleness and reverence” (1 Peter 3:15).
As for Gay people “choosing” their homosexuality – I know no-one who would suggest that Gay people “chose” to be gay, but I think its rational to say that they “choose” to act upon their homosexual impulses (rather unsurprisingly, obviously). It has also not been my experience that all Gay people are promiscuous, but then, I mix in somewhat softer circles, and are unlikely to meet Gay people who are promiscuous – all the Gay people I do know (and there are a fair few of them) seem normal to me – though I did read an interview with George Michael in which he admitted to being a “slut” and having an open relationship with his boyfriend. It might, of course, be possible that promiscuity is part of “Gay culture” in Soho etc. I don’t know for sure.
“As regards general criticism, of course I don't mind debate! I just wasn't intending for it to be a result of a piss-take blog! I am also a little touchy not about criticism, but about what I might even term bullying, e.g. from Christians last year when the Union supported Civil Partnerships. That was hte result of a democratic vote and as the Welfare rep I was mandated to produce materials etc in its support. To receive threatening emails etc from certain Christian Union members telling me I had no right to call myself a Christian and was a bad VP for not representing their views (they could have come to the meeting, or reversed the action at the next one) was neihter helpful nor, I believe, Christian.”
Well, quite. I can’t believe anyone in the Christian Union would do such stupid things – it just seems so amazingly DUMB to me. The Union shouldn’t have supported Civil Partnerships, it was unnecessarily divisive and given the provisions of Section 7 Sub-section 6 (I think that’s it…) of the KCLSU Constitution, possibly harms the freedom of speech of religious groups in King’s, but that doesn’t give anyone, particularly not any Christian, the right to be abusive. Shame on them.
“4. I probably find that I agree with many of your views (well, Peter, we know each other so know I do!) but the one thing I don't think we will agree on is the use of condoms in Africa.”
Fair enough, although you weren’t very clear why you disagreed with my view in your response to my criticism of your blog.
“5. I'm sure at some point we can have a discussion all about the Bible thing. A friend of mine got hugely criticised when writing on a forum thread called "The homosexual agenda" (And incidentally I've always been bemused by that term. Maybe we four could set up a Straight Agenda?) for saying that the Bible had to be interpreted: there is much evidence to suggest that the passages about homosexuality in the Bible all refer to specific situations, and in some cases not homosexuality as we might understand it, and yet Catholics seem to take these (interpretable) bits of the Bible as some sort of proof of how homosexuality is wrong (though in fairness they don't do this as much as some of the evangelical protestant traditions - and yes, Peter, I am relieved you are not Assemblies of God either Re: your blog!) yet argue about the meaning of others (e.g. I would definitely agree with you re: the allegorical nature of that bit of Genesis.)”
I’ve resolved, that when I get the time, I’ll write an exegetical argument about the reasons why we should take those passages as morally prohibitive towards Homosexuality, and then if you like, I’ll invite you to criticise it and we’ll have a written Socratic dialogue that I’ll post on my blog. It is, after all, if nothing else, a fascinating exegetical theological discussion!
But I would briefly say for now, that all the passages cited in the Holy Scriptures to prove the Church’s position on homosexuality (outside the views of the early Church Fathers, etc.) seem to be parts of the literal parts of Biblical Canon – the Epistles of St. Paul to the Romans, Leviticus, etc., so I don’t immediately see how they can be interpreted in any way but a literal way. The debate is not around their interpretation, but what hermeneutical analysis, etc., tells us about what St. Paul was really saying in his epistles, and what the Scriptures are really condemning – all homosexual acts per se, or only those outside a life-long loving relationship…
Plus, there is evidence that Jesus did, by implication endorse the Levitical view on Homosexuality, by the fact he declared “I came not to abolish the [moral] law, but to fulfil it, indeed, I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or letter of the law shall pass away” (Matthew 5:17-18) and he also elsewhere stated that amongst the things that defile a man was “sexual immorality” also translated as “fornication” (Matthew 15:19, Mark 7:21) – the word used here for that is the koine Greek word “porneiai” – a blanket term for all wrongful sexual acts according to the Jewish moral law – adultery, rape, fornication, homosexuality, bestiality, etc. Hence, he endorsed the traditional Jewish understanding of the moral law on sexual matters consistently, so it is logical to assume this included the absolute Levitical injunction against homosexuality.
Indeed, if Christ thouight something different from the people of his time, woulnd't he have said so (either in the Scriptures or through the Sacred Tradition of the Apostles)?
“6. Thanks for standing up for me, guys. Peter's right, I am a big girl (and have been eating chocolate all weekend so will only get bigger! :-) ) but as I said I wasn't quite expecting a serious debate on this blog (it's never happened before!) and I didn't know you knew my blog address!”
Yeah, I saw Rich reading it in Chaplaincy, and had a look myself!
“7. Peter - you rightly state you cannot speak for my taste in music: ok, it is hardly Iron Maiden, but I should leave it at that! As my profile states, my taste is not very good.”
‘Twasn’t me, but Chees’m who said that… My attitude is generally “different strokes for different folks” on the subject of music!
“8. I also genuinely believe that the Catholic Church should not restrict communion to Catholics only. I have more than once found myself in a situation where I, a baptised Catholic who attends Church regularly, am not permitted to take communion, yet someone else who hasn't been to Church for 20 years, doesn't hold Catholic beliefs, and on one occasion even had to ask me to remind her how Mass worked(!) was allowed to take communion on account of the fact that at age eight somebody stuck a white dress on her and put a rosary in her hand and told her to say "I renounce evil". To me, that doesn't make her any more worthy of communion than me. Or, I would argue, vice versa.”
The Eucharist is only withdrawn from people who are unrepentantly rejecting the Gospel in some way, either by making a lifestyle choice to sin, or rejecting Christian orthodoxy in some way. It does after all, say in 1 Corinthians, 11: 27-28, “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup”.
I don’t know why you were refused Communion Polly, so I can’t comment on that (but I thought you were Anglican?), however, I would definitely say that someone who was like the Woman you described shouldn’t have received Communion, unless she was truly repentant at the time or something (I don’t know her heart, so I can’t say).
An excellent orthodox explanation on all this, including why non-Catholics are denied participation in the Eucharist, which pretty much sums up everything I believe on the issue is at http://www.catholic.com/library/Who_Can_Receive_Communion.asp
“9. In general (emphasis on general) I do tend to find as I said earlier hard-line religious people are less tolerant of me than atheists/agnostics, and it does seem a bit daft as fundamentally we believe the same things. We just disagree on certain moral issues. I'd argue we agree on abortion, and Rachel "The Atheist" I think holds a similar view, but disagree on homosexuality (again, Rachel probably shares my view on that.) My faith is very important to me, as is yours, but most of my views are shaped from my experiences, with faith playing say a guiding role. For example, yes, I disagree with abortion, but I'm extremely touchy about the Magdalene laundries as I am adopted and also a young woman and I think they were wrong. And it does irritate me a bit that I have discussed this with a friend of mine who argues hugely in their favour. I am not being hard-line here and saying she isn't entitled to her view (how ironic that would be!) but I would argue that she dose not come from a standpoint where she can make that decision in the same way as I can. And for the record I think she's wrong.”
Well, fair enough – I would only say that you have to be careful allowing your ‘experiences’ determine your Christianity, because you otherwise allow yourself to be making your own religion – a user friendly God in your own ideal image – I don’t think that’s what Christ had in mind for us, and I try to subject my understanding to the revelation that God gave me – the Holy Scriptures, and the Church’s Sacred Tradition and Teaching Authority – that way, I know I’ll be guided by God, and not my own imperfect and sinful nature!
Thanks very much Polly! God bless you in all your endeavours (you’re in my prayers) and peace be with you!
Take care, and lots of love,
Peter
xxx o +
Hi Blossom,
Just a heads-up, I think I irritated someone...
TW xxx
TW - Yes, thanks for that! I thought it was you! Glad the new nickname has caught on! xx :-)
Peter - hello again! I see you have far too much time on your hands! As do I: I am having the weekend off and am at home with my parents.
Re: Mass. Yes, I'm Anglican (although baptised Catholic)and as such I don't take Mass in a Catholic Church. Instead I receive a blessing. My comment was rather that this sometimes seemed arbitrary to me when others can take communion from what I would argue to be also the "wrong" standpoint. (Sorry, I don't know how else to put that. I am not trying to suggest someone is more or less "worthy" for as oyu say we don't know the hearts of each individual. But I hope you see what I mean.)
Also, I'm happy for you to put my first name on your blog, but would you mind taking off the surname? Not because I especially mind you talking about me, but because it leads people to a blog (this one) which I meant to be anonymous to those who didn't know me. Thanx!
Px
Hi Polly!
Well, my blog is pretty restricted as well - whilst anyone COULD come on it, most won't because I've only advertised it to my friends (very recently, now that it has "taken off" so to speak) and the people on this blog.
Thus, the inter-advertisement of our respective blogs is likely to be highly incestuous - my blog will be known to your mates and yours to mine I expect.
I will certainly take your surname off my post if you want me to though.
I suspect "T.W." is someone we knew from last year in Chaplaincy... I won't put up any guesses as per her request, but am I getting warmer...? I just can't think of anyone with those initials! Unless that's a red herring... in which case I haven't a hope of guessing!
