Worthlessness

ID-10020774

There are two things I dislike about Christianity, well, two main things at least. The first is Hell, as I’ve made clear in previous blog posts. The second is the fact that religions like Christianity teach people that they are worthless.

I have been in a few conversations with people about this, the most recent being where someone told me that “As sinners, humans are filthy and horrifyingly unworthy in the face of the holy God. When they are met with this holiness and glory, they will fear the judgement, the ineffable contrast, and the unimaginable shame.” Well, there is enough depression and low self esteem in the world, and religion isn’t helping!

Religion tells people that they are worthless, unworthy sinners who deserve to burn in Hell for eternity. That is not a nice message, and that is not an enticement to believe. On a related topic, this is also a reason excuse as to why God does not reveal himself – humans are not worthy/ready for it.

Besides the fact that such a lesson is a horrible one, there is still no evidence of this nonsense. Sure, humans can be ridiculously illogical and immature, and as a whole we are not a very nice species, but worthless and unworthy? I am pretty sure that worthless beings wouldn’t be able to do half the things our species has accomplished.

Anyway, I can see why the religion does this. Christianity is largely built on guilt and self-hatred. Everything is a sin, and you are doomed for just existing. Everything makes you a sinner, and it is designed to make you feel guilty. This can make people more insecure, and they are more likely to turn to their God. And of course, the religion was made by humans, who then used it to control the masses.

Image Courtesy of Salvatore Vuono at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Advertisements

54 thoughts on “Worthlessness

      • That’s a big IF. What if the true Christianity (i.e. Catholic) actually says otherwise? Assuming that (true) Christianity is correct (God, angels, God-Man Jesus, Trinity, etc), then we have the following statements to be true:
        1. In Incarnation, God the Son (Third Person of the Trinity) became true human being to save humanity and the world.
        2. It took God the “hassle” to become human just to save Man from sin.
        Thus, if God willed to come down and save human beings personally, Man (human race) must be very worthy of it.
        Therefore Man is of the highest worth in all Creation if we use the true Christian teachings.

        I guess, we need to update our available data (on Christianity) whenever we make conclusions such as this. While I respect the rationality of all readers, the available data may be unreliable. Have we ever read the Catechism of the Catholic Church as the basis of these claims? Or have we mentioned even one Encyclical of a Pope on many other issues?

        In argumentation, the possibility that one’s input data (basis of our premises) must be considered and removed beyond reasonable doubt. One cannot use equivocal statements on very general term such as “christianity” or even “religion” without being wrong on many or few cases (in this case Catholic Faith as Christianity and specific of religion).

        Like

        • I would ask you to show how you know that True Christianity is Roman Catholicism. I’ve read the catechism. Nothing much different from the claims of other sects and other religions that they and only they are true and anyone who disagrees will be punished.

          You are correct to point out that you assume that your claims are true. There is nothing to show your god exists at all, nor that Jesus Christ son of god existed. This makes your numbered claims above based on a presupposition that cannot be supported. One also has to ask, how can an omnipotent being be “hassled” by anything? And how can an omniscient being not know what will happen?

          I agree, in argumentation, the possibility of one’s input data must be considered and removed beyond a reasonable doubt. There is nothing that shows your religion is true, just like for every religion. Since you can’t accomplish what you demand from others, it’s rather curious that you think anyone should believe your claims. Add to this that your bible says directly that humans are worthless, and it seems that your arguments unsupported and rather contradictory. I’ll address your new post later.

          Like

          • 1. Thank you for your comments but the arguments seem to cycle already with statements like “unsupported arguments”, “contradictory”, “cannot be supported”, “nothing much different”, etc. To proceed with discussions, we must be very specific in the points we wish to discuss. Which is not supported? Which statements are contradictory? Which is not different? Which in the catechism is saying that “anyone who disagrees will be punished”?

            2. Why are we adding discussions to the previous points? For example, on an omnipotent being as “hassled” by anything when the totality of the Christian teaching on a personal God (that is, a God who is also a person or persons), not just omnipotent. Love is the key.
            3. We cannot proceed to discuss ideas that only “seem” to be.
            4. Again, the original arguments have been done to say that the Bible is misinterpreted to say that humans are worthless. The Bible is as a whole, saying that Man is worth saving that God Himself became man (the “hassle”) just to give Man opportunity to go back to the original state (“state of grace” and “beatific vision”).

            I think a lot of points are missed out here and the whole picture is dismissed for small ones. The forest is not seen because we wander from tree to tree.

            Like

            • Your claims are indeed unsupported and contradictory. I am waiting for you to support your claims and to rebut my points. It’s always curious when you act as if I haven’t indicated which ones are unsupported and which ones are contradictory when I have done so. This is a classic attempt to delay the inevitable. I’ll be happy to repeat what I’ve already said. It’s even more amusing when you wish to claim your catechism doesn’t say that anyone who doesn’t agree with your religion and your god will be punished. I believe that this link should inform you about what the catechism says about punishment: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P2O.HTM The catechism also makes the same claims as other Christian sects and other religions: it is the only true religion, anyone who doesn’t agree will be damned, what it considers as sin is agreed with by a magical being that is the one true god, etc. You are of course welcome to show that doesn’t say such things and that other religions don’t do the same things.

              You claimed this “Therefore Man is of the highest worth in all Creation if we use the true Christian teachings.” This contradicts the claims in the bible that humans are worthless: when Isaiah claims that humans and their actions are filthy rags, when Paul claims that human action and wisdom are worthless, etc. The only time that the bible claims humans have worth is if this god deigns to give its “grace” to them; the rest are pots to be destroyed at this god’s whim.

              You claim that you have the “true Christian teachings” and there is nothing to support this, just like there is nothing to support all of the other claims by Christians who insist that their version is the only “true Christian teachings”.

              I am waiting for you to show how an omnipotent being can be “hassled” if this god can do anything and everything. I know that Christians want to claim a personal god. They also claim an omnipotent god. You claim “love is the key”. The key to what? If I love someone, I am not “hassled” e.g. required to attend a annoying or troublesome concern, to do what I can for them. What can be annoying or troublesome to an omnipotent being?

              One can discuss ideas that only seem to be. Your declaration we cannot is simply your baseless opinion. I have given you the benefit of the doubt when I used the term “seem”. This is an invitation for you to rebut my points. Can you?

              Christians constantly try to claim their bible to be “misinterpreted”. The problem is that Christians don’t agree on what is misinterpreted and what is correctly interpreted. There are Christians who claim that humans are indeed worthless. The bible says directly that humans are worthless, as I have indicated above. You wish to claim that your interpretation is the only correct one and you have nothing to support that your version is any better than anyone else’s. Your magic decoder ring is no better than the next Christian’s. Again, how is it a hassle for an omnipotent being to do *anything*, Geek? This god did not have to become human to supposed “save” humans. In the OT, that’s not required at all, and never mentioned. The sacrifice of god for itself is in invention in the NT. The bible changes what is required for salvation, from simple belief in the principles that JC taught, to doing good works, to belief that JC was God, to that only this god’s grace would save you and that you have no choice in the matter. Paul even adds that the only way women can be saved is by having a child. I can postulate even more possiblities: this god not allowing the snake into the garden (how does an omniscient god miss this happening?), this god simply making only humans with its “grace”, etc.

              I understand why you want to avoid discussion of all of the problems of Chritianity and Roman Catholicism. All of those problems make a house of cards, if one is wrong then the house falls. It’s much easier to insist that no one look at the man behind the curtain and believe in the great and powerful Oz.

              Like

              • The real problem is interpretation of the Bible from an understanding of the early Christians. A lot about our understanding of the Faith has developed over the years. The basic tenets are the same but we have elucidated a few more. Your questions here are legitimate (e.g. women saved by having child) and they apply as specific disciplines as application of the Gospel handed on by the Founder Jesus Christ. The Church (and with the help from theologians as human effort) is there to help us ponder and reason with the Faith.

