So I've been told by of course many non Catholics/Christians that the Catholic Church is very intolerant. When I think about it all I see is that the Church has people in it that are intolerant.

Are their accusations founded on reason or misunderstanding?

-- Jacob R. (jacobrainey@hotmail.com), April 06, 2004

Answers

It depends on how you would define intolerant. If you think that telling a sinner that they are sinning is intolerant then yes. If you think the Church providing eternally fixed guidelines on what is sinful and what isnt is intolerant then yes again.

If on the other hand you mean the Church turns away the sinner from Her love then no. The Catholic Church seems to be one of the few tough love institutions left and thus She is hated by the secular populace as well as the laissez faire religious crowd.

-- David F (notanaddress@nowhere.com), April 06, 2004.

Here here, David. :)

What is "tolerance"?

On the face of things, "tolerant" basically describes a person (A) and his behavior/thoughts/feelings toward something else (B), where (B) can be a person, act, principle, or anything at all.

Starting from here, we see that when we say that "(A) is tolerant of (B)," this can have three distinct meanings:

1. (A) has no principles, values, or desires regarding (B). (A) is mostly indifferent to (B).

2. (A) has principles, values, or desires regarding (B), but does not express these in any way (typically as a result of a firm principle that it would be wrong to do so).

3. (A) has principles, values, or desires regarding (B), and expresses them, but his expression of these is subordinate to an overriding concern for the best possible end for all parties concerning (B). Thus there is a prudence factor.

Intolerance, then, negates all three of these things: (A) has desires regarding (B), expresses them in action, and disregards virtue in general (or prudence and charity in particular).

The Catholic Church is the body of Christ, and since Christ preached universal, authentic Love, for God and neighbor, so the Church is full of principles, values, and desires, all interconnected, and all pointing to Christ.

Because of this, there is almost nothing where the Church has complete, pure "Tolerance-1." And this is evident. If you read about the lives of the saints, you see that their WHOLE LIVES--every little detail--is consumed in holiness. St. John of the Cross spoke of perfection even extending to bad habits like talking too much. Furthermore, we are all called to be saints, which is why we pray constantly for forgiveness and mercy. As Jews and Christians have always prayed: God, if you judge us according to our sin, who could stand? "Dwell not upon our sins but on the faith of your Church."

So, with respect to principles, values, and desires, you see that the Church has impossibly high standards. Yes, impossible for us. But not for God, and not beyond his forgiveness.

Similarly, the Church ideally never has "Tolerance-2". Culturally, you see "Tolerance-2" a lot. IMO, that's because individual Catholics lack either the courage or the creativity to express Catholic values in a positive way. Or else they lack those principles themselves, which is not unheard of. Individual Catholics can also be intolerant, for the same reason: a lack of creativity, or love or prudence, if not courage.

Finally, however, the Church always and everywhere practices, defends, and encourages "Tolerance-3". That is because "Tolerance-3" places Charity, the highest of virtues, at the very center; charity is the crossroads between the ideal and the real. Granted, any expression of Catholic truth, no matter how infused with love and prudence, will meet opposition, hatred, and (ironically) intolerance.

"Are their accusations founded on reason or misunderstanding?"

The Church is quite misunderstood. Her secular opponent has a taste for only "Tolerance-1," which she never offers; and he tolerates at most "Tolerance-2," which she never intends to offer.

Think about it: today, INDIFFERENCE is the rule, and non-conformists will never avoid the charge of "intolerance."

But not only is "Tolerance-3" the very best practical solution; it is also the only kind of tolerance compatible with morality (sacrificed by "Tolerance-1") and integrity (sacrificed by "Tolerance- 2").

So, in short, the Church is very, very tolerant; but not in a way that she would give up her moral Christian faith, or her integrity. However. individual Catholics can very commonly fall into either "Intolerance" or "Tolerance-2."

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), April 06, 2004.

1) Your rewording of the possible denotations of the word intolerance does not change a simple fact: If I'm an Animist, a Catholic will not let me be an Animist. That is intolerance. If there were a word without multiple meanings in the english language I could use to convey this, I would.

2) Catholics do not respect human free will. They see it as a mechanism of sin that can only be atoned for by robotically following the bible. Why would some higher being create us just so it could punish us for not doing what it told us to? That is pointless, petty, and purely sadistic. Saints as your described them are people who give up their free will to follow the bible to the word. The word I'd use to describe that is not holy.

3) It's possible to have strong beliefs and hold yourself to a moral code without forcing it on everyone you come across. It requires something called respect. Respect of free will, autonomy, and the intrinsic value of humanity. If something is absolutely correct, any rational being could be led to realize it without a doubt. Also, if we are programmed with a purpose by a higher being I'd think they would program it into us so we could not disobey it. Why give us a purpose and make us unable or unwilling to fulfill it? That doesn't make sense. When I hear the arguments and logic for the existence of judaism/christianity/catholicism/islam I see something no different than scientology or mormonism, only more fleshed out.

-- VOR (VOR123@hotmail.com), April 07, 2004.

Hi Vor,

Welcome to this site. I hope you hang around and more importantly you keep an open mind about what you read here.

1) Catholics do not force others to believe in what they do. If you want to be an Animist knock yourself. We care enough about you Animists however to pray for them and tell them we are a bit worried about their souls. God is merciful and we cannot judge who He will save but we do know that the Church offers the best blueprint.

2) Catholics do respect free will as does God. It is due to his love that we have free will. It is up to us on how to use our free will. We can use it for good or evil.

3) People do have a moral code as we are made in God's image. We do however need guidance because the world around us distances us from God's grace and thus our morality and conscience changes with our surroundings. Think how innocent you were as a child. You may recall the pangs of conscience when you said a curse word. Now I would bet you feel nothing when you curse. That is because we often define deviency down as we are exposed to society.

4) God could program us like robots but without free will we would be of no value. We can choose to offer Him our obedience (which despite what you think is a GOOD thing) or we can choose to ignore or ridicule Him. If you were an all-powerful being and created mankind how would you deal with people who were made aware of your existence by your coming to earth and being humiliated, tortured and killed and denied you?