I still maintain, despite T.W.'s (genuine and welcome) concern that I've not put anywhere near enough info on the internet for anyone to "track" either of us down.
Never mind, I do have to much time on my hands, you're right. I'm at home alone in Watford relaxing before my studies for the exams begin...
Have a lovely Sunday!
Peace be with you,
Peter
"Enjoying myself far too much, obviously…"
Was just pointing out the contradiction
"you seemed to suggest that you don’t talk to believers about this sort of thing because you dismissed their logic as being decided by a book set down by cult followers"
Look, I don't think you're really listening to what I'm saying (or reading what I'm typing, heh). I don't dismiss. But it is clear that what I consider logical and what a God worshipper considers logical are VERY different. My point is merely that we argue on different points of view that are so wide apart there's no room for a real debate. There IS, obviously from these pages - but do you really see any of these discussions getting anywhere? Are you any less of a believer after all this? I am any more of one? No.
"Obviously" We agree - fab
"No, history and theology are not necessarily inter-connected. If you think the Holy Scriptures unreliable, etc. then you can prove it, using textual evidence, etc. I see that the evidence completely points the other way, hence my statement."
I think either you've missed the point of my statement, or I've missed the point of yours - cause this stuff doesn't marry up to me. Shrug.
"I was making an academic point for the sake of accuracy in the discussion"
It was kind of waste of dialogue space though.
"That is the question, and again, the evidence seems to me to point necessarily the way of trusting these men."
I have no evidence that makes me believe these men are telling the truth. I think I should establish here that I do not regard the Bible (or related works) as proof that Jesus was the son of God, or that God exists (by the by, is the Old Testament also the Word of God to you?)
"You dismissed them as mere cultists, and so you clearly have a prejudiced view of them"
CULT
Theological usage: Oxford English Dictionary defined "cult" as: "worship; reverential homage rendered to a divine being or beings"
"a particular form or system of religious worship; especially in reference to its external rites and ceremonies"
devotion or homage to a particular person or thing."
Sounds fine to me. It's only one word - please do not decide what I think based on one word.
"Well, I have evidence behind me, such as philosophical reason, spiritual experience, and historical veracity, what do you have?" Same as you.
"Again, I do not base my belief on blind faith alone, but on reason as well"
Another tricky area for us - reason is why I DON'T believe.
"Thus, depending on their format, and the way they are written, we can see how they are meant to be read."
But most have different opinions on this, don't they? Both within Catholics and other Christians? What makes one Catholic decide some parts of the Bible are one thing, and another say the reverse?
"You seemed to tar all Christians with the same Creationist brush, which I think is irrational."
In what respect? That you all believe in God? Hmm, well, obviously yes, you all do have that in common
"Yeah, but your definition of “ramming something down my throat” appears to be “someone coming up to me, talking about religion, and trying to convince me that they’re right”, which just closes down any discussion at all – this, to me, seems narrow-minded."
Sigh. Did I at any point make reference to you "ramming" in my comment? No. I refer to experiences I have had. You weren't there. It's not narrow-mindedness, thankyou.
"It is perfectly possible to try to prove that the concept of God is irrational however."
I think it's irrational to think God exists, you think it's irrational to think that God doesn't exist. We're done here.
"Only because you are not willing to listen to anyone who would prove you wrong"
Bullshit. (apologies for lack of respect, but you have just shown blatant lack of respect for me)
"But you don’t want to hear it"
Neither do you
"It’s that you don’t want to. Which I think could be construed as narrow-minded."
You just don't listen. AT ALL. I'm sick of explaining my opinion on this matter - and THAT is why I am reluctant to dialogue with you. I have to repeat myself again and again, and each time you pay no attention to my reasoning - you merely dismiss it as narrowmindedness.
"I’m sorry that others have been such bad examples of Christianity to you."
Ah, well. Tis life.
"Er, standing by someone, even as they go over a cliff?"
Look - as far as people's beliefs are concerned (I was not talking about actions - that's a different area altogether), I think it should be left to them. After all, you believe God can connect with you and others - surely he will reach out to them in his own way in his own time. The whole point for me in this is that people ARE entitled to their own beliefs. Rocket Leaf is entitled to her own points of view, because that is the discussion SHE has had with God. How can you say your experience is more right, more better? Like you say, your evidence is philosophical - and we know how varied philosophies can be.
"You appeared to think I was a) a deluded follower of 2000-year old cultists b) homophobic (that isn’t evil?), and c) attacking Polly in a mean-spirited and nasty way. Hence my conclusion."
Hardly the definition of evil. Over-reacting much? I do think homophobia doesn't make you evil, it's just that acts of homophobia are evil. (Purely from my atheist point of view of course)
". I might only suggest that if your belief was able to knocked simply by “thinking again”, perhaps it wasn’t very strong in the first place?"
Hmm, whose narrow minded now? You don't know me, please don't assume my faith or what experiences I might have had or decisions I made. In fact, this is exactly the kind of comment that pisses me off.
"– what possible argument could have convinced you of Atheism of all things"
I started to be happy. I'm stronger, healthier and happier as an atheist. "God" did not help me. Maybe that means I wasn't a very good Christian (or maybe even I was!), but it's all down to the person. This is just the way it was for me.
"Then again, I guess you have a far more liberal definition of ‘homophobia’, to mean “any criticism of active homosexual lifestyles”"
Quite right.
"I am unaware of any such campaign, and I find it hard to believe it exists – no one I know would try to do such a thing (actually they can’t, even if they wanted to, a Priest can deny someone the Eucharist for whatever reason, and that’s it)."
Good. I hope this is the case.
"I see no logic and reason for Atheism"
You are being totally dismissive here - I at least accept that I understand the why to Christianity - I just don't agree with it. I know you think the Bible is the word of god - I don't, and I see no reason that it is other than the writers say it is (and being a writer myself I know we can be untrustworthy little blighters). I've always been interested though as to why Jesus himself never wrote anything - surely this would have cleared up alot of the contradictions his followers made.
I know you feel like you are connected to something amazing, that there is someone who listens to you. I feel connected to the world at large - the energy that flows through it - whilst you think it is holy, I think it is just human nature. We both have logic and we both have reason (to say otherwise just defeats the point of debating), we just use them differently. To be honest, even if I could be convinced to believe that God exists, I doubt I would be interested. I'm not all that thrilled at a prospect of a Heaven where a rapist can get in as long as he's repented before his death, but that my gay friend, who has never hurt anyone and done nothing but good to those around him, doesn't. It would be a pretty empty existence for me. I embrace Hell, cause I'd rather be with the people I love than watching them suffer from on high. Just not my cup of tea. (all irrelevant really, I suppose, since I believe in neither Heaven nor Hell).
"One can prove that what the other is saying is irrational and/or illogical"
No you can't - because rational and logic are based on your own personal outlook - as said, things you consider logical/rational I do not. It all depends on your point of view.
"Open-mindedness and good logic will always win the day if the people involved are open and logical."
So. Are you open to the idea that God doesn't exist?
**sighs as he realises the English language is going down the shitter**
FYI, my reference came from the Shorter OED, which is around thirty times the size of the Concise, but **grinds teeth** I shll have to bow your your more modern dictionary...as I bought mine in 2003.
I'm glad that we agree that the bible is a book, or at least a collection of short stories.
Ok, so the dictionary definition of evidence does not state that it has to be empirical, but due to the scientific bent to my mind I do not see how non empirical evidence can indicate something which is not a subjective experience.
I am willing to accept that god is a subjective experience, and that people give it different names, and that Religions help define it by autosuggestion into what they think "God" is.
I could cite the beauty of the universe, the ordered nature of the universe, the fact that life just happens to exist (which any research will tell you is extremely unlikely
heh, so could I, only I would cite it as proof of the beautiful nature of the evolutionary algorithm...I don't care how improbable something is. I am a firm believer, (and I do have "faith" in this) that nothing is impossible, I even belive that something might be impossible, only it would be exceedinly improbable. I find the existance of God more improbable than the non-existance, and therefore choose not to use a world view including God in it.
Does not the fact that so many people throughout history EXPERIENCE God, suggest the existence of a personal God is extremely plausible?
Yes, this is good evidence that there is a part of the brain exerting an internal and entirely subjective effect which popular opinions defines as "God" what is interesting is to look psychoanalytically at the World religions and one can see that they were created by men with very human psychoanalytical problems, Oedipal symptoms etc etc.
I have explained light to a blind person before, although not (I am sure) for the first time, although he was more than happy to listen to me yadder on. He now understands light as an elemental particle with a part wave/ part particle form, which carries energy from A to B in straight lines and weighs next to nothing. In fact, you might as well say "It is like trying to explain the existence of radio waves to a someone who can't see them" um...yep...easy...
So try... I will take any explanation which involves the physics behind what you feel to be your personal proof that god exists, (and wants to burn anyone who doesn't do what he says...that bit always confused me...isn't he meant to be a good guy? He always comes across as more of a psychotic?)
Lourdes...heh...nice one.