                Christianity, being based on the New Testament (New Covenant in the Blood of Christ), cannot live using the discipline from the Old Testament (derived) laws. I’m sure it is well-known that physical circumcision has already been abolished for the Gentiles (read Acts on the Council at Jerusalem presided by James). Practice change over time but the Faith is still the same.

                Like

                • Here is the usual apologetic that only your church correctly understands the early Christians and only your religion has developed correctly “over the years”. The basic tenents aren’t the same, and you have certainly invented quite a few more. Your church repeatedly says something are what your god wants, upon pain of hell and then decides that they aren’t quite what this god wants and it isn’t a sin at all.

                  The church constantly plays catch up with how humans interpret morality, it never leads.

                  My question is indeed legitimate and your excuses are typical. You appear to be offering the excuses that certain commands by this god via JC and Paul are only for certain people at certain times. The problem is that those same commands are sometimes claimed as this and sometime claimed to be for all people at all times; the same use of the magic decoder ring that all Christians use. It’s always amusing to see when Christians claim that humans can somehow explain this god but when its inconvenient, they claim that humans can’t do any such thing, human wisdom being worthless and to be avoided at all costs. It’s also curious that you find you need to reason “with the faith”. Why is this needed, Geek?

                  Funny how you insist that Christianity can’t “live using the discipline using the Old Testament” when Jesus himself, if one can believe the bible, says the opposite of this (Matthew 5). JC says that all of his father’s words are to be followed until the earth and heavens end. Hmmm, don’t recall them ending at all. Yep, the rest of the bible says otherwise, but who should I believe, JC or someone who contradicted him? Or should I wonder if any o the bible is true and not just laws and stories invented by humans since there is no evidence to support the essential events of the bible? From your own words, practices do change over time and faith does not remain the same at all if you contradict your bible.

                  Like

                  • The replies are partially right and partially wrong.
                    1. Is faith not needed to reason out? Can we use reason to process the data provided by Faith (revealed truth as premise)?
                    2. The discipline of the OT is what Jesus is trying to change himself (e.g. mingling with the sinners to which he is always condemned by the Pharisees and Sadducees). God’s words are to be followed per his interpretation of the laws. Jesus Christ pointed them to the essence of the law as summarized by the Two Laws.
                    3. Has there been changes made by the Church concerning the Faith handed on by Jesus Christ? Or was it the Protestants who introduced new concepts and often denying some of it? Perhaps those “Christians” that deny the worthlessness of human reason and work did it. Catholics did not. Catholics uphold that human wisdom is good. However, it must bend down to the Wisdom of God, just it bends down to the empirical data as factual.
                    4. Nature is God’s creation and thus follows his laws — Natural Laws. We too, being part of nature and God’s creation must follow natural laws. Denial of the existence of such law cannot live happily. This is what we call morality. Either one believes such morality or another. Either case, one follows a set of moral laws.
                    5. Nature has always been a mystery. Scientists believe that through research, we can eventually find out how things work by discovering the laws of nature. In the same way, moral laws can be discovered over time. Through the laws handed on through Israel (Ten Commandments) and then the Church (2 Commandments + Beatitudes + Works of Mercy) we find the basic input in discovering these moral laws.

                    What you have discussed so far is that Reason can always find ways to discuss about moral laws. There is no reason to doubt its existence.

                    The real problem is which moral law should we all follow? Which moral tenet provides more suffering and pain and anxiety? Which set of moral laws are more effective in leading our human lives as well as sustainability of our existence as species?

                    Like

                    • Faith is not based on reason. It is based on belief in things that have no evidence. There are no data provided by faith. Claims of “revealed truth” are no more than baseless claims, made by many religions, and those claims have no evidence to support that one “revealed truth” is any more true than claims of another “revealed truth”.

                      You claim that JC is trying to change the “discipline” of the OT. This is what you said earlier “Christianity, being based on the New Testament (New Covenant in the Blood of Christ), cannot live using the discipline from the Old Testament (derived) laws.” You are right, JC did disagree with the Saducees and Pharisees, however he does not disagree with the OT at all. The discipline hasn’t changed from what God supposedly commanded. It is a matter of interpretation and again shows that there is no “revealed truth”, assuming that JC existed at all, because no one has been able to show theirs better or more “truthy”.

                      Yes, Geek, there has been changes made by the RCC concerning their religion and what is claimed as true and what is claimed as false. I have pointed those out. Protestants also made changes and use their magic decoder rings just like the RCC. It’s always amusing to watch you again try to make claims and hope that someone else does your work for you, when you can’t actually support your own claims. Still waiting for you to show that you are any more of a TrueChristian than a Protestant, or any other types that you so revile. The RCC picks and chooses what human wisdom it wants to claim is good e.g. it must “bend to the Wisdom of God”, just like the other sects of Christianity, so your attempts to claim how special the RC is fails. Human wisdom does change depending on facts, facts you have yet to provide to show your religion is true.

                      You repeat the claim that most, if not all religions claim, that nature is your god’s creation and no others. Evidence for this? You claim that there are these mysterious “natural laws” but cannot show what these magical things are or that they exist. You simply try to claim, just like other religions, that humans somehow can’t be happy without obeying your baseless claims and reality shows that you are wrong again. I am quite happy not following the laws that the RCC have invented as the morality that their god approves of or the morality claimed in the bible. I do agree that one can follow one set of morals or another, one more bit of evidence that your religion has no lock on morality and that humans invent it, not some magical god.

                      Hmmm, so we have to follow magical natural laws, which you claim to know, but then you claim that nature “has always been a mystery”. Which is it Geek? You seem to change your mind depending on what excuse you wish to offer. You are correct, scientists do believe that research will likely reveal how things work since it has done this so far with no answer being “God did it”. It’s quite amusing that you claim that moral laws have to be discovered. I think you are right, morals evolve because humans change. If something is moral to this god, and this god is eternal and unchanging as Christians claim, it would always be moral. This god not revealing this suppose perfect morality from the outset is most curious. Why would a god tell its supposed loved ones false things intentionally? I’ve been told by Christians that somehow humans couldn’t handle this god’s morality. This begs the question, why couldn’t this god make people who could?

                      Reason can indeed be used to discuss moral laws and can show why morals exist. Reason shows that morality is created by humans and changes, it is not some “revealed truth”. One doesn’t have to invent excuses on why a god fails to teach its people a supposed perfect morality, and why this magical being’s morality always plays catch up to humans. One can indeed glean some ideas about morality from the bible, ideas that are in line with modern humans and ideas that are reprehensible to modern humans. All of these are presented as the “truth” directly from this god, and Christians pick and choose what they claim their god “really meant”. Again, Geek, I’m waiting for you to show me that your version is the only true one.

                      It is a problem to know which morality to follow. But one can come up with answers to the problem, by taking responsibility, being compassionate, and being empathetic. I don’t pretend that my morality is from some magical being that I have no evidence for to excuse what I want to do. I don’t claim to follow a god that commands genocide, says that those who disgree with it should be murdered, that works with ultimate evil to kill people who did believe in it. The morals offered by your religion and many others is that anyone but those who believe in the correct way should be harmed, forced to convert or be killed. Those are certanly not effective in leading human lives or supporting sustainablity.

                      Like

                    • So, who’s morality are we going to follow? Which religion is right, or at least closest to the right/correct one?

                      Who is right? Are you right?

                      Like

                    • I’ve been waiting for you to support the claim that your religion is the only true one, geek. You’ve made the claim, you have the burden of proof.

                      My morality is based on being human. Humans have created their own morality based on their empathy and compassion. Civilizations share common morality, and those morals are often common since civilization requires humans being able to exist together.