5) Understand that Hell is the absence of God. He cannot be there even in part. All the love and joy you feel now is from Him. When you see your lovely child take a step it is God's face you see. When you fall in love with a wonderful person your joy is from God's blessing you. How awful it would be to be without Him.

-- David F (notanaddress@nowhere.com), April 07, 2004.

"a Catholic will not let me be an Animist. That is intolerance."

You are right: if a Catholic "will not let [you] be an Animist," that would be intolerance. But your statement, that Catholics would not, is quite false. Not to mention a little mean.

Of COURSE a Catholic will let you be an Animist. How could we do otherwise? It does no good to say, "Do not be an Animist." It's true that Catholicism teaches: "Animism is false." But that's a long way from not letting you be one.

Philosophy is the art of making distinctions. If you don't do that, you make dialogue impossible.

"Catholics do not respect human free will. They see it as a mechanism of sin that can only be atoned for by robotically following the bible. Why would some higher being create us just so it could punish us for not doing what it told us to? That is pointless, petty, and purely sadistic. Saints as your described them are people who give up their free will to follow the bible to the word. The word I'd use to describe that is not holy."

Those are some bold claims. I fear that there is more than a misunderstanding here: you really have some hatred in you. But while I can't do anything about your anger, maybe I can address your misapprehension:

There is no reason to believe that Catholics do not respect free will. Nothing is good unless it is done freely. Freedom is necessary for choice; moreover, it is always desireable to have more freedom.

Think of it this way: freedom is what places into our hands both sin and virtue. Without freedom, there could be no sin, and no virtue. Sin and virtue have their own results: Sin takes us away from virtue. It reproduces itself; it pulls and tugs on our wills; it says, "feed me!" Sin takes all human creative energies and pulls them in one, univocal, linear direction: itself. Sin makes virtue more difficult with each successive step. Virtue--which could not be virtue if it was not chosen freely--opens for us a broad spectrum of action. Why? For several reasons: self-control is freeing; independence from lust is freeing; holy self-love and humility together are freeing. Virtue opens a world of actions which, for the sinner, are almost impossible- -leastwise not a bit desireable. Meanwhile, the chooser of virtue is never a slave to virtue; rather, a connoisseur of virtue.

Free will is not a mechanism of sin; sin is the mechanism that makes us into robots. The "higher being" created us to be free choosers of his company. How could he enjoy the company of automations? Moreover, Saints do not give up their free will (if anything, they fill themselves up with it) and they do not follow "the Bible to the Word" (You are confusing Catholicism with fundamentalist Protestantism). Saints freely and consistently choose the Good, and discover in themselves a certain explosive love that rends the skies and breaks open into limitless possibilities that the committed sinner could not even imagine. And they give all the credit to God.

"It's possible to have strong beliefs and hold yourself to a moral code without forcing it on everyone you come across. It requires something called respect. Respect of free will, autonomy, and the intrinsic value of humanity."

That's exactly what I said in my first post.

"If something is absolutely correct, any rational being could be led to realize it without a doubt."

What exactly do you mean when you say this? After all, science has taken an immensely long time to get to where it is today, and it has a very long way to go. Moreover, science says nothing "without a doubt." It looks like you are setting the bar to the moon.

If I propose to you a hyothesis--say, "there is a God, and he loves you and wants your company,"--that might be a hypothesis worth testing. But where is the evidence? Incidentally, if you never seek to meet a person, you will never have evidence for their existence or their love. I would suggest that you start where the evidence is most likely to be found: a church, or a priest. Incidentally, when I say "evidence," I'm talking about that part of the mind that calls things "true" (which are many) that cannot be shoehorned into mere logical or scientific propositions.

"Also, if we are programmed with a purpose by a higher being I'd think they would program it into us so we could not disobey it. Why give us a purpose and make us unable or unwilling to fulfill it? That doesn't make sense."

Perhaps that is because your thinking is dominated by technocentric analogies (robots, mechanics, programming, etc.) Supposing that the Divine Purpose were not a program, but instead would be impossible without freedom as its beginning and its highest end, and the gears and cogs begin to melt. God has not "programmed" us with a purpose, nor has he "made us" unwilling to follow. (Either of these would negate our personhood). Rather, he sets the path before us, and beckons. It it a completely different image than what you suggest.

"When I hear the arguments and logic for the existence of..."

Well, then stop. My faith had different springs, and so will yours if you're earnest and eager about things like truth and goodness and such. As I said, there are certain kinds of "evidence"--certain things that will confront you--that you will never find or know about until you have a serious encounter with a real tradition.

May God bless you and help you in your search.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), April 07, 2004.

My reason to believe catholics do not respect free will does not originate from negative feelings, but from logic. You say that free will is highly valued, but state that the purpose of it is to choose a certain way or be punished. This sounds like an owner throwing his dog into a lake and rewarding him if he swims back to the owner, while drowning him for any other choice. I don't know the entire difference between C/C, memorizing religious texts for the sole purpose of justifying my beliefs against them seems like a waste of time to me, but I think I'd be correct in assuming the saints are people who followed the bible and advanced the existing institution instead of figuring out their own path. Someone who follows the paved road without question to me is a sheep, and that is not a quality worthy of the denotation of the word "holy."

A word is a sound, it only has meaning after we learn a language. We only know if a word is "bad" if we are punished for saying it. This is social guilt, we only feel it because another person tells us we're wrong and we become conditioned to feel guilty. Like all social things, this is artificial. Now let's look at another kind of guilt: Real guilt. This guilt cannot be conditioned away, and it is the kind that plagues veterans who were ordered to kill masses of defenseless people. It's the same guilt any person feels upon killing another living thing, no matter how much they are told they were right. It forms the basis of animist cultures that show respect for their prey as a way to relieve the guilt. I'd think a higher being would use this sort of conscience to tell us whether something was right or wrong, rather than the artifice of human language.

Divine Purpose according to your model is like my previous example of an owner throwing a dog into a lake and calling it to swim back. That doesn't seem like a purpose to me. It suggests a being that requires validation for itself, which I'd like to hope a higher being would be beyond.

-- VOR (VOR123@hotmail.com), April 07, 2004.