Hey mate, as regarding your last point, if you regard rape, thievery and murder as fun, that's your prerogative, but I would advise keeping a low internet profile, the security services have more operatives online than they do in the field, and they are well within their rights to keep a close eye on you if you keep claiming that you think it is fun to rape people! Personally, my idea of fun is spending plenty of time with my girlfriend, in and out of bed, playing role playing games, taking God's name in vain, spending time on the internet (which has also been condemned as a sin in Catholic terms, ask Px for the reference.) and hanging out with mates.
You see, I govern my own behaviour, and don't do things that I think will hurt other people, you obviously feel urges in those directions, as shown by your reference to them as "fun" but find yourself governed by your church. I am happy you are a Catholic and feel that you cannot indulge your wilder ideas of pleasure, it sounds as if they world is a safer place.
Jaysus, this is complicated. I was going to wade in the other day, but had to spend about 48 hours being busy.
So now I'm thinking.
Hello, by the way, P.
why does him being male make him a better pope?
other than the fact that Catholics as a rule are gender fascist...
it doesn't make him a better pope, but given the rules, well, at least his genitals are in his favour even if little else is.
I'm not sure about that, my genitals certainly think that leading a life of absolute chastity is a rotten idea, so I would argue with your assertion that his genitals are behind him, in fact, I think you'll find they are in front of him and probably fairly pissed off at him.
Rachel,
“"you seemed to suggest that you don’t talk to believers about this sort of thing because you dismissed their logic as being decided by a book set down by cult followers" Look, I don't think you're really listening to what I'm saying (or reading what I'm typing, heh). I don't dismiss. But it is clear that what I consider logical and what a God worshipper considers logical are VERY different. My point is merely that we argue on different points of view that are so wide apart there's no room for a real debate. There IS, obviously from these pages - but do you really see any of these discussions getting anywhere? Are you any less of a believer after all this? I am any more of one? No.”
Well, I think an awfully big problem is that you seem to think that one person can find one thing ‘logical’ and another person can finds something utterly opposed logical, and ne’er the twain shall meet. That’s nonsense. Logic is logic: it is not subjective, it does not depend on your ‘perspective’. It is objective and external to us. I might think that 2 +2 = 4 is illogical, and you might think the opposite, but at the end of the day, you’d be right and I’d be wrong, because one view is demonstrably against logic, and the other very clearly isn’t.
How does this apply to the debate about the existence of God? Well, because we can dialogue on the arguments that purport either to support or undermine, the existence of God. We might discuss the existence of evil and its implications for the existence of a loving God. We might discuss whether or not the existence of God is likely given whatever evidence we might bring forward.
“"No, history and theology are not necessarily inter-connected. If you think the Holy Scriptures unreliable, etc. then you can prove it, using textual evidence, etc. I see that the evidence completely points the other way, hence my statement."
I think either you've missed the point of my statement, or I've missed the point of yours - cause this stuff doesn't marry up to me. Shrug.”
My point is simple – you can disbelieve the Scriptures of you want, but in order to make the statement that they are unreliable, you must PROVE IT through external evidence, otherwise your statement doesn’t hold up to scrutiny, and thus it is wrong. You do this (as people have been doing for ages) through using textual criticism, archaeological argumentation, etc.
“"That is the question, and again, the evidence seems to me to point necessarily the way of trusting these men." I have no evidence that makes me believe these men are telling the truth. I think I should establish here that I do not regard the Bible (or related works) as proof that Jesus was the son of God, or that God exists (by the by, is the Old Testament also the Word of God to you?)”
Yes, because “All Scripture is God breathed” (1 Timothy 3:16). What evidence would you need? The fact is, given that the events depicted in the New Testament are largely undeniable given the wealth of evidence beyond Scripture that attests to it, in the recorded writings of Hadrian, Trajan, Mara Bar-Serapion, Phlegon, Thallus, Lucian, Josephus, Tacitus, Cornelius, Pliny, Pontius Pilate himself, and Suetonius, amongst others, the only thing that you have to make a ‘leap of faith’ to accept are the bits that are supernatural in the Scriptures. Now, what is in the way of you making such a leap? What is it for you, as an Atheist, that makes you believe that Christianity is irrational?
“You dismissed them as mere cultists, and so you clearly have a prejudiced view of them"
CULT
Theological usage: Oxford English Dictionary defined "cult" as: "worship; reverential homage rendered to a divine being or beings"
"a particular form or system of religious worship; especially in reference to its external rites and ceremonies"
devotion or homage to a particular person or thing."
Sounds fine to me. It's only one word - please do not decide what I think based on one word.”
I thought the word ‘Cultist’ had negative fundamentalist connotations, which I’m happy to see were not intended in your use of it!
“"Well, I have evidence behind me, such as philosophical reason, spiritual experience, and historical veracity, what do you have?" Same as you.”
Such as…?
“"Again, I do not base my belief on blind faith alone, but on reason as well"
Another tricky area for us - reason is why I DON'T believe.”
And yet you haven’t supplied any such reason thus far…
"Thus, depending on their format, and the way they are written, we can see how they are meant to be read." But most have different opinions on this, don't they? Both within Catholics and other Christians? What makes one Catholic decide some parts of the Bible are one thing, and another say the reverse?”
Better exegesis and analysis of the text – I might for example point out to the Creationist (who believes that the world was created in six 24-hour days and that no other interpretations of Genesis 1 are possible) that the Hebrew word usually translated as ‘day’ in Genesis (‘yom’), actually is defined as ‘period of time’ – not a literal day. I might also point out to him (or her) that the fact "that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (2 Pet. 3:8; cf. Ps. 90:4), that light was created on the first day, but the sun was not created till the fourth day (Gen. 1:3, 16), and that Adam was told he would die the same "day" as he ate of the tree, yet he lived to be 930 years old (Gen. 2:17, 5:5). These last two points seem to point to the fact that Genesis One is not literal in its contextuality but allegorical.
Thus, as Scientists disagree on points of Science, so Christians will disagree on points on Scriptural interpretation. Yet, just as Scientists have a method (empirical verification) to use to disprove others theories and prove their own, so Christians have biblical exegesis to prove their own interpretations and disprove other interpretations – also, since as a Catholic I have the Magisterium of the Church, and the Sacred Tradition of the Church, I have a better guide as to what true Orthodoxy is.
Of course, in cases that are not fundamental to the faith, Scripture is left to honest debate, because of the Church’s principle: “In the essentials, unity. In the non-essentials, liberty. And in everything, charity.”
“"You seemed to tar all Christians with the same Creationist brush, which I think is irrational." In what respect? That you all believe in God? Hmm, well, obviously yes, you all do have that in common”
You make the assumption that because we believe in God, we all believe in the same account of creation, this is clearly incorrect.
“"It is perfectly possible to try to prove that the concept of God is irrational however." I think it's irrational to think God exists, you think it's irrational to think that God doesn't exist. We're done here.”
No, we’re not ‘done’ until you successfully disprove my arguments or I successfully disprove yours. Rationality ISN’T subjective! If it is, then all logical debate is simply a complete nonsense. I refuse to believe that all intellectual endeavour is a waste of time, based on such ridiculous reasoning.
“"But you don’t want to hear it" Neither do you”
Rubbish – I’m the one whose been trying to get to hear it from you this whole time in a real discourse!
“"Er, standing by someone, even as they go over a cliff?" Look - as far as people's beliefs are concerned (I was not talking about actions - that's a different area altogether), I think it should be left to them. After all, you believe God can connect with you and others - surely he will reach out to them in his own way in his own time.”
Absolutely – but I also believe that a) sinful lifestyles are harmful, and that b) a chief way he will do that is through Christians witnessing the Gospel to others – just as I do when I defend Christianity against Atheism, and other bad philosophies. I am thus, not helping anyone by just letting them go their merry sweet way on the path to reprobation!
“The whole point for me in this is that people ARE entitled to their own beliefs. Rocket Leaf is entitled to her own points of view, because that is the discussion SHE has had with God. How can you say your experience is more right, more better? Like you say, your evidence is philosophical - and we know how varied philosophies can be.”
Science is varied also, that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a way of finding out which philosophy is the truth, just as there is a way of finding out which scientific theory is false, and which is true. Polly does have her own views – they happen to be wrong. No one here has denied she is entitled to them, but that doesn’t mean that she is entitled never to be challenged on them! How would anyone ever improve, or truth ever be found, if everyone just left each other alone and said “Oh, well, their entitled to their beliefs…” Do you extend the same logic to Fascism, or other types of despotism, prejudice, or totalitarianism. Of course not. Since I believe error is harmful, I will point it out wherever I see it, in as much gentleness and reverence as I can. There is nothing wrong with that.
“"You appeared to think I was a) a deluded follower of 2000-year old cultists b) homophobic (that isn’t evil?), and c) attacking Polly in a mean-spirited and nasty way. Hence my conclusion." Hardly the definition of evil. Over-reacting much? I do think homophobia doesn't make you evil, it's just that acts of homophobia are evil. (Purely from my atheist point of view of course)”
There’s an interesting question: how do you, as an Atheist, know that homophobia is evil? Isn’t that just your own subjective opinion…? In which case, why should anyone else believe that homophobia is wrong?
"I might only suggest that if your belief was able to knocked simply by “thinking again”, perhaps it wasn’t very strong in the first place?" Hmm, whose narrow minded now? You don't know me, please don't assume my faith or what experiences I might have had or decisions I made. In fact, this is exactly the kind of comment that pisses me off.”