                      Morality changes and grows. That’s the best thing about it being subjective and able to be questioned. Religions try to claim that they have some objective truth and they can never show that this is true. They are stuck with supposed “truths” from the last decade, last generation last millennia, and then finally catch up when humans outstrip their lies, often claiming that their god “really meant” what they have changed to, they just had to “reinterpret” their ultimate truth again. I am quite happy to follow the morals I have being just a human. I don’t need to follow the morals of ignorant humans from a thousand years ago, humans that claimed that a god agreed with their nonsense, that say that slavery is okay, treating women as property is okay, genocide is okay, demanding money for God is okay, etc.

                      If you don’t want to follow a morality that decries slavery, decries treating others as less than human, that says genocide is horrible, that says that no one should be extorted for money, that’s fine with me.

                      Still waiting for evidence for your claims and answers to my questions:

                      “You repeat the claim that most, if not all religions claim, that nature is your god’s creation and no others. Evidence for this?”

                      “Still waiting for you to show that you are any more of a TrueChristian than a Protestant, or any other types that you so revile.”

                      “Hmmm, so we have to follow magical natural laws, which you claim to know, but then you claim that nature “has always been a mystery”. Which is it Geek?”

                      “. If something is moral to this god, and this god is eternal and unchanging as Christians claim, it would always be moral. This god not revealing this suppose perfect morality from the outset is most curious. Why would a god tell its supposed loved ones false things intentionally? I’ve been told by Christians that somehow humans couldn’t handle this god’s morality. This begs the question, why couldn’t this god make people who could?”

                      I answer your questions. You do your best to ignore mine. Now why is that, geek?

                      Like

                    • I’m sorry to have ignored you, clubschadenfreude, but i realized that there is no way to argue when you can simply move from one point to another without concentrating on specific point at one time.

                      The argument is not that the Catholic Faith is the one only true one, rather it is that the Catholic Faith has the fullness of truth. The same faith that some elements of truth may be found in other creeds and traditions. In particular, the philosophy and sciences are also to be believed within their domains.

                      1. Morality changes and develops but there are morality norms that have reached their “perfection” in a sense that everyone will not revert to previously-held beliefs. For example, do you think that it is good if the entire human civilization revert back to the ancient idea that slavery is OK or acceptable?

                      The fact is that morality develops (“changes towards”) one best kind. For Catholics, this is the approach to the ideal set forth in the Faith.

                      2. Not all religious truths are based on evidence rather due to revealed truths contained in the articles of Faith.

                      3. God created everything including the laws of nature. This is by the very definition of God as the source of existence. See philosophical treatises.

                      4. I’m not claiming that i’m a truer Christian. But the claim is that the Catholic Church is closer to the one founded by Christ than any other. Read historical books. Moreover, I don’t “revile” others.

                      5. Let us not put unnecessary opinionated adjectives to put more formal way of threshing the arguments. Thus, we do not write “magical natural law” and just refer to the “natural law”. All the you speak of here are posited as part of that “natural law” and which you would just say “they’re just so”. Just as the Three Laws of Motion are so as argued by Physicists, for believers, they would believe they are part of God’s creation. Such belief would not alter their belief and awe in the scientific advances.

                      6. If you were the God, how would you handle free-will? Should you impose your power and sense of morality to those of your creatures. Since this God is also Love and Mercy and Patience, this God is willing to wait for people to realize his nature and behave properly as they are truly. Thus, imposing the morality once and for all removes freedom to human beings. This is most evident in the reaction of the Israelites during the giving of the Ten Commandments in Mt. Sinai. They feared God giving directly the commandments. Same can be argued today.

                      Like

                    • GB, it’s unfortunate that you make excuses that aren’t true. You have moved from one point to the other as I have, and that has not been a problem. It only seems to become a problem when you need an excuse. However, if you wish to focus on anything in particular, please indicate what you wish to start with. I will address all of your claims made in your post in this one, so we have a starting point of which one you wish to address separately.

                      You depend on double-talk. Your argument is that the Catholic faith is the only true one and you claim that it is the only one with the “fullness of truth”. I already know that the RCC claims that other faiths may have some elements of truth but it claims that only it has the complete truth. It, of course, has no more evidence that its claims are any more true than any other religion. It’s just one more set of baseless claims insisting that it some right to force its nonsense on others. The claims of the RCC are not supported by philosophy any more than any other religion, and the sciences have shown that the claims of the RCC are simply false. The essential events of the bible have no evidence that they ever happened, just like the essential claims of every religion.

                      1. You are quite correct, morals change and develop, which means that there is no objective morality demonstrated by your god or your religion. There is nothing to show that morality has reached a perfection, that is just an attempt on your part to try to claim that your morals are better than everyone else’s. I certainly don’t find that the idea of humans returning to the idea of slavery acceptable. This is why I point out that your “god” never said one thing about slavery being wrong, said it was perfectly fine and the only reason that the RCC said that slavery was wrong is that it didn’t like its members enslaved; other humans could be slaves no problem. It wasn’t until humans progressed, and ignored religion, that slavery became morally wrong.

                      2. There are no “religious truths”. There are opinions put forth by humans who want to claim that a god agrees with them. Of course, all of these humans have no evidence that their claims are true at all, just like you and just like the RCC. Many religions claim that their “truths” are “revealed”, so they don’t have to show evidence for their nonsense. As always, nothing different between your “truths” and those of another religion; I have no reason to believe your claims just like you don’t believe the claims of others.

                      3. No evidence of your god so your claim that your god created “everything including the laws of nature” is just one more baseless claim; a claim made by most, if not all, other religions. Please do show that your god exists, that it created *anything* and it wasn’t another god or gods. You try to appeal to the cosmological argument, which in turn appeals to the teleological argument. These depend on an a priori assumption that a god is needed, which has not been shown to be the case at all. If the premise of a logical argument isn’t true, the logical argment fails. You also seem to be trying to redefine your god. Your god is certainly not just a “source of existence”. That is the attempt of a theist who has no evidence for his existential god and who wants to make it vaguer and vaguer since he can’t show the god he actually claims exist to be real. Karen Armstrong is another “good Catholic” who does the same thing.

                      4. You are indeed claim that your version of Christianity, the RCC, is the only truth faith. I do wonder why you try to lie to me and tell me that’s not what you are claiming when you say things like only you have the “truths contained in the articles of Faith”. I suspect it is because you do know your claims are no better than any other Christian or theist. Every Christian makes the unsupported claim that their version is “closer to the one founded by Christ than any other”, and of course none of you have any evidence to support that claim. I have indeed read plenty of historical books and I know that this is the case and that Christians have murdered each other over these claims and have murdered other theists for the same reason. Perhaps I can remind you of the reformation? The crusades? The inquisition? It seems that history does not support your claims at all and shows that your claims are indeed simply false.

                      5. You’ve done a lovely job at putting in “unnecessary opinionated adjectives”, so please don’t think you can simply accuse me of doing so. I will call your “magical natural law” magical since it fits your claims and the claims of your religion “an extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source” (merriam-webster). I know that Christians don’t like their god being called supernatural since that indicates that there is no evidence to support it and that indicates that your claims are no different than any other religion. Unfortunately for you, that is the evidence we have. Nothing shows that the supernatural exists which shows that your god, the miracles claimed, the magical events required for the flood, the exodus, etc are nothing more than myth, just like the magical gods of other ancient civilizations. I am still quite happy to look at evidence for your claims, GB. Where is it? Still waiting for evidence for your god, that it is the creator and that no other gods exists or are the creator/s.

                      Since the sciences have shown that the flood could not have happened, the events of the exodus have happened, the magical creation of the universe which doesn’t match the evidence we see in the world, I know for a certainty that believers don’t have belief and awe in the sciences. That’s why we have idiots and hypocrites called creationists who cannot support their claims and who insist that the sciences are wrong, despite all of the evidence and despite their hypocrisy of accepting the sciences as long as they make the creationist comfy, just to be ignored when they show that the claims of magical divine mischief are false.