Vor,

Can you kill anyone you want? If not why not? Your mother tells you to look both ways when you cross the street. Do you listen? Life has rules whether you like it or not. Your parents set rules for you not to be mean but to protect you from harm and because they love you. They didn't want you to repeat mistakes others (possibly themselves) had made. In a world of total free will without consequences for actions, we all end up suffering and in effect loosing our freedom.

What you want is anarchy or you want me to say that God is somehow unfair because He is upset when you do evil. If that upsets you take it up with the management. You will get a chance to do so one day.

Following God's rules liberates it does not confine us. He knows what is best for us just like a perfect parent would. I love my children but I have rules for them. God loves you, but He expects a great deal from you. I am sorry that in a world of black and white that you have bought into shades of gray. It makes life very difficult.

God is merciful. In your life you will get so many opportunities to be with Him. Your presence here might be heaven sent. You will likely get many more chances to decide whether you accept Him or not. I sure have and I hope to never doubt Him.

One of the most inspiring verses I can think of regarding your concerns (which I truly understand as I have been there)is from Luke.

Luke 23 39 And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. 40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. 42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. 43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.

No human being could have such power and still maintain so much goodness and mercy. Here he forgives a man with a lifetime of sin and grants him the greatest of rewards. Could you do that? Could you forgive a person who killed a friend or relative of yours? Could you forgive a spouse who cheated on you? God can and does. God truly asks so very little and offers so very much.

-- David F (notanaddress@nowhere.com), April 07, 2004.

Vor,

I just remembered you analogy of the dog in the lake. That analogy is way off. God works more like the parable of the prodigal son. He would allow the dog to run away, then face the tough world outside his house. The dog would have one mishap after another and then as the years passed would return to the master and be bathed in warm soapy water, feed the best food, and allowed to dwell in the master's house.

Imagine this....Joseph Stalin might be in heaven. He would have to have repented which is doubtful but you never know.

-- David F (notanaddress@nowhere.com), April 07, 2004.

My reason to believe catholics do not respect free will does not originate from negative feelings, but from logic.

{Kuystlijt eh "Can God make a puzel he cant solve" idea did? Sorry, by Logic you mean " An excuse t bas Catholics." Not " The science of deeduction based on a chain of reasoning." You don't use Logic, and you don't listen o reason. You jump from one critisism of Catholisism/Chrisyainity to another. You aret here to honestly exchange ideas, but to attack. Pure and simple.}-Zarove

You say that free will is highly valued, but state that the purpose of it is to choose a certain way or be punished.

{Actually this is a misconception. Chrisains teach that our actiosn have conequences, just like real life teaches us. If we choose not to follow God, we will be seerated form him. Choosing God makes our lives eaiser because it means obeying how we are designed to livein the first place. Not obeying God brigns probelms, becuase we arnet doing what we where made to do. Just like ignoring the operating manual of a machine and doing things that the machine was not designed to do is unwise, so is not listenign to God.}-Zarove

This sounds like an owner throwing his dog into a lake and rewarding him if he swims back to the owner, while drowning him for any other choice.

{Not really. Thi is you diliberatly Caracaturising the Churhc in order to demean it. A Straw Man. The Reality is that the Dog is already Drownign, an the master calls tot he Dog, it is the dogs choice to swin to shore or drown.

As covered above, God didnt throw the Dog in though, the Dog threw himself in, this is where your allegoy falls flat.}-Zarove

I don't know the entire difference between C/C, memorizing religious texts for the sole purpose of justifying my beliefs against them seems like a waste of time to me, but I think I'd be correct in assuming the saints are people who followed the bible and advanced the existing institution instead of figuring out their own path.

{Their is a lot mor to it than this. Maybe you shoul read the hisotry, lives of the saints you mocj here, and the Bible, for the ourpose of understandin it. I agree that lookign into these tigns for the sole purpose of jistifyign your hatred and Bigotry is a waste of time, however, usually Bigotry fades with understanding, and since you clealry lack an understning of Christyainity in General or Catholsiism in particular, you may best actualy try to learn what is actually taught by Christains and cahtolics befre you try to critisise them.

On the up side, ehre you just admited to not relaly knowing what Christaisn teach, and this means you have admited to not knowjg what you are talkign about.

How can you form a ratonal opinion about Christainity based on logic when yo dont even know what Christaisn teach?}-Zarove

Someone who follows the paved road without question to me is a sheep, and that is not a quality worthy of the denotation of the word "holy."

{What if semone chooses by reason to follow the path? You seem to think that everyone who becomes Christin shuts their mind off and just beelives as they are told. This is a lie, that is often told by Skeptics. However, the truth is the Bible is praised for its intellectual merit, and thought is encoruaged in the Bibel tisself.

But at the same time, we learn form book. Even most of your anti- Christain gibberish was picked p most likely form reading. Obioiusly, choosing to beleive a Book, lik the Bible, is not equatale to beleiving blindly and beign a sheep as you call it. Their is marked differenc ebetween beleivign soemthign is true, and followign it blidnly.}-Zarove

A word is a sound, it only has meaning after we learn a language.

{Agreed, see above.}-Zarove

We only know if a word is "bad" if we are punished for saying it.

{Poitn being?}-Zarove

This is social guilt, we only feel it because another person tells us we're wrong and we become conditioned to feel guilty.

{This may be true of soemt tings, btu not all. Psycologists have told us that Guolt is universal, and their seems to be a universal benefit to morals. Plato even remarked that the mroe moral a person became, the more like other mroal people he was. Morals are often absed on an innate unerstandin of right and wrong, which Plato called Natural Law. The Bibel merely guides us to a fuller understanding of this.}-Zarove

Like all social things, this is artificial. Now let's look at another kind of guilt: Real guilt. This guilt cannot be conditioned away, and it is the kind that plagues veterans who were ordered to kill masses of defenseless people.

{That is what I was talkign of above. Tjis is also what the Bibel teaches us. Pity you have an imperfect understanding of what the Bible is. In fact, you admited to not actally havign studied it, and thus have no idea what your on about.}-Zarove

It's the same guilt any person feels upon killing another living thing, no matter how much they are told they were right. It forms the basis of animist cultures that show respect for their prey as a way to relieve the guilt. I'd think a higher being would use this sort of conscience to tell us whether something was right or wrong, rather than the artifice of human language.