I might point out that I only SUGGESTED it. I assumed nothing.
“"– what possible argument could have convinced you of Atheism of all things"
I started to be happy. I'm stronger, healthier and happier as an atheist. "God" did not help me. Maybe that means I wasn't a very good Christian (or maybe even I was!), but it's all down to the person. This is just the way it was for me.”
Again, couldn’t it be the case (again, notice my suggestion), as you admit, that your relationship with God was nominal, or that you hadn’t really developed a true relationship with Christ at that point? If your Christianity was making you UNHAPPY what kind of real Christianity could it possibly have been? (Like I said, I would make no absolute assumptions until I knew your own experiences from you…)
“"Then again, I guess you have a far more liberal definition of ‘homophobia’, to mean “any criticism of active homosexual lifestyles”" Quite right.”
Homophobia suggests “fear or hatred of Gay people”, what exactly is hateful or fearful about criticising some else’s lifestyle. I’m not fearful or hateful of Gay people at all – so me simply stating their morality is mistaken is not indicative of anything like that inside me. Your definition is flawed.
“"I see no logic and reason for Atheism" You are being totally dismissive here - I at least accept that I understand the why to Christianity - I just don't agree with it.”
I understand WHY people become Atheists – but that’s emotional empathy, not logical argumentation. I have never come across any good reasons to become an Atheist. At all. Perhaps you could supply me with some?
“…I know you think the Bible is the word of god - I don't, and I see no reason that it is other than the writers say it is (and being a writer myself I know we can be untrustworthy little blighters). I've always been interested though as to why Jesus himself never wrote anything - surely this would have cleared up a lot of the contradictions his followers made.”
Jesus never wrote anything because He entrusted his teaching to His Apostles, teachings which have continued unchanged down ‘til this day. Christian disagreements were largely caused by people 15 centuries later, such as Luther, or Calvin, or Zwingli. We were doing pretty well until they showed up. As to the Scriptures, I don’t believe the Scriptures are the Word of God based on what the writers say alone, but on the fact that I was converted to a living faith, Christianity. I was converted by being told the Gospel, and then opening my mind and my heart to God, and then letting His grace enter my life.
I had been an Atheist in my adolescence, mainly for two reasons: firstly I found the whole idea of God somewhat unlikely and fantastical, and secondly I wanted to believe that I could make up my own morality, which suited my life far better.
I then started to read writers like C.S. Lewis and came to the conclusion that logically, God is entirely possible and more than that, entirely probable and even necessary. After that, one day I went to Mass (as I had always done, out of habit with my Mother) and asked God, if he existed to show Himself to me.
Then, in that moment, I felt as through rushing water was washing right through me – like I was being spiritually cleansed. It was an experience I had never felt before, and it is an experience I have regularly in a spiritual context (usually Mass, or Prayer). I developed a relationship with Christ in my prayer life and it is this grace – this experience in this context, that gives me faith in the Gospel, and thus, by extension in the Church and in the Scriptures.
Thus, it is unsurprising that you do not accept the authority of Holy Scripture, you won’t until you have the dame faith in the Gospel, based in proper experience, as Christians do.
“I know you feel like you are connected to something amazing, that there is someone who listens to you. I feel connected to the world at large - the energy that flows through it - whilst you think it is holy, I think it is just human nature. We both have logic and we both have reason (to say otherwise just defeats the point of debating), we just use them differently.”
That doesn’t really answer the question though does it? It doesn’t matter that we “use logic and reason differently” – that’s just saying that we have different opinions or have arrived at differing conclusions. The fact remains, that either I or you are right, and the other is mistaken. There either is a God or there isn’t – there can be no middle ground. Thus, the object of any dialogue ought to be an effort to find out which view has the most reason behind it.
“To be honest, even if I could be convinced to believe that God exists,”
So, you admit that you’re completely close-minded on the issue?
“I doubt I would be interested. I'm not all that thrilled at a prospect of a Heaven where a rapist can get in as long as he's repented before his death, but that my gay friend, who has never hurt anyone and done nothing but good to those around him, doesn't.”
It doesn’t seem good to you that ANYONE no matter what they’ve done, can be forgiven no mater what they’ve done, as long as they repent of the sins they’ve committed? I think that’s a wonderful revelation of the extent of the mercy of a loving God! As to the situation of your Gay friend, I have to tell you, you don’t “earn” a way into Heaven. There is no sense in Christian theology that “if you’re good enough” you’ll “achieve Salvation”. Salvation is gratuitous – it’s a free gift. You either accept it or you don’t. Thus, how “good” anyone has been is irrelevant to their salvation. It is whether you have repented of your sins and have a “faith that works in love” (Galatians 5:6) that determines whether you will be saved or not.
“It would be a pretty empty existence for me. I embrace Hell, cause I'd rather be with the people I love than watching them suffer from on high. Just not my cup of tea. (all irrelevant really, I suppose, since I believe in neither Heaven nor Hell).”
Well, indeed. If you embrace Hell, then that’s where you’ll be. But how do you know all the people you’ll love will be there with you? (Or that they’d “watch you suffer from on high”?) In any case, it’s unlikely you’d prefer an eternity of utter despair, loneliness, and complete deprivation of love, than the “empty existence” of complete acceptance, happiness, and the eternal fulfilment of ecstatic love!
“"One can prove that what the other is saying is irrational and/or illogical" No you can't - because rational and logic are based on your own personal outlook - as said, things you consider logical/rational I do not. It all depends on your point of view.”
Utter complete and unadulterated poppycock. That is such unbelievable subjectivist solipsistic nonsense; I don’t know where to begin!
Reason and logic, by their very nature, have NOTHING TO DO with your “personal outlook”. Perspective is IRRELEVANT. Like I said, if you think that 2 +2 = 5, then I don’t give a toss what your “personal outlook” is – you’re just plain wrong.
If you’re arguments are illogical, then they’re illogical. Period. And no matter of “personal outlook” on your part will change that. Same as me. If I have an illogical point-of-view, then it’s illogical. Full stop. No amount of “believing it’s logical for me” will change that fact. If I do try to deny it, then I’m only fooling myself (and being an idiot in the process).
You might be CONVINCED by certain arguments and I might not, because we have differing standards of what is acceptably weighty evidence – but even THAT is subject to what is reasonable and what is not. (The Flat Earth Society has unacceptably unreasonable standards of proof for the fact that the Earth is spherical, and I don’t care what they say.)
At the end of the day though, logic and reason are objective and external to us. Our perspectives are utterly irrelevant. So I maintain: I can prove, as can you, the rationality or irrationality, the logic or illogic of another person’s position. If not, then all scientific, philosophical, moral, and personal discourse is utterly unfounded and a complete waste of time – we might as well all never talk to one another at all. To accept any other conclusion is to accept a philosophy for either fools or hermits, and that’s just mad.
“"Open-mindedness and good logic will always win the day if the people involved are open and logical." So. Are you open to the idea that God doesn't exist?”
I’m open to the idea that my reasons for belief are irrational and illogical. I don’t know whether that would convince me to stop believing in the existence of God – but since I am sure that the reasons I have for belief aren’t irrational and illogical, and because I have a personal experience of God, I find it quite unlikely. I would be forced, however, to re-evaluate my position if I was at all to be intellectually honest.
Peace be with you,
The Cavalier
Cheesm
“**sighs as he realises the English language is going down the shitter** FYI, my reference came from the Shorter OED, which is around thirty times the size of the Concise, but **grinds teeth** I shll have to bow your your more modern dictionary...as I bought mine in 2003.”
Ok, then.
“Ok, so the dictionary definition of evidence does not state that it has to be empirical, but due to the scientific bent to my mind I do not see how non empirical evidence can indicate something which is not a subjective experience. I am willing to accept that god is a subjective experience, and that people give it different names, and that Religions help define it by autosuggestion into what they think "God" is.”
Why does it have to be subjective? I see it as like Science – there might be many different scientific theories, but only one is right, and that can be determined through scientific discourse and discovery. In the same way, Islam, Christianity and Buddhism can’t ALL be right – they contradict each other – therefore, they must either all be wrong, or one of them must be right.
Now, why do we have subjective experiences, in your own mind, if there is nothing to experience? Why do you have to believe that science (that is, the phenomenal and empirical) is all there is, when human history, philosophy and the sheer weight of experience tells us otherwise?
It follows anyway, that if there IS something to experience, then again, it can’t just be “subjective” because like I said, whilst I would agree with you that religion is a way of explaining the Human need for God – I cannot accept that all religions can be right. They are not. One must be right, and the rest wrong.
“I could cite the beauty of the universe, the ordered nature of the universe, the fact that life just happens to exist (which any research will tell you is extremely unlikely heh, so could I, only I would cite it as proof of the beautiful nature of the evolutionary algorithm...I don't care how improbable something is. I am a firm believer, (and I do have "faith" in this) that nothing is impossible,”
Ah, so you are not a Positive Atheist (one who says, “God cannot exist!”) you are a Negative Atheist (one who says “Well, I don’t believe in God, but I don’t deny it’s possible that He might”).