                      6. Ah, I wondered if you’d try claiming free will. That fails if one accepts your bible is true at all. Let me ask you, GB, how does free will work when your god supposedly has interfered constantly with humanity per your bible? If there were free will, this god would not have damned all of humanity because of the actions of two people; the RCC dogma original sin shows your claims of free will to be utter nonsense. If there was free will, why did your god send a flood, and murder those who used their free will, removing their free will entirely? Why does your god murder humans for the actions of others, for example, David’s son? Why does your god say that the sins of the parents are foisted on their children? (the bible does contradict itself wonderfully on this) Why did your god find it necessary to remove the free will of the pharaoh and the Egyptian people so it could show off (Exodus 9 amongst other places)? Why does Romans 9 contradict your claims of free will and show that your god has no interest in free will at all? It seems that you have chosen to ignore the bible when convenient when you need an excuse for your god. Happily, I am very familiar with what your bible and your religion actually says, and not your expurgated version of it.

                      Now, if I were an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent being, like so many Christians claim, and I wanted free will, I would be a deistic god, winding up the watch and walking away. If I didn’t particularly care about free will, I would say that anyone who treats their fellow humans well deserves a good afterlife, but if you didn’t, then you merely are annihilated, not tortured for eternity. I would not demand blind obedience, I would reward those who use the intellect I gave them, and not require them to be burned to death at the stake like the RCC version of a god demanded. FYI, I don’t believe in free will. I believe humans act as if they had it, but they are a sum of their biology and experience and that informs our decisions.

                      There is nothing to show that your version of a god is love, or mercy or patience. All you have is a lovely series of circular arguments intended to support your false claims that your religion is the only true one. The bible shows that this god does not love, but requires blind obedience like an abusive spouse or parent. It has no mercy, killing those who are not at fault and finding slavery just wonderful, to the point of demanding slaves for itself/temple as war prizes. This god can’t even fulfill the definition of love in the bible, being the opposite of the description in 1 Corinthians 13. It is violent and jealous, to the point of being murderous. It boasts continually, the book of Job is it insisting how great it is and how dare anything question it. It is easily angered, murdering a man for keeping its magic box upright, and it, if one can believe your bible, most certainly keeps a record of wrongs. Indeed, the whole revenge fantasy of Revelation is a wonderful example of just how your god is nothing as you claim.

                      It’s always a great tell when a TrueChristian is sure that his version of Christianity is the only true one when he says that only his religion tells people how to behave “properly” aka as their version of their god wants per their opinion. You say that if morality is imposed once and for all, this removes freedom and that is a bad thing. Hmmm, so how does that work with the claims of “heaven”, GBa, not that your religion has anything to do with free will?

                      The reactions of the Israelites to the laws supposedly given from your god directly is interesting. There is nothing to show this is true, so their reactions are nothing more than a myth. There is nothing to show that the Israelites feared this god directly giving the commandments. If you read the bible, this god said that it couldn’t give them directly. You might want to read Exodus 19 to get the actual myth your bible is telling.
                      And to finish, you try to use the usual theist claim that people just want to be rebels, and that’s why they say your god is your own fantasy. It’s a lovely excuse, invented because you want to pretend that there is evidence for your god and that the “real” reason non-Catholics don’t believe you is that they just want to ignore it, not that it simply doesn’t exist. Still waiting for evidence for your claims.

                      I don’t care if you ignore me. I know why you do; you have nothing to support your claims. Now, if you wish to address one point at a time, please tell me where you’d like to start. If you won’t, this would be pretty good evidence that your complaint was nothing more than an attempt to get out of presenting evidence for your claims.

                      Like

                    • It’s not that i’m ignoring you. The posts I do here is not directed to persons but ideas. Please excuse me if I find your post too ad hominem that I do not find replying worth it anymore just as I would like to expound on the ideas. I see too much of “your” and “you” in the replies that presses too much that I feel there’s too much attack to personality here rather than a rational means to ascertain truths. It’s as if we have no means to realize truth anymore. In this sense, I do not see an end to any discussion along these thread.

                      Nevertheless, thank you Clubs for your time. Perhaps there is a proper forum for this protracted issues here which I think resides deep in your heart, not just mine. I sense a kind of hate in your writings as if I am your enemy here. We are both trying to look for truth and unless we put aside our feelings and passions, our intellect and reasoning cannot soar its heights.

                      Like

                    • GB, your posts were directly completely to me, not to any vague “ideas”. That’s rather easy to see when you address me as Club and respond to my comments. It’s curious that you offer such ridiculous claims that are shown false by reality.

                      I do not excuse you at all, GB. Please do show where I’ve used an ad hominem fallacy. It seems that you are offering another false claim to give yourself an excuse for not having to respond to my questions and points. There is nothing to show that you would like to expound on any ideas. I have offered to consider a subject one at a time, since you made the claim that you can’t discuss multiple topics “when you can simply move from one point to another without concentrating on specific point at one time.” And now that I have offered to do this, you come up with another excuse, false as usual.

                      Unsuprisingly, you had no problem with me using the terms “you” and “your” before, you have used the same terms about me, and you seem to be unfamiliar with what an ad hominem fallacy is. An ad hominem attack isn’t using the term you and your to show that you believe in certain things and you make certain claims. An ad hominem fallacy is “attack on an argument made by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, rather than attacking the argument directly” (wikipedia). Until you can show there is an ad hominem fallacy made, your feelings mean nothing, they are just baseless opinions.
                      I have been waiting for you to present evidence to support your claims, GB. You haven’t. I have asked you questions and you refuse to answer. You have repeatedly claimed you have the truth, and unsuprisingly when asked to support that claim, you can’t just like every other theist. We do indeed have plenty of means to realize and recognize what the truth is. The sciences help us do that. Whatthe sciences also do is show that the claims of religion aren’t true, and that entirely other things happened instead of the magical events claimed by theists. You want your supposed “truths” to be blindly accepted. They aren’t.

                      There is no need for an end to a discussion, but we could come much closer to one if you would participate in the discussion by supporting your claims and answering my questions. You have chosen not to do so. You seem to be trying again to claim that I must agree with you, with your claims that something must reside “deep in my heart”, which is sad. For all of your claims that you don’t want to end the discussion, you invent excuse after excuse not to continue.

                      Thank you for showing that you need to make more false claims about me to make more excuses. No, GB, I do not hate you. Nice attempt to try to play the martyr. It is not hateful to ask you questions and point out how your claims are false. Again, you want blind acceptance, and want to claim that anyone who dares asks you a question or points out that you are wrong just “hates” you, so you can ignore any points that you don’t like.

                      When you don’t answer my questions, when you lie about me, you have made yourself my opponent, not my enemy. For all of your claims to be searching for truth, they are belied by your inability to present evidence for your claims and your lies about me. I have presented evidence and arguments based on intellect. You may be unable to put aside feelings and passions as your excuse. Do not claim that I cannot when that again is not true.

                      Again, present your evidence that your claims are true. Show that your god is the creator and no other gods are. Show that the RCC has the only true religion and no one else does. Show that there must be some god to support the assumptions behind the cosmological, teleological and ontological arguments.

                      Like

                    • Thank you. I’m not playing martyr, please don’t put emotions to arguments. All that we say here is not to add feelings to arguments against or for ideas. We are all searching for certainty of truths here and testing the plausibility and falsity of some claims, not personal opinion nor feeling.

                      In any case, thank you for your time. I rest my case for this one thread. Cheers!

                      Like

                    • Again, GB, for all of your claims of searching for the truth, you have yet to provide evidence to support your claims. I am still waiting for you to show that your god exists and is the creator. I am waiting for you to show that the laws of physics can’t serve the purpose of creator, something that you claim cannot possibly happen, and waiting for you to show that no other gods exist.