{Uhm...he did. The Bibel simpley carifies things for us. You see, the probelm is humans often act outside of this and engage in activities that INCREASE guilt. The Bibel provides a framewirk for understanding the turth, it is not in and of itsself the truth.

No one beleives it is, moreover.

Even the Universal Morals you are explainign above, and in praise of animism , still do not render epopel free of guilt. The Bibel clarifies poins and creates much needed structure for undterstanding, as well as a mean to put these feeligns an thought s into perspectuve. Their is nohtign wrong with learnign form History, an e Bibel contains Hisotry. Their is nothign wrong with writign a mroal treitise to hep others understand their own lives better. The Bibel contains this. Their is nothign worng with expoundign the consequences of actions, wich the Bibel does.

You however wan to repalce the Biel with feelings, whih doesnt work, as even you rely on soem wirten records to hel you put things into perspective. The only difference is you will to villify the pepel who use the Bibel as their frame of reference by claimign they ar eincapable of independant thoght, which is absurd. }-Zarove

Divine Purpose according to your model is like my previous example of an owner throwing a dog into a lake and calling it to swim back.

{Not realy. But then again, you sont understand CHrisyainity well enough to comment on it, as you have both demonstrated an admited. The relaity is that Christainity says the Dog leaped intot he lake, not that the master tossed him in. The woner is callign the Fog back to be sure, but the Dog's situation is caused by the Dog, not by the powner.}-Zarove

That doesn't seem like a purpose to me. It suggests a being that requires validation for itself, which I'd like to hope a higher being would be beyond.

{The you ahve no workign knowledge of what CHristainity is about. Christainity teaches us that we make mistakes, whoch you will freely admit. even Animists do things that make them feel guilty, which at the time they don nessisarily know will cuae those felings. The Bible, and wirtten works in general, help convey thoughts and ideas that help us make decisions that will prevent us form makign the same misatkes others did.

Followignt he Bibel isnt at all like beign a robot, rather it is using somethign a a frame of refernece for moral issues. Thier is a marked difference. And since we have alreayd sinned, the Bible teahes us how to deal with out own situation. For yoyr dog analogy to work, God needs to toss us inot he lake. But we toss ourseles in and feel the guilt of our own deeds all on our own. This is where tyoy fail to understand, and where you rfuse to understand most likely.}

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 07, 2004.

Vor,

Your example of the man and the dog is incomplete. The man(which is God in our analogy) did not abandon the dog or just called the dog from a distance. He sent a lifesaver(Jesus) to make it easier for the dog to be saved. But the man and the lifesaver still respects the FREE WILL of the dog, they cant force the dog to be saved, the dog has to choose whether to return to the man or not. If the dog in the end does not chose to use the lifesaver, then the dog will die, which is just the natural consequence of his choice and be forever separated from the man. This is much like hell, where the first and foremost 'punishment' is separation from his Creator.

You might ask, 'why did the man allowed his dog to be in the lake in the first place?' The answer to this is that the dog disobeyed his master. The master forbid his dog to go to the lake but the dog refused and continued to go to the lake. The master, respecting the FREE WILL of his dog, allowed his dog to go to the lake even though he knew that it will lead to his dog's destruction(much like the prodigal son and the story of adam and eve). The man knew that he must 'punish'(or allowing the consequence of a choice or an action) the dog for its disobedience(God's Divine Justice), but he also infinitely love his dog(God's Divine Love) that he sent a lifesaver so that the dog might be saved. Take note that it is not just an ordinary lifesaver, it is very special to the man, as special as a son.(in fact it is his son, but in our story the lifesaver is a thing not a person so its hard to make a solid analogy)

There are a lot of dogs in the lake, a few of those dogs believed and trust the lifesaver, these dogs began to convince other dogs to use the lifesaver, some believed some did not. Other dogs invented their own lifesavers(man creating new religions). Some believed that the man did not exist and they have no alternative but die(atheists).I do not know what will happen to all the dogs, this story is happening right before us. I, as one of the dogs, just trust the lifesaver, so that the lifesaver can bring me back my master and to the warmth of his home(heaven).

-- janeiro (janeiro_a@rocketmail.com), April 07, 2004.

Vor, it sounds to me that you may be confused over the meaning of freedom. In exercising our freewill, freedom does not mean that we can do anything we wish. Freedom is not the ability to do anything we want to do. Freedom is the ability to do what we are obligated to do as responsible members of a Christian community in order to complete our mission in life. Our mission is this world is, or at least should be, to join our Creator in the next.

No one is completely free - that's pure myth and fantasy. No one is free to exercise their freewill without question or examination from anyone else. We owe our existence to a Creator. We were created to love and serve Him in this world so that we could be with Him in the next. That is our destiny which was pre-determined from all eternity. We can never change that. Thank goodness He has not set unreasonable demands on us as a price for our existence. Loving a Creator who is pure love Himself seems to me, like a small price to pay for giving up what you or others might term as "complete freedom".

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), April 08, 2004.

You talk about obeying god as if it's an indisputable fact. The bible is as yet unvalidated. From the perspective of a believer, what you say makes sense because you accept premises that, for all you know, are faulty. Accepting only the premises that we exist and control our own actions, you cannot prove that the bible has any truth to it. It's simply a matter of faith. You are just saying "Come believe what I do and this will be true to you." I'm sorry, but no thanks. I agree with Natural Law, but I believe the bible does not agree with all or even most of it and focuses on many things that have nothing to do with it. Following these unnecessary rules is what I see screwing a lot of people's lives up. When they go against the rules, their lives improve and they become better people for it. Ask for examples if you want, this post is long enough as it is. I see people who hold onto their faith tightly end up miserable trying to follow the rules. The main cases I see this happen in are divorce, which I believe strict catholicism does not condone or even allow, and the respect your parent commandment in the case of abusive parents. To be honest I've never seen a serious C/C believer who held onto their faith tightly end up content with their life, I only hear them talk a lot about heaven. Your interpretation of the dog in regards to them actually is quite fitting, my problem with it is the reward only comes after death.