“I even believe that something might be impossible, only it would be exceedinly improbable. I find the existance of God more improbable than the non-existance, and therefore choose not to use a world view including God in it.”
What is so unlikely about the existence of God, then?
“Does not the fact that so many people throughout history EXPERIENCE God, suggest the existence of a personal God is extremely plausible? Yes, this is good evidence that there is a part of the brain exerting an internal and entirely subjective effect which popular opinions defines as "God" what is interesting is to look psychoanalytically at the World religions and one can see that they were created by men with very human psychoanalytical problems, Oedipal symptoms etc etc.”
Really? Give me an example. And what part of the brain would you be referring to, then? What were the “psychoanalytic” problems of the “creators” (if that were a meaningful term, which it isn’t as regards Judaism, Hinduism, Christianity and other such religions that occurred due to a series of multiple and mass-experienced events, or through ancient traditions) of Christianity? Or Islam? Or Buddhism?
I think that this stuff about “psycho-analysing” religions is just bogus rubbish – I actually think that to a large degree because I think psycho-analysis itself is bogus. Karl Popper convinced me that psycho-analysis (like Marxism and other pseudo-scientific human ideological inventions) is just unscientific, unverifiable hogwash. But it is also more insidious than that – it suggest that rather than properly deal with the philosophical and logical claims of someone’s beliefs, we try to psycho-analyse them and “poison the well” by suggesting they have mental problems. This is just, in my opinion, disingenuously avoiding the real issue, and insulting those who disagree with you. In the words of C.S. Lewis, “You can only find out the rights and wrongs by Reasoning – never by being rude about your opponent’s psychology.”
This all goes past the most basic point of course, that it is equally possible to psycho-analyse the reasons for Atheism as well…:
http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth12.html
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/frear/vitz.htm
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/vitz.txt
“I have explained light to a blind person before, although not (I am sure) for the first time, although he was more than happy to listen to me yadder on. He now understands light as an elemental particle with a part wave/ part particle form, which carries energy from A to B in straight lines and weighs next to nothing. In fact, you might as well say "It is like trying to explain the existence of radio waves to a someone who can't see them" um...yep...easy...”
Well, not really. I could explain to you the theological nature of God – His threefold nature in the Trinity, His internal proceedings, etc. But that would not answer the basic question why should you believe in God?
In the same way – you can explain all you like the scientific nature of light to a blind person, but it doesn’t actually answer the relevant question – why should he believe in light, past taking your word for it? You can’t prove it to him! That was the point of my analogy.
“So try... I will take any explanation which involves the physics behind what you feel to be your personal proof that god exists, (and wants to burn anyone who doesn't do what he says...that bit always confused me...isn't he meant to be a good guy? He always comes across as more of a psychotic?)”
He doesn’t “burn anyone who doesn’t do what He says”. He allows human beings the free will to choose – do they want to accept Him, and their salvation, or not? If not, then He, as any loving Father does, lets them make their own choices, and by choosing to reject Him (and thus by rejecting love) and their salvation, they go to what they wanted – an eternity of loveless despair. Sounds fair and liberal to me.
“Lourdes...heh...nice one.”
…
“Hey mate, as regarding your last point, if you regard rape, thievery and murder as fun, that's your prerogative, but I would advise keeping a low internet profile, the security services have more operatives online than they do in the field, and they are well within their rights to keep a close eye on you if you keep claiming that you think it is fun to rape people! Personally, my idea of fun is spending plenty of time with my girlfriend, in and out of bed, playing role playing games, taking God's name in vain, spending time on the internet (which has also been condemned as a sin in Catholic terms, ask Px for the reference.) and hanging out with mates. You see, I govern my own behaviour, and don't do things that I think will hurt other people, you obviously feel urges in those directions, as shown by your reference to them as "fun" but find yourself governed by your church. I am happy you are a Catholic and feel that you cannot indulge your wilder ideas of pleasure, it sounds as if they world is a safer place.”
Oh please… I think it’s telling that rather than answer the argument implicit in the text (which you clearly cannot answer – how does an Atheist believe in absolute standards of morality – such as those against rape, genocide, stealing, etc.? Answer: he/she can’t. An Atheist cannot condemn Nazism, because he/she possesses no absolute morality to do so with.) you just avoid the whole issue with an attempt at piss-taking.
I have (you will no doubt be glad to hear, no wish to rape, or harm anyone. And there is nothing in the Magisterium of the Catholic Church that condemns spending an ordinate amount of time on the internet doing things that aren’t immoral (such as pornography, addicted gambling, etc.) or illegal (terrorism, planning a crime, hacking computers, etc.).
So, are you going to answer the point or not? Where does an Atheist get any absolute standard of morality?
Peace be with you,
The Cavalier
Buntifer,
"why does him being male make him a better pope?"
It doesn't. It makes him a Priest, and the a Bishop, and then a cradinal, and then a Pope, 'cause noly men can theologically be those things. Merit isn't relevant to the discussion. QED.
"other than the fact that Catholics as a rule are gender fascist..."
Even the Catholic Women, eh? I'll take that as tongue-in-cheek humour, as obviously ad hominem attacks (being childish, and unreasonable) aren't worth responding to.
Peace be with you,
The Cavalier
Sorry, with proper spelling:
Buntifer,
"why does him being male make him a better pope?"
It doesn't. It makes him a Priest, and then a Bishop, and then a Cardinal, and then a Pope, 'cause only men can theologically be those things. Merit isn't relevant to the discussion. QED.
"other than the fact that Catholics as a rule are gender fascist..."
Even the Catholic Women, eh? I'll take that as tongue-in-cheek humour, as obviously ad hominem attacks (being childish, and unreasonable) aren't worth responding to.
Peace be with you,
The Cavalier
Oh, BTW, two internet links I gave out that didn't come out properly are:
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustin
e/arch/frear/vitz.htm
http://www.catholic.com/library/
Who_Can_Receive_Communion.asp
Take care and God bless,
Peter
"Logic is logic: it is not subjective"
To be honest, I'm getting bored nit-picking over the meaning of words I use to mean one thing, and you telling me they mean something else. I assume you know what I mean and are debating using the nit-picking method - which is to pick holes in small irrelevant things which then distract from the actual argument.
Anyway:
LOGIC = "the science of reasoning, proof, thinking, or inference."
Now, certainly when logic is concerned in matters of mathematics, it is indeed objective. However, logic is not so narrowly defined, and in terms of thinking, I'd say that's pretty subjective, wouldn't you?
"We might discuss whether or not the existence of God is likely given whatever evidence we might bring forward"
I think it's time you presented this apparent evidence to me. I've yet to see any.
"you can disbelieve the Scriptures of you want, but in order to make the statement that they are unreliable, you must PROVE IT through external evidence"
What do you mean by unreliable? I don't suggest that they are a hoax - I'm quite sure the people who wrote them believed God existed. But why should I believe them, or agree with them? After all, the homeless guy down our road is convinced aliens fried his brain - but I'm not just going to take his word for it.
"The fact is, given that the events depicted in the New Testament are largely undeniable given the wealth of evidence beyond Scripture that attests to it, in the recorded writings of Hadrian, Trajan, Mara Bar-Serapion, Phlegon, Thallus, Lucian, Josephus, Tacitus, Cornelius, Pliny, Pontius Pilate himself, and Suetonius, amongst others"
Ok - I'm not saying the people and general events in the New Testament didn't exist. But do these other sources say Jesus is a Messiah? Supernatural? Or do they just confirm the man existed? You wonder why I can't make a leap of faith over the supernatural events, but I don't understand how you can. I don't deny Jesus existed, or that he didn't have some important things to say - I just don't believe he was the son of God, because I don't believe God exists.
Re: Old Testament - are these just all stories then? Or also fact like the New Testament? If so, I'm a little troubled by the whole Adam & Eve thing.
"“"Well, I have evidence behind me, such as philosophical reason, spiritual experience, and historical veracity, what do you have?" Same as you.”
Such as…?"
Um, I think that's pretty self explanatory - my philosophy is obvious by now, I have no spiritual experience with God, and my view of history is that certainly the old testament is a crock, and that though Jesus probably existed, he was not necessarily a messiah.
"And yet you haven’t supplied any such reason thus far…"
!!!! What I have I sodding been typing for the last few days. You really don't pay attention.
"also, since as a Catholic I have the Magisterium of the Church, and the Sacred Tradition of the Church, I have a better guide as to what true Orthodoxy is."
See to me (and I'd imagine other Christians), that sounds like blind arrogance. No doubt you'll disagree.
"You make the assumption that because we believe in God, we all believe in the same account of creation, this is clearly incorrect."
And not something I have said. If I thought that way I wouldn't even have reason to think you and Rocket Leaf would ever disagree, would I?
"No, we’re not ‘done’ until you successfully disprove my arguments or I successfully disprove yours"
NEITHER OF US CAN! You cannot disprove anything in this life - ANYTHING. You can even 100% PROVE a lot of things.
"Rationality ISN’T subjective!"