                      I am waiting for you to show that the Roman Catholic Church has the only truth.

                      You have yet to do so. You have not shown your arguments for your ideas to be true. You have not rested a case because you have not made one for your claims.

                      Like

              • It is amazing to see that the existence of Hell is true because of Justice. If one wants NOT TO EAT, it is natural to starve. If one wants NOT TO DRINK WATER, it is natural to thirst. Thus, if one wills NOT TO SEE GOD, it is natural to be in that state (Hell exactly). Now, the proposition of the Catholic Faith is that it is natural for human beings to see God (“beatific vision”).

                Like

                • There is no evidence that hell exists at all. Christians do not agree that it exists or what the concept actually means. You also try to claim that you and only you understand what justice is. It’s always curious to see someone capitalize a word in order to claim his version is the only right one and fail to demonstrate that at all.

                  I always enjoy a Christian trying to blame humans, when your bible says that your god intentionally prevents some humans from ever accepting it.That destroys your claims of justice and human agency entirely. It’s a great way to see that humans invent their religions in their own images and pick and choose from their bible to do so. However, as always, show your version of Christianity is the right one. Please do also show that the other ones, and other religions, are wrong. Surely you have reasons not to believe them, correct?

                  I wonder, Geek, how is it that you will not to see Allah or Vishnu, or Ahura-Mazda? Most, if not all religions, make the same claim, that if one only sees, one can see that their god is real and that it was the creator of the universe. There is no evidence for this at all.

                  I do have another question, how is this god dispensing justice by punishing people for the crimes of others? How does that work? For instance, if you were a parent, would you punish your son for something your daughter did? Would that be just?

                  Like

              • #1035 of Catechism (as quoted) writes “The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness __for which he was created and for which he longs__.” (emphasis added)

                Thus, by our own freedom, we are separated from God. Freedom is the one condition for true love, one cannot love without deciding to. The same is the human love for God. No correspondence (willingness to), God cannot impart grace. Indeed, if one card is wrong everything falls. In this case, the arguments for Hell is really defending: (1) human free-will, and (2) God’s free-will, love, justice and mercy. A god who imposes his will onto his creatures is indeed a god of tyranny. The God of Christianity is _more like_ a loving father and a caring mother rather than a wrathful king.

                Like

                • Again, Christians don’t agree on what hell, who goes to it, or what the term actually means. I am waiting for you to show that your version is the only true one, since each sect of Christianity, and most other religionsn, come up with baseless claims like yours that they insist are true. Threats of hell, threats that no one can be happy unless you join a particular religion Nothing more than the barker call of any cult. I’m happy to report that I am quite happy and I have no longing at all for your god. This seems to be why so many theists are terrified of atheists; by our mere existence, we show your repeated claims to be false.

                  If there is freedom, why are all humans supposedly saddled with being damned for things that they never did? How does original sin work with the catechism’s claims of freedom, Geek? If this god needs love and love can only be free, why does this god constantly threaten the people it supposedly loves? This is nothing different from a abusive spouse or parent that threatens violence if someone doesn’t “love” it enough.

                  Wow, God cannot impart grace? Funny how the bible says it can and how many Christians as fervent as you claim that it can. Now, how can we figure out which of you are telling the truth? I suggest a altar challenge just like in the bible. Surely someone can get their god to light an altar for them, right?

                  You keep repeating that the bible has justice and mercy in it. Where? Where’s the love from a being that intentionally prevents people from finding it and makes some people to be damned no matter what as claimed by Jesus himself and by Paul? Where’s the love from a god that intentionally releases the supposed ultimate evil to kill more of humans after this god kills everyone who disagrees with it and the faithful live under the governing of JC for an aeon?

                  There is nothing to show your claim that this god is “more like” a loving father than a wrathful king. But please do show what you think does this.

                  A god is a god of tyranny that forces its will on others. So, when it makes the pharaoh do its will repeatedly, forces the people of Egypt to give up all of their valuables, forces girls into sexual slavery, removes the ability of humans to accept it or not, etc it is a tyrannical being. Of course, it doesn’t exist at all.

                  Like

  1. The great books of our Western Heritage are a treasure trove of teachings on the nature of God, man and universe.
    The first great book, the Iliad, by Homer is a primer on the basics of human nature (its susceptibility to hubris).

    The ancient Greeks are also famous for introducing the human race to an art form (plays), called tragedy and to a religion whose god’s mirrored and expressed the flaws in human nature.

    The ancient Greek understanding of human nature was incredible and formed the foundation of Western Civilization and the founding of the American Republic.

    In the same vein, Judeo-Christianity points out the craters in human nature in their biblical literature. But unlike the Greeks who created their gods in the image of man, the Jews and Christians compared man to God who is infinite and all-good.

    Whether or not one agrees with the Judeo-Christian view of human nature, it is simply logical that when compared to infinite God, finite, flawed man would be found sorely wanting.

    This self-evident fact is not an abusive assault on human nature, but a call to excellence which is the essence of Christian and Hellenistic teachings on the nature of man.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I’m not arguing that humans aren’t flawed beings, in fact, from what I’ve seen, many humans are self-centered, narcissistic, egotistical, ignorant, obnoxious and pitiful beings. However, that still doesn’t mean EVERYONE is, and that we all deserve to burn for eternity!

      Liked by 1 person

      • mclasper,
        There is no requirement that EVERYONE isn’t self-centered, narcissistic, egotistical, ignorant, obnoxious and pitiful to understand that human nature is deeply flawed.

        And deserves has nothing to do with it.

        Like

    • the Greeks were quite interesting and do a great job of pointing out how bereft Christianity is in thought and purpose. Many Christians are sure that these people are all damned for what they wrote and thought, including SOM, I’m guessing. The Christian god has just as many flaws in it as the greek gods, though I’m sure SOM will claim otherwise, with no evidence as usual. There is nothing that shows that the Christian god exists or ever way infinite or all-good at all. There are myths about a god that is jealous, petty, and amazingly ignorant when it comes to dealing with its supposed creations. The book of exodus is great for demonstrating this.

      There is no “self-evident fact” at all. There is one more theistic belief that has nothing to support it.

      Liked by 1 person

      • club,
        Ancient Greek philosophy of Plato and Aristotle were incorporated into Christianity by such luminaries as Saint Augustine during late Antiquity and Saint Thomas Aquinas during the Christian Middle Ages.
        Apostles Saint John and Saint Paul used Greek philosophy as a way of expressing the Gospel.

        Like

        • that’s quite interesting, SOM. Augustine and Aquinas did use some of Aristotle, the claim of a single vague god for their arguments for their very specific god.. Their very specific god can be shown not to exist. Aristotle’s, not so much. Do you worship Aristotle’s god?

          Please do show where John(no evidence for him) and Paul, not an apostle at all, uses Greek philosophy.

          So, is Aristotle damned per your religion or not?

          Like

          • St. Paul tried to reason with the Greeks in Areopagus: “22 So Paul stood in the midst of the [f]Areopagus and said, “Men of Athens, I observe that you are very religious in all respects. 23 For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, ‘TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.’ Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you. 24 The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; 25 nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things; 26 and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, 27 that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and [g]exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children.’ 29 Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man. 30 Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, 31 because He has fixed a day in which He will judge [h]the world in righteousness [i]through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men [j]by raising Him from the dead.”” (Acts 17:16-34)
            I think the reasoning here is very Greek (at least in his time).

            Like

            • If this is Greek philosophy, which school is it? What about this argument is “Greek”? I find nothing different than what was claimed earlier by the authors of the gospels.

              There is also the problem with Paul decrying philosophy “8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.” and the screed in 1 Corinthians 1 about his god and the Greeks. I await your evidence.

              Like

              • First, do we claim to have recorded all Greek thoughts? Are we limited to the popular Greek teachers? Does every idea should have names or be associated to a name or school?