Again I am a bigot, and full of hate because I disagree with you and try to explain why. Sticks and stones, my friend. It seems like you're flip flopping with some of these answers, first you say the bible is the message of god, then you say no one believes the bible is true and that it only guides people towards concepts like buddhism to nirvana. Which is it? And why should someone believe it over the scientology handbook or any other similar religion text? Are you saying that someone can be a good C/C by not following the bible? If the bible teaches you what to do in life, wouldn't following it blindly be the key to a good life? How can you believe in something and not act in accordance with those beliefs? I'm only trying to follow some sort of logic from what you say. It doesn't make sense that a divine guide to living your life shouldn't be followed as closely as possible. All of the arguments you make as far as why are only correct if one accepts the basics tenets of the faith which do not have a solid ground in reality. Using something someone doesn't believe to convince them to believe doesn't work. The only attractions in that case are social in nature, which is why I used the extreme examples I did. Many sociological studies (Go leaf through my old textbook, sociology in our times 4th edition if you want details) have been done that show 9/10 people will answer wrongly knowing they are wrong if they are surrounded by people who all give the wrong answer. 2/3 of them will convince themselves that the wrong answer is right and pass a polygraph with the wrong answer. I personally think this psychology is what explains most people's faith and that is how guilt is applied to people for things that do not cause guilt naturally. You have not provided any reason that would sway an impartial, rational person to believe in C/C. I'm aware of First Cause and all that, but none of the hypotheses explain how a god would exist in the way the bible claims he does or how one can be sure the bible is valid. They just attempt to prove that some sort of creator exists. All you've really done in these posts is turn around my vague claims with vague claims of your own, which we can do until someone builds an atomic bomb that blows up the planet, or in your terms judgement day.

-- VOR (VOR123@hotmail.com), April 08, 2004.

Vor,

You are searching for answers. I understand that. Life is a huge mystery. What I always find astounding is that people want to fight tooth and nail against the message of Christ. Is the possibility of a just and Merciful Creator truly that horrible? The reason most people resist is pride. Pride tells you that you are the center of the Universe. You can control your destiny and you are entitled to pursue what ever you wish. Pride tells you that you don't need to answer to anyone. Pride is also seen as a dangerous sin by Catholics because of this.

Other faiths seduce people through pride. Scientologists say that when you die you become a divine being no matter what your life was like. Thats why Hollywood eats it up. Mormons say we all go to heavan its just a question of which level. Jehovah's Witnesses and born again Christians all feel they have a ticket to heaven that can't be revoked. The Catholic Faith by contrast stresses obedience.

I for one am happier with my faith than without it. I am sorry that you have met christians that see faith as a burden. When I have a tragic life event I realize I am not alone. My prayers make me feel that I can control events and that they do not simply control me. My faith helps me understand that my two autistic sons are a blessing and not a curse. You may call me a fool but as C.S Lewis once said I prefer my fantasy to your reality.

-- David F (notanaddress@nowhere.com), April 08, 2004.

You talk about obeying god as if it's an indisputable fact.

{Capitol G please. its a Porper Noun, show some respect. The lower case G was first instituted to show disdaine for God, and it is insulting. It is the kindof arrogant Christain hatign Bigotry that I try to avoid by coming to a Christain board. Incedentlaly, we do not speak of it as indispoutabek fact. We speak of it as our faith. This is what we beelive. why is it that Chrisaisn are asked to neuter their beleifs with Neutral language, while you don't? You spoke as though an all powerful god wa simpossible based on a lame-brained paradox that wasn;t valid. You more than likely speak of your beleifs with authoirity when you speak of them, but we can't.

IE, if yu are an animist, you probbaley do not go abut sayign hings like " If I am right". When describing your beelifs, you probabely use the matter-of-fact mode of speach most peopel in this baord use. I am the exception, and that based on my former career as a journalist.

We are discussign CHriayin beleifs, we will offer them in a matter of fact way, as if their undisouted, because it is undisputed that Christaisn beleive this.}-Zarove

The bible is as yet unvalidated.

{See above. This is a Christain board. WAe are discussing CHristain theology. Why on earth shoudl we throw in disclaimers about absolute verification?}-Zarove

From the perspective of a believer, what you say makes sense because you accept premises that, for all you know, are faulty.

{Again, this is a Chrristain board. We are discussign Christain beleifs. Unebeleivers are welcomed to join in, however, they must be midnful that we arent ging to bend over backwards to accomodate their beleifs simpley because they don;t like ours. This board is for Catholic discussions.

Further, this thread is about Chrisyain theological beleifs. Not about comparative theological eiwpoints. Your poin is invalid.Obviously we are only talkign about things form a Christain perspective. If this where a Pagan board, they woudl be arguing for a Pagan perspectuve. However, I doubt you go to too many pagan bpoards and tell them they must think of things form a Christain veiwpoint. You come off as very anti-Chrisain, and probabely think that its fair to tell us that we shoudl consider other eiws and tell us how wring we are, while critisising our faith. But if you saw me do this on a Pagan board, r animist, ir buddhiust board, you woudl call me a closed minded Bigot. The reason? I am a Christain tryign to force them to acept my eiws on their own board.

Now, why are you not a Bigot? Simple, you are challenging Christains. That makes al the difference in the world, because Chrisyaisn dont desrve to speak about their religion in absolute terms, and statements of faith, they have to be neutral. everyone else can proclaim thwir owen ideas firmly, we can't. Nice, standard, anti-Christain logic at work.}-Zarove

Accepting only the premises that we exist and control our own actions, you cannot prove that the bible has any truth to it.

{Yes we can. Fr instance, Archelogy has demonsgrated many times that events of the Bibel have taken place. Likewise, the Philoosphical nature of the widom liturature is testable agaisnt real life. The Proverbs are a choice example here.Proversb 18:3

3. When the wicked cometh, then cometh also contempt, and with ignominy reproach.

This is a statement that is not only verifiable, but has been shown o be true time and again. Do you deny that when wicked peopel show up, they are contemptuous?

Another verifiable statement.

12:25, same book.