It must be - cause I do not think it is rational to believe in God. I think it is much more rational to realise that our brains create the euphoric sense of a soul, as a coping mechanism with death and the burden of life itself - after all, doesn't it make the brain sit much happier with itself? Knowing it will survive after its body has rotted away? Doesn't it make you feel so much better to believe that all the bad people in the world will eventually be punished? (Unless of course they repent - handy little loop hole, that is). Don't you feel better thinking at the end of the life struggle you'll get some wings and be at peace? It is illogical to think that we will have any concept of any existence after death, because we will not have a brain. Our brain is how we feel, how we tounch, how we see. There is no scientific proof that we have a soul, and even if we did I fail to see how you could make it feel either bliss or pain, since it has no nervous system. God is a creation of the brain to relieve anxiety and enforce control in a cruel world. We are a natural evolution of species as is every other creature, only a bit smarter and in some ways stupider. I believe that any person who wrote about Jesus as a Messiah wanted it to be true so badly they even believed it themselves.
Since then, Christianity foolishly gave itself a structure allowing power to single men - biggest mistake it ever made. Religions now squabble and kill eachother off, both in the past and in the present. ALL of them are as guilty as the next of persecution. The so called "love thy neighbour and thy enemy" philosophy flies right out of the window the second power comes into question. How can you say the Catholic faith is so perfect, when it burned other faiths who thought differently? When it appointed corrupt priests who abused children - how can THAT have happened? Surely God guides such decisions - is this his plan?
"Rubbish – I’m the one whose been trying to get to hear it from you this whole time in a real discourse!"
Anything I've said you've either ignored or declared is wrong.
"sinful lifestyles are harmful"
I live in fantastic sin with my partner - neither of us are harmful to anyone by doing so.
"– just as I do when I defend Christianity against Atheism, and other bad philosophies."
I'm not asking you to defend Christianity - you are entitled to believe whatever you want. I just don't understand why you can't leave people to their own philosophies. By calling them bad, you really reveal that you look down on them. How can I argue with someone who has no respect for what others believe?
". I am thus, not helping anyone by just letting them go their merry sweet way on the path to reprobation!"
Trust me, telling someone their philosophy is wrong is the quickest way to stop them listening to you. I think God would make a much better argument than any man - if he existed.
"Science is varied also, that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a way of finding out which philosophy is the truth"
philosophy is not science. Both philosophy and science are focused on good reasoning, but scientific reasoning is grounded in mathematical precision and experimental isolation of variables. You cannot look at philosophy and regard it in the same way as science - it is FAR more subjective
"Polly does have her own views – they happen to be wrong."
Ack! You don't even say they MIGHT be wrong! You go on and on about open mindedness, but you are really not open minded at all.
"How would anyone ever improve, or truth ever be found, if everyone just left each other alone"
I think there's nothing wrong with debate - but I also don't believe in flogging a dead horse. I've been here before, I've had these discussions. The problem with arguing with someone with blind faith, is that they are blind to your arguments. It's like banging your head against a brick wall. In the end, you see this debate purely as an opportunity to convince an atheist they're wrong - rather than listen to what they might have to say.
"In which case, why should anyone else believe that homophobia is wrong?"
Society governs itself - I believe the Bible supports this, because I believe the Bible was written by man and not God. Any society with half a brain knows that hurting someone is a negative thing, and those that let it happen will suffer as a whole in the long term. We have created our own laws now, which we believe let society run to its best ability. Allowing abortion is certainly nothing to do with religious guidelines, neither is the provision of sex education and condoms. It is something society has seen as necessary for its healthy operation. Sometimes society's make mistakes, get it wrong - but they tend to pay for it, and correct their mistake. To me the church is based on what a bunch of people (or even just Jesus himself) decided was a good way for society to run - God was created as a way of enforcing it - what better method of monitoring than a supernatural being who can watch your every move? And creating this system to me, seems perfectly logical.
""You don't know me, please don't assume my faith or what experiences I might have had or decisions I made."
I might point out that I only SUGGESTED it. I assumed nothing."
Okay then, please don't SUGGEST my faith or what experiences I might have had or decisions I made.
"If your Christianity was making you UNHAPPY what kind of real Christianity could it possibly have been?"
All I can say is, it felt real at the time. I was 18 when I became completely atheist.
"I’m not fearful or hateful of Gay people at all – so me simply stating their morality is mistaken is not indicative of anything like that inside me. Your definition is flawed."
As you stated youself, my definition is quite liberal
"I have never come across any good reasons to become an Atheist. At all. Perhaps you could supply me with some?"
I can't. Atheism is not happy clappy, nor is it the easy solution. It is hard, accepting that there is nothing beyond this life. Hard to believe there is no comeuppence for evil, no matter how unfair it is. But I believe it to be true. To believe in God, however appealing it may be, would be to lie to myself. That I will not do.
"Jesus never wrote anything because He entrusted his teaching to His Apostles"
But WHY? It certainly made things more complicated.
". I was converted by being told the Gospel, and then opening my mind and my heart to God, and then letting His grace enter my life."
Fine. But this is an entirely personal experience. You cannot force it onto others. They will experience it by themselves - just like you. The most Christian thing you can do is be there when someone wants to know, when someone asks.
"Then, in that moment, I felt as through rushing water was washing right through me – like I was being spiritually cleansed. It was an experience I had never felt before, and it is an experience I have regularly in a spiritual context (usually Mass, or Prayer). I developed a relationship with Christ in my prayer life and it is this grace – this experience in this context, that gives me faith in the Gospel, and thus, by extension in the Church and in the Scriptures."
Yeah, I've been there too. I call it an orgasm ;)
"Thus, it is unsurprising that you do not accept the authority of Holy Scripture, you won’t until you have the dame faith in the Gospel, based in proper experience, as Christians do."
Hang on - didn't you say you heard the Gospels THEN asked for a sign from God? You argue as if just reading the gospels and believing them as fact is enough. But even you waiting for a sign from God.
"The fact remains, that either I or you are right"
Yes, but neither of us will know for sure until we're dead. Tricky, that.
"There either is a God or there isn’t – there can be no middle ground. Thus, the object of any dialogue ought to be an effort to find out which view has the most reason behind it."
Of course. Problem is I've already looked at the evidence for the existence of God and I find it lacking. And since there is no POSSIBLE way to prove that something doesn't exist, I can't convince you of anything else.
"“To be honest, even if I could be convinced to believe that God exists,”
So, you admit that you’re completely close-minded on the issue?"
Well, nothing's changed my mind so far.
"It doesn’t seem good to you that ANYONE no matter what they’ve done, can be forgiven no mater what they’ve done, as long as they repent of the sins they’ve committed?"
I'm not one to judge others, but I can't say I'd be that happy to sit alongside someone who raped and murdered my mother just because they said sorry. Interestingly, what does your God do with people who have had no contact with Christianity and know nothing of it, or the sins they might have committed?
"If you embrace Hell, then that’s where you’ll be"
So be it.
"In any case, it’s unlikely you’d prefer an eternity of utter despair, loneliness, and complete deprivation of love, than the “empty existence” of complete acceptance, happiness, and the eternal fulfilment of ecstatic love!"
I have just said that I would.
"Utter complete and unadulterated poppycock. That is such unbelievable subjectivist solipsistic nonsense; I don’t know where to begin!"
Gee, it's so nice to know you're sensibly considering my point of view. If this is the response I get, really why should I listen to you at all?
"Like I said, if you think that 2 +2 = 5, then I don’t give a toss what your “personal outlook” is – you’re just plain wrong."
This is mathematical reason and logic - NOT the same as philosophical.
"If I do try to deny it, then I’m only fooling myself (and being an idiot in the process)."
I'm saying nothing!
You seem to think logic and reason in philosophy is black and white and clear cut - it isn't. This only works with mathematics and science. The problem we have with logic in philosophical areas is that it is impossible to prove - yes, we can both give our reasons and try to convince eachother, of course we can. All we have is our methods of persuasion. But since you believe you have experienced God, there is NOTHING I can say that will convince you it was anything else. Do you deny this? And there's nothing you can say that can make me experience what you did. Sure you can list off all the stuff about the Bible and what it says - but you cannot MAKE me experience God.
Just to address the “prove that God doesn’t exist” thing.
When I was a child, I was taught the Bible as fact (yes, that includes the Old Testament). And of course, I believed all entirely – I was, after all, a child.
When I was a child, I was also told about Father Christmas – who I also believed was real. When I became a little older and started thinking more, I asked my mother if Father Christmas was really real. She told me he wasn’t. I didn’t believe her – I didn’t WANT to believe her. Why would I? Father Christmas is a wonderful idea. I believe I even asked my mother to prove he didn’t exist. Something of course, she couldn’t do. After all, just telling me it wasn’t possible wasn’t enough – back then I made the leap of faith and believed the supernatural was possible. However, after some thought, I realised that it was true. Though no one could prove to me Father Christmas didn’t exist, after looking at what I knew, I realised he probably didn’t exist.