                I think we should not be associated with any school but only to the truth.

                Point 1: I find nothing different…
                Response 1: Of course, there should be none. The idea is that Paul uses philosophical arguments, not appeal to witness or revelation.

                Point 2: Paul decrying philosophy per quoted Col 2:8
                Response 2: A simple look into parallel translations (e.g. http://biblehub.com/colossians/2-8.htm) reveal the intent and meaning of his words here. The main idea is that philosophical arguments can be used against the existence of God especially if they are founded on biased philosophy which already presupposes the non-existence of God.

                Paul is simply saying that the philosophy founded on the human tradition cannot reach knowledge of God (his evidence is the epitaph that says “TO THE UNKNOWN GOD”). He noted that they know that God exists, but they lack full knowledge. He argues that their lack of knowledge is supplemented by the Christian message — Revealed truth about God through Christ. Check it out, they believed him. But only until the point when he tried to argue that there is Resurrection of the Dead.

                Like

                • Wonderful to see you be utterly unable to support your claims that Paul and the apostles used Greek philosophy. I do love to see you try to move the goalposts by trying to claim that since we don’t have all of Greek thought, this simply must mean that there maybe was at least someone that Paul and the Apostles used. All we have is you making false claims that you cannot support. Nope, we’re not limited to the “popular Greek teachers”. You can bring up anyone you’d like. But you can’t, can you? You’ve been caught in a lie. Poor Geek, you’ve shown you have no more respect for your religion than I do since you have no problem in lying, a thing your god really hates, even liar who think they are lying “for” this god (you may wish to read Romans 3).

                  Where did Paul use philosophical arguments and where did he use Greek philosophy? You see, Geek, I’m asking since I know Paul claimed that philosophy was to be abhorred. I’m waiting for you to show that your claims are true. I don’t take your word for it because I know you lie. I am happy to have you use any Greek philosophers, even unpopular ones. And your hilarious excuse that we don’t have all recorded Greek thought is such a great dodge, since *you* were the one to claim that Paul et al used these Greek philosophies that we must evidently do known of since you claimed Paul et all used them and *you* should know them. It’s even better to see you claim that the translation that I used is somehow wrong, when your link shows that it is no different than other translations. There is nothing that shows that the intent and meaning of Paul’s words were anything different than one should not listen to philosophers and he never said “oh it’s okay to listen to some but not all”. It was a blanket attack, not the equivocation that your bible hub link tries to claim that it’s only “some” philosophies that are “wrong”(with no evidence at all). Always good to see Christians rewrite the bible. It’s amusing to watch you claim “biased philosophy” when you have no evidence of such a thing. It’s even more hilarious to know that your claims and the claims of SOM are totally wrecked by your insistence that the Greeks now are disallowed since they didn’t believe in your god. Indeed, your link shows that Christians are sure that Paul was indeed against Greek philosophy “Its teachers endeavoured, in fact, to put the “new wine” of Plato into the old bottles” of Moses, persuading themselves that it was originally there.” and “Jew and Greek are one in so far as their religious ideas are “not according to Christ.” I wonder, did you not expect me to read the link? Or perhaps you did not read it yourself.

                  Which is it, Geek, were the early Christians okay to use Aristotle’s argument or not? Should we discount Christian claims since their claims are completely based on a “biased philosophy” that already presupposed the existence of God? Shucks, I’m all for doing that.

                  Paul is simply attacking anything that shows his god doesn’t exist. I do like you claiming that “to the unknown god” is an epitaph, which is a writing about someone who is dead. I believe you mean inscription. I do note that you’ve tried your best to ignore 1 Corinthian 1, which does show that Paul isn’t so friendly with the Greeks at all. Perhaps I should quote it “18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.” 20 Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.”

                  Again, if human tradition can’t reach knowledge of this god, then the claims of early Christians about how wonderful Aristotle is are just nonsense and more evidence that Christians can’t agree on much of anything. The Greeks had the plinth up, if this is a true story, because they didn’t want to offend any god that they didn’t know. They had no believe in a monotheistic Abramic god that thought Jews were the chosen people. Paul does what a lot of Christians do, he tries to claim that the Greeks were “really” worshipping his god. This is what Catholics do when they try to claim that *of course* every person every would agree with them and would want become a Christian, despite no evidence for such a thing. It’s what the Mormons do, its what Protestants do when they want to claim that everyone agrees with them, from every scientist they can claim to every philosopher. All invented claims created to validate their religion with false appeals to authority. There have been many who know that the claims of Christianity are baseless, that a claim of resurrection of a man from the dead who is part or all god is silly.

                  I have heard some Christians claim that no one would lie about such a thing, so we must believe and that since people back then believed such a story, why it must be true. We do know that plenty of people didn’t believe in such stories even back then, that’s why there still Jews.

                  Like

                  • Thanks for your detailed response. I’m not trying to lie here, if that’s what you mean. We don’t wish to go to the personal attack just to weaken the arguments.
                    1. Living in the time of the Greeks, St. Paul must have encountered what was popular during his time. Perhaps you are right that I may not have evidence (extant and extra-biblical) at hand to support this but only supposition yet not far from reason. Isn’t it reasonable to believe that St. Paul have entered into the debate popular in the Greeks in the first decade of the Christian Era (AD)?
                    2. The premise that St. Paul “claimed that Philosophy was to be abhorred” is simply a mis-interpretation of his work. This is I think a Protestant position. The Catholic Faith emphasizes that Reason and Faith does not oppose each other. But at the same time, Faith is above Reason. It is in this vein that St. Paul is discussing it in 1 Corinthians 1. The wisdom of God is far superior than the wisdom of man: “For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom”. St. Paul is putting things into order, not condemning human wisdom. It is the pride of human wisdom that St. Paul is crushing here, not human wisdom per se.
                    3. As far as using Aristotle’s philosophical reasoning, I believe Aquinas has done a good treatise on how it can be consistent with the Catholic Faith. There you can find, along with other early Fathers of the Church, arguments for the existence of God not simply a presupposition which one would naturally not like. Nevertheless, a philosophy that is biased into thinking that God does not exist is equally biased as the kind of “biased philosophy” mentioned.
                    4. I do not see why 1 Cor 1 “does show that Paul isn’t so friendly with the Greeks at all”. One can see that this point, St. Paul is simply arguing against the “wisdom of this world” (labeled: deceptive philosophy; described as “dependent on human tradition”, “according to principles of the world”) as opposed to the Wisdom of God. With this kind of philosophy that is tied to the worldly principles, the world **through its wisdom** cannot know God. There is a difference between knowing the nature of God and knowing his existence. As far as existence is concerned, the Aristotelian philosophy and the Catholic theology are in agreement. It is in the “nature of God” that the world cannot know God. Thus human philosophy can reach conclusion on the existence of God but not on elucidating his nature (that is “to know”).
                    5. Did Aristotle and the popular Greek philosophers believed in Greek polytheism or was it because of their exact departure from it? I do remember Aristotle mentioning “the One”, “the Good” as well as in terms of absolutes and one superlative.
                    6. The conclusion “There have been many who know that the claims of Christianity are baseless, that a claim of resurrection of a man from the dead who is part or all god is silly” does not read scientifically nor philosophically sound at all. This statement is exactly appeal to plurality which is a different form of “appeal to authority”. The Catholic Faith is not dependent on the number of its believers. I know there were very few in the beginning starting with at least just twelve core believers (Apostles), not counting the women. So, it’s not about the numbers or “many who know” but whether what they “know” is true or not. Once, there have been many who believed that the Earth is flat, but we have evidence that they are flatly wrong.