25. Heaviness in the heart of man maketh it stoop: but a good word maketh it glad.

This is true, and anyone who has lived life long enogh can verify it.

29: 2 is verified in hisotry books all ove the place.

2. When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.

Those three statements, and many more, are obviously true.

Lots of parts f the Bible are provable by demonstration.}-Zarove

It's simply a matter of faith. {Do you know what Faith is? Faith can be grounded in reason. In fact, the Bibek demands we ground our faith in reason.}-Zarove

You are just saying "Come believe what I do and this will be true to you."I'm sorry, but no thanks. {No we aren't. We are sayign that your representation of our beleifs are false. You misrepresented the concepts ppreasent in Chrisyainity, and rathe than admit that you where msitaken, you try to now blame us. Sorry, this is relaly quiet weak. Find any sttaement qe ,made that says "Come beleive with us and it will be ytue to you." Any sttaement at all.

In fact, tou came in and told us what Cahtolics/Chrisyaisn beleived. SWe corrected you on what we beelived. Then you complaiend because we wherent discussing other eiwpoints! We wheren't tryign to, this dosnt mean we didnt consider them! It measn that your own words are not truth when you relate to us what we beelive! }-Zarove

I agree with Natural Law, but I believe the bible does not agree with all or even most of it and focuses on many things that have nothing to do with it. {You know this how? You admited to not relaly having read or studies the Bible. Most of your information appears to come form Skeptical websites, whioch go out of their way to distort Chrisyain teachings. You have displayed an ignorance of what we beleive, yet feel you can step in and critisise our beleifs. when we explain our beleifs to you, you soemhow think that this is unfair because we aren't considering other beleifs. You act like we did soemthign wrong and won't even admit you mad a mistake. If you don;t know what is actually in the Bible, or what Christaisn beleive, please do nto criiise them.}-Zarove

Following these unnecessary rules is what I see screwing a lot of people's lives up.

{Yet you have no workign knowledge of what Christaisn beleive, and no real undertsanding of the "Rules" t befgin with. You may veiw this as what screwed peopel up, but in relaity your own monsterous ignorance is what scews your mind agsisnt Chrisyainity. Nohtign int he Bible is unnessisary. The Bible actally des conform to natural law. You want to say it doens't, prove it.Makign a shallow accusation is not sufficient for us to take your opinion seriosuly. }- Zarove

When they go against the rules, their lives improve and they become better people for it.

{Not form my experience. This is just nore ungrounded accusation. "Followign the Biels rules screwes you up. Not fllwog it makes you a better person. " Isn;t this beign a Hypocrite? You said that we ony aid " Cme beleive what we bee;leive and it becomes truth to you", and yet you pull this? Sorry, your now treading on my impatience. Put your money where your mouth is and put up a better case than your claims. Or else accet that peopel have veiws ddifferent form yours. I know you want s to beleive that, but it seems liek a one way street to us. we gve you the beenefit of a doubt, but you dont have to wuth us. in fact, you can show contempt for our sacred beelifs, and even misrepresent them with Impunity, but we have to axccept yours.}-Zarove Ask for examples if you want, this post is long enough as it is.

{I did ask for examples.}-Zarove

I see people who hold onto their faith tightly end up miserable trying to follow the rules. {Then you relaly don;t know me. My life got a lot better when i started pracicin the faith more striongly. in fact, so did many people. That's why peopel who have had a lot fo hard living often become Christains later in life, to find real meanign and fulfillment after a life of dissapointment. Its more common for people's lives to improve after they become Chrisyain than for Christaisn to suffer.}- Zarove

The main cases I see this happen in are divorce, which I believe strict catholicism does not condone or even allow, and the respect your parent commandment in the case of abusive parents. {Their is a difference between repsect and compliance to abuse. You want us notw to feel ashamed becuase the Bibel said to respect our parents. In your warped veiw of our beleifs, this means that if I am a child and my father beats me, i have to grin and bare it because I am to repsect him. This, of course, is not what the Catholic, or any other, Chruch actually teaches,a nd often Chruches have outreach programs to help battered women and children. Most Churches suggest one go to the proper auhtorities, like the police, in cases of abuse. This does not violate the cmmand to respect, rather, it operates on the fac that he violagted his own duties to you. }-Zarove

To be honest I've never seen a serious C/C believer who held onto their faith tightly end up content with their life, I only hear them talk a lot about heaven. {Then you jhave not met me. I am contented, and gorw more so day by day. what woudl you hav me give up that woudl make me happier? }- Zarove

Your interpretation of the dog in regards to them actually is quite fitting, my problem with it is the reward only comes after death.

{Not realy. Many people are rewarded in life as well. This is a common atheist canard.}-Zarove Again I am a bigot, and full of hate because I disagree with you and try to explain why.

{Yes you poor victim. Sorry, I didn;t call you a Bigot because you disagreed with us and tried to tell why. I called you a Bigot because you go out f your way to demean our faith, and then when we try to explain to you what we actually beleive and correct the mistakes yu made in telling us what we beelived, you becoem mad because we ar eonly offering a Chrisyain eiwpoint. Look carefully at this thread. YOU made comments about whaT cHRISTAINS/cAHTOLICS BELEIVED. tHESE COMMENTS YOU MADE WHERE not PAERT OF what we actally beleive. we tried to clarify our actual beleifs. You then tried to salvage toyr argument, and then changed tactic.

I didn't call you a Bigot for disagreeing, I caled you a Bigot because you refuse to consider anyon elses veiwpoitns but your own. In fact, you insist on tellign us what we beelive. Then you tel us how misurable we are. That, of course, is bigotry.}-Zarove

Sticks and stones, my friend. {Yes your not a Bigot, yor just trying to tel us how wrong and unhappy we are, and you have a full workign knowledg eof our faith. In fact, all our explanatiosn are wrong because we dont understand the religion as well as you do...}-Zarove

It seems like you're flip flopping with some of these answers, first you say the bible is the message of god, then you say no one believes the bible is true and that it only guides people towards concepts like buddhism to nirvana. {First order of buisness. Please stop usign an insulting mode of speach. It is God , not god. Its offensive to see it spelled the other way, as it is se.led that way to direclty demean. Secordly, no one flip floped on any issue but you. Yoiu flip flopped on your onw analogy. In fact, your analogy din't fit what Christaisn beleived at all. You start withhte premise, Chrisyainity is false, thencreate argumets to support it. You will not listen to reasons why your arguments are false. You will not correct statements that misrepresent he faith.