It’s a crude example, but I went through the exact same process with my belief in God. I listened to what everyone had to say – atheists and Christians alike – and I was lucky that not one of them was arrogant enough to just tell me I was wrong – they just told me what they believed and why. I asked myself the question – does God exist? I didn’t believe any one person’s argument – I just considered it all, and based on my experiences, the way I felt about life and myself, and of course the physical evidence available – I believed that God did not exist. You go on about objectivity – and of course there is an element of that to the decision. The subjective area for me is this “leap of faith” you discuss. Yes, I can look objectively at the Bible – logic tells me it is much more likely that the book was written by men, and not by a God. I can see that Jesus existed, but logic tells me it is much more likely he was just a man who people listened to and loved than he was actually born to a virgin by the seed of a deity. A leap of faith is not logical, as there is no mathematical or scientific logic to the “supernatural” – it is personal, emotional and very subjective to your own personal experience. Which is fine. I have no wish to tell you how to interpret what your mind is telling you – after all, you are of course the best interpreter of that. Your leap of faith is your own, and I have no interest in taking that from you. If God is talking to you – good for him, and good for you. I just wish you could think the same way for others – for their own leaps of faith. By all means present your argument to people in the hope they might listen and take it on board – but telling people they are wrong (purely based on your own personal experiences with God) is only going to alienate them. There are better ways of getting your message across.
I think the world is a fantastic place, and people can be just as amazing. If when I die I discover this world was created by a deity, I will thank him for his work. I will ask for HIS definition of sin and if I do genuinely feel bad about what he lists, I will repent. If I don’t, I accept I have no place in his kingdom. I am fine with this – it is MY decision. By all means, tell me what you know, but don’t tell me my decision is wrong – that’s not up to you to decide – in the end it is up to him, and I am more than prepared to take the consequences for it.
My dear chap,
Just two points because I weary of this.
One - You are right, I am a "soft Atheist" I do not beleve that God cannot exist. This is because I am a scientist, and as such it is necessary for me to keep an open mind. As I explained, nothing is impossible, everything should simply be talked about in terms of its probability. I don't capitalise when I say I believe he may exist. Although I would argue that using male pronouns to describe any higher being is a patriarchal human touch deserving of men who wish to manipulate a society into their control.
2 - I do not belive that anyone has an absolute morality. MOrality is subjective and should be flexible. The bible says nothing specific about nazism I believe, and I seem to remember the Vatican being less then impressive when dealing with the holocaust...where was this absolute morality then?
I believe that the standards of "Good" and "Evil" which are so simple in fiction do not exist in our world, we live in a world where to define concrete rules is far too simplistic to ever prove a truly effective method of living. I think that if God existed he would probably have updated some of his original rulings, and, on that point of updating things, how come you accept the Catholic dogma? Surely there are more modern dogmas that claim to have had dirrect experience with God, who therefore have his newly updated commands/morality etc? And there are older religions as well, perhaps you should be Jewish?
Why are they wrong and you right? Surely it is just a matter of personal and therefore subjective choice, you will find Methodists who have had just as convincing religious experiences as your good self, and Jews as well I'm sure.
So absolute morality is not all that absolute. In fact given the number of world religions, it isn't absolute at all. So why is it not acceptable for me to put down some moral rules of my own and follow them?
Right. Three comments in one day - I'm so greedy!
Just wanted to say that since I'm back to full time work mode tomorrow I need to wrap this debate up. Unfortunately I am no longer a student, and do not have the time resource available to continue to give this the attention it needs.
So in nice old debating style, could you give a final(ish) response and whatever summary you like (since you are the first speaker in this discussion), and then I can give my summary and we can call it a day for the online natter. Obviously continue with whoever else you like, but I have enough online time to carry on.
Agreeable?
Rachel,
That sounds agreeable - I am in the process of writing mine as I type, and I will post it both on this forum, and on my blog, so if you'd like, you can post your reply in the new comments section of that blog post on my blog, as well as here (thus, other people can continue the debate themselves if they like there).
Thanks!
Peace be with you,
Peter
Cheesm,
“My dear chap, Just two points because I weary of this. One - You are right, I am a "soft Atheist" I do not beleve that God cannot exist. This is because I am a scientist, and as such it is necessary for me to keep an open mind.”
Which is admirable – I have much more respect for negative than positive atheism. The former at least possesses the virtue of open-mindedness.
“As I explained, nothing is impossible, everything should simply be talked about in terms of its probability.”
Great – why is the existence of God improbable?
“I don't capitalise when I say I believe he may exist. Although I would argue that using male pronouns to describe any higher being is a patriarchal human touch deserving of men who wish to manipulate a society into their control.”
You certainly could, but how do you know? That sort of description always smacks of a Foucaultnian theory of power relations: one that is not only purely theoretical, but one that is obsessed with seeing some kind of gender/sexuality/racial, etc. conspiracy behind systems of power relations. This I find distastefully projects the ideology of the person (one that I don’t share) using such language onto complex subjects of sociology, anthropology and theology, where a more objective philosophical/scientific analysis should take place. I thus think that kind of statement irrational and do not use it, or accept it as meaningful in the statements of others.
I would certainly say that using any gender pronouns for God is evidence only of our inability to adequately describe Him. All our language to describe God, as any theologian will tell you, is analogical – we say that God is LIKE a Father, and thus give Him a male pronoun. The only reason Ancient Israel and Christendom gave God male pronouns was because coming from Patriarchal societies, where the King was by definition Male (with many exceptions in terms of the authority of the sexes – i.e. the Queen of Sheba, Greek Priestesses, etc.), and Men were the heads of their households, as has been traditionally the case in most, certainly Western, cultures, that was the meaningful sign of authority for them. God is, of course, neither male not female, but it is meaningful to call Him “Father”, and so we continue to ascribe to Him a male pronoun. This, and only this, adequately communicates God’s relationship to us, I think, in the context of Christian theology.
“2 - I do not belive that anyone has an absolute morality. MOrality is subjective and should be flexible. The bible says nothing specific about nazism I believe, and I seem to remember the Vatican being less then impressive when dealing with the holocaust...where was this absolute morality then?”
Ah… Strike up another notch for “arguments derived from the ‘Bumper Book of Anti-Catholic Myths and Legends’”. You’re typing to a guy who wrote a 20-page thesis in my gap year for my old History teacher (as the result of a debate on this very subject in my final-year A-level class), “Mit Entrüstung Rechtstaffen” (“With Righteous Indignation” – you’ll get why I gave it this title in a bit), for her new class, on the actions of the Catholic Church during the Holocaust, as part of a broader defence of Pope Pius XII.
What was so unimpressive about the Vatican’s actions during the Holocaust? Its saving of 800,000 odd Jewish lives due to covert efforts (granting of Vatican passports to get Jews to South America, faux-‘baptising’ Jews so they were written down as Catholics on their papers and not Judaists, hiding Jews in Catholic convents, etc.), its stringent and out-spoken condemnation of Nazism and anti-Semitism in Papal encyclicals such as “Mit Brennender Sörge” (“With Burning Anxiety”)?
The absolute morality of respect for Human life and liberty was entirely present in the Church’s actions during the Nazi Holocaust and Second World War.
Let us then, deal with your statement that morality is “subjective and flexible”. Really? So, how do YOU condemn Nazism and racism, then? You say that your morality is subjective, so why should anyone else accept it? What if the rest of the country WAS Nazi, and started killing Jews. Surely all of their SUBJECTIVE moral opinions would simply make what they’re doing OK for them – after all, the majority always win, right? How could you possibly morally condemn what their doing? All they would have to say is “Oh, well that’s only YOUR subjective moral opinion! We have our opinion, you have yours, and we’ll continue the way we’re going, thanks!” You would have no way of stating absolutely to them that your morality is good and theirs is evil.
So, answer me this, playing ‘advocatus diaboli’ for a minute, how do you know genocide is wrong? And why should I (assuming I was agnostic on the subject – I’m not obviously, but assuming I was) share your opinion?
I don’t think you can consistently answer those questions given your moral relativism – because absolute moral judgements, such as “genocide is wrong” can only be given through the very “black and white” Judaeo-Christian moral system you deride and disbelieve! As I will point out to Rachel, the only absolute, humane and consistent morality is that based in a divine theology, in the words of Chesterton: "The ‘Declaration of Independence’ dogmatically bases all rights on the fact that God created all men equal; and it is right; for if they were not created equal, they were certainly evolved unequal. There is no basis for democracy except in a dogma about the divine origin of man." – (Chapter 19, “What I Saw In America,” 1922)
Only if man is divinely created, can he have an absolute (because divinely sanctioned) right to life liberty and happiness. If not: “Well, human rights, they’re all a matter of perspective, aren’t they?”
Atheism can only undermine this, and never replace it.
“I believe that the standards of "Good" and "Evil" which are so simple in fiction do not exist in our world, we live in a world where to define concrete rules is far too simplistic to ever prove a truly effective method of living. I think that if God existed he would probably have updated some of his original rulings, and, on that point of updating things, how come you accept the Catholic dogma? Surely there are more modern dogmas that claim to have had dirrect experience with God, who therefore have his newly updated commands/morality etc? And there are older religions as well, perhaps you should be Jewish? Why are they wrong and you right? Surely it is just a matter of personal and therefore subjective choice, you will find Methodists who have had just as convincing religious experiences as your good self, and Jews as well I'm sure.”
Very simply, because I believe Christianity (and particularly the authority of Catholicism) to be right, and the others to be wrong – because the others are either philosophically unsound, or (in the case of Judaism) superseded.