                    Like

                    • I am indeed saying that you are trying to lie here. You have made the claim that Paul and the apostles used Greek philosophy “I think the reasoning here is very Greek (at least in his time).” I have asked you to support this claim. You have not. It’s not a personal attack to point out that you have made false claims and when this is pointed out, you either are unwilling or unable to support them. This is telling a false thing with intent, a lie. I do have no idea why you seem to be using the royal “we”.

                      Paul may have encountered what was popular at the time. He did speak out against philosophy which apparently was popular at the time. I am right that you have no evidence, there is no doubt about that at all since you have yet to provide any. As soon as you do, I am more than happy to acknowledge it and consider it. You have made an assumption with no evidence and what evidence there is indicates that Paul did not like philosophy as stated by Paul. From the letters, we can indeed assume that Paul tried to convince Greeks he was right. What we do not have is that Paul used Greek philosophy or Greek reasoning. You are again trying to move the goalposts from what you originally claimed and the reason appears to be that you have nothing to support your claims.

                      You claim that the words of Paul who says that he abhorred philosophy are “simply a mis-interpretation”. Funny how all translators agree on what Paul wrote. You appear to be trying to say that everyone but you are wrong. Why should I believe you? Most, if not all, interpreters of the bible claim to have their god’s help in interpreting the works and this would indicate that you think that those claims are wrong. Words do have agreed upon meanings and when Paul says that philosophy and philosophers are not to be followed, why should one doubt that is what the words mean? The RCC may claim that reason and faith do not oppose each other, but that does not mean that this is true at all. It is a claim to try to have their cake and eat it too. Reason requires evidence and analysis, faith requires blind acceptance, which is exactly why the RCC claims faith is above reason since their claims do not bear analysis very well. There is no evidence that your god exists, much less that its wisdom is greater than man’s. One of the best examples of this is that your church repeatedly changes what this god “really meant” in its claims. Paul is indeed condemning human wisdom. He claims that human wisdom will be destroyed. This is not “putting things in order” at all, it is saying that human wisdom is not worth anything. When Paul claims that the foolishness of his god is greater than human wisdom, this not putting things in order this is attacking human wisdom as being less than foolishness, a worthless thing. Paul says he wants to *shame* anything that shows his god is ridiculous. He claims that philosophy is equivalent to deceit. There is not one word about how this is only about human pride, it only talks about human wisdom being wrong. It always amuses me how Christians try to rewrite their bible and try to redefine words, as if no one else can read. It’s no wonder that the RCC has a history of trying to convince people not to read the bible themselves. From anecdotal evidence from other atheists, that is one of the more common reasons people became atheists.

                      Aquinas did try to excuse his use of Aristotle’s philosophical arguments. This is a common tactic by many Christians, to use something that someone else did and claim it supports the words of their religion. As much as Catholics wish to claim that their religion is the only true Christianity, it is no more than any other sect, being a combination of various ideas and claims gained from other cultures that it came in contact with. I know quite a bit about early Christian history and know that Christians don’t agree on much at all. The arguments used for the existence of God are those that can be used for any god. This is the problem with philosophical arguments in Christianity. These indicate some kind of vague god but not the one defined by Christians.

                      Atheism is not a philosophy. It’s a conclusion based on the lack of evidence for any particular god and the presence of evidence that shows that the events claimed by theists didn’t happen. Since I am not assuming that there is no god, but have evidence to indicate that this conclusion is true, claims of bias don’t work very well.

                      Paul does use wisdom of the world, which is not claimed to be “deceptive philosophy”but simply philosophy by Paul. You add the word to your bible to change the meaning to match what you want to claim not what’s in the bible. You do your best to try to excuse the use of this philosophy of the world when you find it useful. That’s the typical claim of many Christians claim that anything they want to use is okay and then they claim that the same wisdom of the world is wrong when it shows something that they don’t like. That’s hypocrisy.

                      Most, if not all, religions try to claim that one can only know their god if one doesn’t question. That’s convenient since there is no evidence for their gods. Each sect and religion has different claims of the “nature” of their gods and make claims that they exists but cannot show any evidence to support those claims.

                      The reason that Catholic theology is in agreement with Aristotelian philosophy is that it stole the philosophy and tried to claim that this is what Aristotle “really meant”, with the usual BS that everyone who was smart and/or decent would really honest want to be a Roman Catholic.

                      The problem is that “worldly wisdom” shows that your god is imaginary; there is no evidence for it at all. For all of your claims that the “world” cannot know your god, you make claim after claim that you know your god and what it wants and what it does and why. Your elucidating his nature is quite amusing when you claim you cannot.

                      Monotheism and variants on it were around long before your xenophobic agrarians decided that they would do this rather than the polytheism of their fathers. Aristotle did mention “the one”and “the Good”. So did Akhenaten. Again, claims of absolutes is nothing new with Greeks, and Plato drew it into sharp focus with his claims of perfect things. The idea of “perfect”, claimed by Aquinas as an argument for his god, is always subjective because I can always imagine a better god no matter what god is trotted out. It’s not hard at all imagining a god better than the Christian one.

                      You make claims that my statement is not scientifically or philosophically sound. However, you forget to actually show this to be the case. There is no appeal to plurality, only a statement that many people know that the claims of Christianity are baseless. Do you have evidence that this isn’t true? Are there not billions who aren’t Christians? The problem for Christians, for all their claims of being the bearers of the TRUTH, is that there are plenty of people who don’t believe them and those people have many reasons not to believe.

                      I am always amused when Christians claim that their faith isn’t dependent on the numbers of believers, when they constantly claim that they are a major world religion and even better when they claim that the US is majority Christian. That isn’t the case though, is it, Geek? You are sure that other sects aren’t Christian at all and they are damned or at best only have part of the truth. You can’t show this to be true but you certainly waste billions of dollars in trying to convert other Christians just like those Christians try to convert Catholics. Always rather sad to watch Christians send missionaries to majority Catholic countries because they are sure that those poor Papists are going to hell. My church did it. Heck, my church sent missionaries to Australia.

                      There were indeed few Christians at one time. Then they split and split and split and we have tens of thousands of sects each claiming that they have the TRUTH. There is, again, no evidence that you have any truth or that any other sect does. We have evidence that the earth is round and that same science that shows this also shows that your claims are just as wrong as the earth being flat (which your bible does a grand job of claiming, ignoring the knowledge of the day). No creation, no original sin (and no need for a savior), no flood, no tower of babel, no exodus, no grand temples or palaces, no battles of hundreds of thousands, no savior who did miracles, no darkening of the sun, major earthquake or dead walking the streets, no miracle working apostles and no magical return.

                      Still waiting for your evidence to support your claims.

                      Like

                    • Protestants split indeed. True Christian Faith is embodied in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed.

                      Your best approximation (imagination) of God still pale compares to God himself. The Christian Faith does not claim to have known God fully but only of what he is not (St. Thomas).

                      Having reasons not to believe the truth proclaimed by the Church is not a reason to conclude that they are not true. What is absence is belief, not truthfulness of the statement. Those who did not believe in space-time warping by objects with mass did not have hard time believing that there is gravity the less.

                      Evidence is there, the problem is refusing to see them. People look but rarely see. People hear but rarely listen.

                      Like

                    • You claim that “true Christian faith” resides in a certain creed. Other TrueChristians disagree. How can you show that your claim is true?

                      You claim that my approximation of god somehow pales in comparison to your god. How can you support this claim? The claim of ‘what god is not’ is just one more apologetic. The bible makes many positive claims of what god is, so your claim is false that the Christian faith only knows god by what it is not and doesn’t know God “fully”; this is the usual “god is mysterious” excuse/apologetic. Aquinas is very good at apologetics but he fails to realize his excuses can be used for just about any god. The problem is that Christians disagree on what god is and on what god is not. There is no reason to assume any sect is any more correct than the
                      next.