Now you accuse us of flip flopping.

Tell us exaclty where we flip flopped.

Also, no one said the Bibel was not true. On this thread hwoever it was noted that no one tries to live word for word by the Bible. Cahtolics suppliment the Binel with tradition.This des not say the Bibe is not true. Hence another misrepresentation on your part.}- Zarove

Which is it? And why should someone believe it over the scientology handbook or any other similar religion text?

{Scentology is based on Psychonaalisis and designed to weaken a midn so it is pliant for cdomination and contorle. Thouhg you may want to pretend the Bibl does also, it clelary doesn't. As to other rleigious texts, you seem to not undrstand the Christain/Cahtolic ideal of what the Bibel is. You seem only to acknoewlege the Fundamentalist approach.

The Bible is true and Infallable. However, the Bible is not th eonly source of truth. it is a book, which contains wisdom liturature, open letters of advise, poetry, Porphecies, and histories. The Biel records the truth, however, the Bible is not he source of Truth. God is the source of truth.

Thus, f other religiosu texts are read, one is free to examien them agaisnt the greater context of other works, like the Bible, as well as rela life applications. Those books may wel indeed contan the truth as well, or they may contain error, orr diliberate falsehood. This is why we use reason and intellect.

No one advocated the Bibel alone theory exct the hardest of the fundamentalists.

Thi dosn't mean th Bibek is not true, it means the Bible is not th eonly book capale of recordign the turth. }-Zarove

Are you saying that someone can be a good C/C by not following the bible? {No. we are saying that people can agree withthe Bible without shutting their minds off, and we are sayign the Bible is not the only book that contains truth in it.}-Zarove

If the bible teaches you what to do in life, wouldn't following it blindly be the key to a good life?

{Nope. Their is an ld saing by Confusious. " To think and not study is a shame. To study and not think is dangerous." The Bible must be STUDIED, so that you undertsand its MEANING. Blinfd obedience to anytign leads to error. The Bible itsself tells us to study and not obey blind faith.}-Zarove

How can you believe in something and not act in accordance with those beliefs? {We don't.}-Zarove

I'm only trying to follow some sort of logic from what you say.

{Actually you ignore what we say in order to find fault wiht our beleifs. You are diliberatly ging out of your way to find fault, and arguing as if w are ignorign yourpoins, when in rality you are ignorign ours.}-Zarove

It doesn't make sense that a divine guide to living your life shouldn't be followed as closely as possible.

{We didn't say it shoudln't. we said it shoudl be fllowed Blindly. See the confusious quote.}-Zarove

All of the arguments you make as far as why are only correct if one accepts the basics tenets of the faith which do not have a solid ground in reality. {Actually this is the bias. You ASSUME it doesnt have a solid basis in reality. Since hte religion is NOT based n relaity, the Bibel must theoirfre be false and the rleigion itsself untrue. However, you do not demonstrate this. Like toyr accusation that Chritains are misurable if they hold tot heir faith, and our accusation that blind faith is demanded, this is another of your lines of reasoning you need to reject in order t become objective.}- Zarove

Using something someone doesn't believe to convince them to believe doesn't work.

{We didn't coem to you to convence you of anythign though. Yoiu asked the queatsiosn of our beleifs. Now your actign like we started the conversation and ar using an auhtority you don beleive in. The one whose beleifs arent grounded in reality os you. We are discussing Chrisyain beleif in the Bible at th emoment, you are tryign to undermine it. we beleive in it. You have no idea how we beleive in it or aproach it and make up stuff as to the damaging effects of religion and how we blidnly follow the Bible. Then you say that we cant cnvence you of its relaibility becaue you dont beleiv ein it? exaclty when did we begin to try to proslytise you? Aren't you thr one tryign to convence is that the Bibe and Christainity are false?}-Zarove

The only attractions in that case are social in nature, which is why I used the extreme examples I did.

{Excuse for not having a credibek argument. No argument you have made to date accuratley depicts reason. Your statements about what Chrisaisn beleive are false, when we correct you, you seem tothink this makes us narroe minded. Acceptign your error about what we beleive is ot, however, pen minded, its folly and madness. Likewise, none of your arguments, base don false premises, undermine the bible.Or prove Chrisaisn are soemhow less happy than nonbeleivers. Likewise, nothign we have said is an attemto to convence you of anything. we merley address your statements you make to us.}-Zarove Many sociological studies (Go leaf through my old textbook, sociology in our times 4th edition if you want details) have been done that show 9/10 people will answer wrongly knowing they are wrong if they are surrounded by people who all give the wrong answer.

{But in this cae we elect to come here. This is an internet discussion board. why woudl we cspend pur leasure time connecting to people around the world to talk abou soemthignwe don beleive in?}- Zarove

2/3 of them will convince themselves that the wrong answer is right and pass a polygraph with the wrong answer.

{This of coruse means we all Know Chrisyainity is wrong, btu refse to give it up because we are diluted. And of course we are all Misurable...}-Zarove

I personally think this psychology is what explains most people's faith and that is how guilt is applied to people for things that do not cause guilt naturally.

{I come to a different conclusion, and I am tryign to get a PH.D in Psycology. Their have been numerous tests that revela the positive effects of religion. Reliigous students tend to do better academically, tend to have less premarital sex, tend to acheive more, and are more content on average than their nonreliigous cpunterparts. Their have been over 300 studies to confirm this. I will presnt a few if interested.

I beleive though that your nisstance that peopel only have aith based n guilt and society is based not on objective sicnece, rather, i beleive it is based on good, old fashipned Bigotry. You have fgiven examples of bigtry in your statements, and then claim you necer offered bBigted staements and I only called you that becaue you disagreed. which is patently false. I caled yu that because ytoy refuse reason and refuse corection abut yur false beleifs concernign our faith.