I do not for example, agree with Hinduism because it possesses soteriological and eschatological accounts that are irrational. Take Reincarnation – Reincarnation in Hindu theology is explained in this way: it is said by Hindus that we were all originally in “Nirvana” – a paradise without suffering or evil. Then we “fell”. We must now, on Earth, keep on going through successive reincarnations until we reach Nirvana again. The way we do this is that we shall have better lives in our next reincarnation if we lead moral lives, and have worse successive lives if we act in evil ways – a bad person might come back as a beggar or a pig for example.
However, Hinduism doesn’t sufficiently account for itself in this. Reincarnationists say that we started in paradise and were inexplicably subsequently put into bodies to be reincarnated; but why? If reincarnation is for doing evil things before our subsequent new life, what evil could we have done in the state of heavenly, pure, perfect spirituality? If we sinned in heaven, then surely it is no heaven at all! And yet, the reincarnationist says that that is the place that we will return to when we have completed all our reincarnations! This is not a logically satisfactory system, and therefore not a theology or philosophy that I could ever accept.
“So absolute morality is not all that absolute. In fact given the number of world religions, it isn't absolute at all. So why is it not acceptable for me to put down some moral rules of my own and follow them?”
Because, by definition, morality is not so relative. Relativism destroys morality, and for the very basic reason that morality is not subjective, because it is language. Morality is, by definition, a public mode of discourse. Morality is between people, not within people. It is a social code of expected behaviours, taboos and imperatives, it is to do with the way that people act around and treat one another.
We can, for example, have a rational discussion on the darkness of a summer’s evening. I might say it is a particularly dark evening, you might say it is a particularly light evening, but we can have a discussion on it because we share common definitions of “light” and “dark”. That is, although I might have different perceptions of what is “light” and “dark” to you, we can discover whether your perception is right, or mine is, because we both know the definitions of “light” and “dark”, and so can proceed on an investigation about whose perception IS CLOSER TO THE DEFINITION. Assuming that is, that in the hypothetical example either is right (we might both be wrong, as it might be a rather average evening).
In any case, we can proceed on a discussion about the subject only because “lightness” and “darkness” are word concepts that have universal meanings: meanings that we share because we both speak the English language. If one of us says a word the other doesn’t understand, he can look it up in the dictionary, the authority of which we both share. This principle is the basis of all communication, and all discourse. Without it, any conversation would be utterly meaningless.
In the same way, such an assumption ought to be the basis of moral discourse. Just as we can meaningfully discuss the possible darkness or lightness of a summer’s evening because we share common concepts of “dark” and “light”, so we can only have a meaningful discussion about the right and wrongs of a moral act if we have a shared concept and meaning behind what the words “good” and “evil”.
Therefore, morality only becomes meaningful when it is ABSOLUTE! If we have moral discussions, surely we should not be having a debate over whether or not morality is absolute, but instead over WHICH MORALITY WE SHOULD ABSOLUTISE. It becomes very clear then, that you can no more have a subjective, private morality, based on your “perspective”, anymore then you can have a subjective, private language. For both are, by definition, OBJECTIVE and PUBLIC modes of discourse. Therefore, I cannot agree with your moral relativism.
Therefore, since we must have an absolute morality for any moral discourse to be truly meaningful, and because we have a way (Philosophical debate) of deciding which absolute morality is better, that position is the most consistent and the most socially beneficial.
Where am I going wrong here?
Peace be with you,
The Cavalier
Peter said:
"That sounds agreeable - I am in the process of writing mine as I type, and I will post it both on this forum, and on my blog, so if you'd like, you can post your reply in the new comments section of that blog post on my blog, as well as here (thus, other people can continue the debate themselves if they like there)."
*looks at watch and scratches head and hopes Peter noticed the word SUMMARY*
Peter, you know the way you say that if we sinned if it Heaven, it can't have been Heaven in the first place?
Are you saying there's no free will in Heaven? Or just that in Heaven, even with free will, nobody would choose to treat people like things - still the best definition of sin I know - and by doing so defy the will of God?
Lucifer fell.
Hello Peter,
(I'd say Hello, Polly, but though this is her blog it does rather appear to have become your comment thread. So it goes, I suppose.)
Having been reading your comments on this blog - and indeed your own - over the last week, I've been thinking a bit. I'm not convinced by all you say, I'm afraid. Even when I've agreed with what you say, I've rarely been happy with how you've said it. There's a fine line between conviction and arrogance, you know, and one can often masquerade as the other.
We're talking about big issues here, perhaps the biggest issues there are. If there's a proper tone here, it's humility.
In a sense, when we consider God, we're all agnostics. Not in the sense that we believe that it's impossible to say that God exists - since Rachel, the Cheesmonger, Polly, Yourself, and I all obviously take different stances on that. Just that no matter what we believe, we don't know.
Agnostic, after all, could be very easily translated as 'ignorant'.
Condoms first: Your defence of them is based on the claim that if people didn't shag left, right, and centre AIDS wouldn't spread at all. Well, yeah, kind of. But you do rather ignore the fact that you might have one partner in a marriage being infected by an infected spouse. How that spouse got infected in the first place doesn't really matter.
As it happens, there's a sizable body of opinion within the Church that holds that even within Church teaching there's room for the use of condoms to prevent disease. Sure, it'd remove the procreative aspect from marital sex, but that'd be a secondary effect.
Also, in a 1992 interview the then Cardinal Ratzinger said that the Church's teaching on contraception needed to be developed, and that it had yet to come up with anything very helpful on the issue of global overpopulation. He's thought to have been responsible from dissuading John Paul II from making a definitive statement on contraception.
So I'd be careful nailing my colours to that particular mast, if I were you.
Dominus Iesus: While Polly's wrong to say that he said other Christian churches were invalid, you're almost as off-base when you say that he said they were deficient in their teaching.
If you look at Dominus Iesus, where he spoke of respect for other religions but also against the notion that all religions were equally good, he said that followers of other religions were in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, has access to fuller means of salvation.
I'm guessing he's talking not merely about Church teaching, but also the sacraments, a complete Bible, and in the Petrine ministry a visible guarantee of unity and perseverence. You can read a fairly hefty interview about the document translated from the FAZ here.
(He certainly wasn't attacking said followers of othe religions on a personal level. We all know that holiness and goodness are to be found among peoples of all religions, and none - while wickedness and just general crapness are equally widespread.)
Homosexuality: You're not really doing the Church any favours when you half-agree with Polly's (understandably) inaccurate claim that the then Cardinal Ratzinger called homosexuality an intrinsic moral evil, only to say that it is but only if you understand it a certain way.
Yes, he identified homosexual acts as sins. They've been identified as such from the Church's beginnings, back when anyone who indulged in homosexual sex was considered a depraved pervert. But then, people didn't understand homosexuality as a sexuality back then.
Now he says, yes, homosexual acts are still sins, to be avoided like all other sins, but they're the result of understandable temptations considering that most people who indulge in them are in fact homosexual.
Rock Music, Magdalen Laundries, the CDF, and Liberation Theology: Yeah, I think you're spot on on all these.
Women: Considering that he's had women readers at his masses - indeed at his Inaugural Mass - I'm fairly sure he's not opposed to having women choristers or altar servers. It's possible that he may prefer males choristers and altar servers, but I'd suspect this is because it's from them that the next generation of priests often come.
Germans: Just being pedantic for one second - that being the predominantly waspish tone of this thread - but you really should be careful to avoid such lines as 'the only "people" who matter are Catholics'. I may know what you mean, but it does sound rather bad.
Opposition: Just as Polly might have been clearer when she said (rather too sweepingly, I felt) that Benedict is in favour of refusing Mass to those who oppose Church teaching - it depends on the teaching, really, and he'd only have been referring to the Eucharist rather than the whole Mass - so you overstate things in his defence.
After all, what's with all the screeching about Hans Küng being a heretic? Sure, he was teaching things contrary to Church teaching in the name of the Church, and for that lost his license to teach as a Catholic theologian - it just meant he called himself an Ecumenical theologian and carried on in the same university. But does that make him a heretic? After all, he wasn't excommunicated, and wasn't even defrocked. Hans Küng is still a priest, Peter.
And to wrap up... The rest of the thread is a quagmire, almost inpenetrable to all but the most dedicated visitors. I don't think I have the energy to get involved in any of the debates there - Hell, I don't think I can follow any of them.
Just one question, though. Why all that nonsense about the Bible not being a book? That hardly helped the discussion.
Greg - you's a rocking catholic dude.
I have scribed my final post on this issue here:
http://neo-cavalier.blogspot.com/2005/04/early-defence-of-pope-benedict-xvi.html
Wear your safety belts, people!
Out of interest Rachel, why do you dialogue with Pete on atheism and religion? is there a personal investment? T.B.
Out of interest, Rachel, why do you engage in such extended dialogue with Pete?
T.B.
Heh. No personal investment except that I believe I'm entitled to my beliefs and he seems to think I'm not. (Or if I'm entitled to them I'm just plain wrong - not something I particularly want to be).
Walking away from a debate is often seen as a sign of defeat and I find it difficult to restrain myself from responding to dialogue aimed at changing my mind. Especially when I see blatant flaws in the argument.
It's easy to get sucked into these things though. Done now though. Interestingly I initially said I didn't want to debate at all - but even that got debated about! Apparently not debating is interpreted as being close-minded! Whatever.
Post a Comment
<< Home