You need to expain rleigion away as a guilt complexe in order to feel superior to Reliigous folks. This itself is common. Religious folks ar eless intellegent, more gullible, less happy, and prone to mental illness. Nonreligiosu peopel liek you are mentlaly well balanced and hay.

Sorry, unless you actally site a study, this Hypothesis f your seems nothign like a self serving romotion of your own biases, and not real science.

In fact, its disprovable. In many regions beign a Chrisyain is outlawed. Flat out illegal. In CHina right now peopel are imn prison for the Crime of Beign Chrisyain. They meet in clandestine meetings. The COmmunist schools teach agaisnt the rleigion, villifying it. Yet they attend.

In saudi Arabia, persecution is high.

One woudl think that if it was abiut social acceptance these peopel who risk their lives, or in many cases loose them, woudl renounce their faith and go tot he mor epopular one.mdeed, the fact that the religion is ILLEGAL means that attending a service may make you feel guilty.}-Zarove

You have not provided any reason that would sway an impartial, rational person to believe in C/C. {which was not our objective. Outr objective was to clarify our beleifs and correct your errors on what we beleived. Trying to change the discussin into an attempt on our part to prosylysise you, or even convence you of anything, in orde to declare victory its itsself extrememly egotistsical and dishoenst.}-Zarove

I'm aware of First Cause and all that, but none of the hypotheses explain how a god would exist in the way the bible claims he does or how one can be sure the bible is valid.

{Maybe none of our statements offer proof because the discussion was not about that? Our discussions with you where about our beleifs, whihc you misrepresented. We where tryign to get you to see what we beleived. Not convence you of the validity of said beleifs.}-Zarove

They just attempt to prove that some sort of creator exists.

{Actually no. Nohtign we said can relaly be said as an attemot to deonstrate that a creator exists. Rather, all we have said above in repsoince to your comments where n clarification of our beleifs which toy misrepresented.}-Zarove All you've really done in these posts is turn around my vague claims with vague claims of your own, which we can do until someone builds an atomic bomb that blows up the planet, or in your terms judgement day.

{Uhm... we didn't offer vauge claims. We simpley clarified what we actally beleived. We didn't offer reasons for beleiving in the Bile until i made this post. we didnt offer reassn f beleiving in a creator. We didnt offer anythign that SHOULD be seen as an attempt to convence an impartial observer. We just tried to c orrect yor mistakes.

You said Catholics/Chrisyaisn don't beleive in free will and ar eintolerent. We clarified that. You said God was sadisting then mde thDog-in-a-lake analogy. We corrected you. 100% of the arugment on our side wa sin clarifying what we beleive as Christains, and was in no way an attemot to demonstrate the validity of the claims of the religion. This may be why they fail to meet the expectatiosn you have later assigned them.}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 08, 2004.

Vor,

VOR,

1) God:

By Descartes (not first cause): I must doubt everything. Therefore, since my senses can play tricks on me, i must doubt everything i see, hear, touch, smell, taste. Since i must doubt these things, i must doubt if the world even exists. If i doubt that the world exists, i must doubt that God exists. When i doubt that God exists, i must even come to doubt that people, myself included, exist. In fact, there is only one thing i CANNOT doubt: the very fact that i AM doubting.

Knowing that I am doubting, i must therefore be thinking. If i am thinking, i must exist (I think, therefore I am). If I exist, then something must have created me (a form of God). If there is a God, then he must have created a place for me by creating the world. If there is a world, i must have SOME way to interact with it, even in a limited sense, therefore i can trust my seses to an extent.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), April 08, 2004.

I htink Vor is confused about our statements.

Vor made statements about our beleifs which where false. We tried to explain to him why they where false, and tell hom what we actall beleive. He then presnts argumes for how we have not demonstrated the Viability f he Bible. Of course, understaning our beleifs is important to understansing why we beleive in the Bible, however, explainign exactly what our beleifs are does not realy verify the validity f the beleifs.

Likewise, none of our arguments have been aboutt he existance of God, or attempt to really convence anyone of anyhting. Most of what we typed in this thread was clarifying beleifs. Nohtign more.

Vor, however, refuses to admit he is in error, and instead attemots to manuver himself into a better position by siting how we have not supported our claims. Obviously our claims need little support, since we are merely explainign what we beelive as Chistains, and not attempting to show verification of said beleifs. Such has been handled in other threads, and rightly belongs on them, an dnot this thread.

Likewise, he attempts to say we made claims wihtout supportign them, yet he has issued several statements that simpley pout have no grounding in relaity.

He claims that Christaisn are on the whole less happy than nonChrisans. Those who adhere strongly to their faith are the most Misurable. This statement has NO verification, its just somethign or decisded ot say. Likewise, His theory about why people are religious is itsself simp;listic, and indicated a bias agsisnt rleigion, which is compelxe, and human interaction, that supprts his wprldveiw , which its itsself irreligious.

In order to expalin away why peple would be religious, he concocted a group theory in which people only claim religion to fit in. This sttaement falls flat in light of persecutions around the world, and even in places int he United States where beign a Chisain makes you an automatic subject to discriminaiton.

Obviously. Vor has an agenda. He wants ot discreidt religion, deconsturct it in peoples minds, and presnt himself as mentally superior and emoitonally more stable. This is done usually to support soemone elses ego, which itsself is insecure in its posotion.

Reliigon in some way may threaten Vor and his materialistic Philoosphy, theirfore he must fond a mean to discreidt it.

His claim that the Bible goes agsisnt Natural law, and that peoel become happier and better peopel when the act agsuin the rles of the Bible, is proof. He admikted to having little to no real understanding of the Bible tisself, yet he makes this claim as to its content.

Obvioisouly Vor woudl have us beleive that happiness is ourside the Chruch. I kno for painful expeirnece that this is not true.

Vor woudl ignore my claism however, declare the Bible is agsisnt natural law and we are all bette roff without it, and dismiss religion as soemthign epopel do out of Peer OPressure.

All based n nothing.

Until he supports his own assertions, he need not complain that we do not support our own. Least of all when we made no real arguments and merely explained what we beelivesd, and did not endeavour to make argumets in faovur of those beleifs.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 08, 2004.