                      So, per your own words, having reasons to disbelieve what the Church claims aren’t reasons to disbelieve what the Church claims. “Having reasons not to believe the truth proclaimed by the Church is not a reason to conclude that they are not true.” That certainly does fail amazingly well. There is no evidence to support the claims of the church, so there is no reason to believe what the Church claims is true. This is why I do not believe the baseless claims of your Church, the baseless claims of Islam, the baseless claims of Judasim, the baseless claims of every other religion, conspiracy theorist, or new age woo-peddler.

                      There’s evidence for space-time warping. There’s no evidence of your claims about your religion. This is the important difference. People can be shown that the warping occurs, so they can know that Einstein’s theory works. People can be shown that Newton’s theories and formulas work. The claims of a Christian can’t be shown the same way. But, if you think they can, please provide the evidence.

                      Still waiting for the evidence. You offer the usual excuse that somehow people “refuse” to see the evidence. That’s the same excuse offered by all theists, Christians who disagree with you, and other theists. Now, why aren’t you accepting their claims? Are you refusing to see the evidence they claim is there? One would think that you don’t think that they have any since they can’t provide it.

                      I’ll be addressing your other posts.

                      Like

                    • where has the argument of relativism been used, Geek?

                      Still waiting for the evidence to support your claims. Again, Now, why aren’t you accepting their (ther theists) claims? Are you refusing to see the evidence they claim is there

                      Like

                    • No, that is not my “truth”. The facts indicate that the claims of the RCC have no support from evidence. There is no reason to believe your claims as there is no reason to believe that the fairies, titans, dragons, or other gods exist.

                      You are always welcome to show evidence for your god, your version of Christianity or any of the aforementioned beings.

                      Like

          • One can use the Catholic Theology to prove that Aristotle may be saved because he did not have the opportunity to hear the revealed Gospel:
            “Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation.” [cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) No. 847]
            Moreover:
            “Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.” [cf. CCC No. 1260]

            They key phrase is “through no fault of their own” or what we call in moral theology as “invincible ignorance”. Somewhere in fact, I found: “I would rather be blind by the Truth rather than be blind by refusing to look into It.”

            Like

            • Catholics invented the idea of limbo to “save” decent human being that they otherwise would damn. Of course, then they weren’t sure that limbo was quite right.

              Just like every other type of Christian, Catholics have invented something to excuse the violent and vicious words in the bible. It’s rather silly when your catechism say that one might not know about your religion but if one follows your religion one can be saved. Which is it? Do they not know or do they know by some magical means? If the claim that one can follow this god without knowing about this god, then your religion is pointless and the missionary nonsense and the conversion required by Catholicism is a complete waste of time.

              This attempt at claiming every good and decent person for your religion, assuming that anyone would want to be baptized into your religion is very much the same as the assumption by the Mormons that they should baptized the dead into their religion.

              This quote “I would rather be blind by the Truth rather than be blind by refusing to look into It” may be a quote, by who we have no idea. So? You have yet to show that Christianity or its sect Roman Catholicism have any truth at all. You have made up nonsense with your “invincible ignorance” which your very own church ignores when convenient.

              I’ll ask you directly, if this “invincible ignorance” is so wonderful, why has the Catholic Church wasted billions in trying to erase this “invincible ignorance”? If one accepts this nonsense, how many people have the Roman Catholics damned by ignoring their own claims?

              Like

              • You claim that the Church “invented” those ideas are imaginations of those who wish to be ignorant of the Church’s true teachings. The Catholic does not invent anything just to “defend” the scriptures. The Catholic “uses” the scriptures to defend its life as authentic Christian. The claim of the Catholic is that the God referred to by philosophers of old also points to the God (the one God, not “gods” of the myths).

                As for quotes, let us not look into the source and author of the quote as it becomes appeal to “authority”. Why not look into the statement as it is and evaluate its philosophical consistency and usefulness for the discussion at hand.

                Saved because of “invincible ignorance” is simply happy. One who accidentally discovers a scientific truth is less happy as opposed to another who discovered the same through his/her own experience and experimentation and reasoning. This makes human happiness more exciting.

                Remember that the Truth offered by the Catholics is not their own. The Catholics are just the messenger. Don’t blame the messenger who shouts “danger ahead!”.

                Imagine, a volcano which is about to erupt and a village of many people are about to be swept (a la Pompei). There is a scientist who happen to realize this from the data fed by monitoring instrumentation. By his conscience he knows he should inform the whole village of their impending destruction. Why would the Scientist be charged of “wasting” his efforts in trying to inform the village?

                In the same vein, the Church has not “wasted billions” to teach truth that it knows, just as all of us here “wastes” time and effort to inform everyone.

                Finally, people will be damned whether or not they believe the Message. Anyone who will not believe the Scientist will be doomed by the volcanic eruption in the story above. I’d rather be sorrowful believing and eventually knowing that the village will be wiped out rather than be part of the village wiped out in the end.

                Like

            • I have read Aristotle and Plato and thus know the article to be accurate. It’s a shame that you try to claim it is not when it is so easy to show you are wrong. I’ve also read the very nasty works of Martin Luther and know that the article is quite accurate about him too. Do you worship Aristotle’s god, SOM? Did Aquinas or Augustine? If you read Aristotle andn Plato, you know that you and they do not.

              Is Aristotle damned per your religion or not? Luther certainly seemed sure that he was and Aquinas too.

              still waiting for you to show where the author of the Gospel of John and Paul use Greek philosophy. Were you lying again, SOM?

              Like

  2. Indeed, I don’t think we deserve to burn for all eternity, other than in a sense that our wrongdoing earns a consequence only our savior overcomes, and I doubt that burning is what God has in mind for anyone. I think that way even though it is possible to quote New Testament passages that say the contrary. The biblical texts about hell are there for a reason and definitely constitute a warning, worded in terms understandable to believers possessing the life experiences, culture, and cognitive equipment of the Mediterranean world of 2000 years ago, regarding that how one chooses to live life is a grave matter. Much torque has been applied to these texts as the centuries have passed and we have arrived at cognitive understandings that no longer resemble those of the biblical era. People (with some exceptions) thought much more literally back then, and they needed concrete examples and narratives to support their faith. They needed a day-by-day creation liturgy that would tie the divine creative act to the rising and setting of the sun in their lived world, which extended no more than a few hundred miles from wherever they stood. They needed to follow Christ’s footsteps to the stations of the cross so they could know the sacrifices and gains of their lord. The Christian fundamentalists of today seem to have forgotten this, not realizing how the fantastic apparitions they produce must strike a modern, intellectually sophisticated audience. On the other hand, I see atheists like Bill Maher attacking a cardboard cutout travesty of Christianity which is far from the hearts of those who have tried to mature in their faith walks. I have no doubt that modern science has mooted the six-day creation as a factual description of cosmic origins, and that faith in God is a matter for the individual heart given no miracle demonstrations are forthcoming. But I’ve seen little in atheism to recommend me to reconsider faith. Indeed, atheism has done honest Christianity a service by challenging it to justify itself and forcing it to separate from those using it as a tool for politics. God didn’t create us because we were supposed to have “worth” in some sort of bargaining session with the devil, but because even though we don’t measure in terms of the perfections of heaven, our lowliness gives us powers of faith, praise, and wisdom that even the angels do not have.

    Like

    • I agree, it is possible to ignore certain passages and invent a form of Christianity that has no hell. This shows that there is little reason to think that the bible has any magical truths at all. Christians don’t agree on their god or what it reallyw wants or really meant. They invent their god in their own image. If you are a human being who can’t stomach the vicious and vengeful god that wants to torture anyone who doesn’t worship it, then your god doesn’t do this. If you are a humana being who wants to punish everyone who says you are wrong, then your god is like that.

      Humans are very good at inventing religions. They aren’t so good at showing that their version is any better than any other religion or sect.

      Like

    • I don’t think that Christianity is claiming that everyone will burn in Hell.. I guess even those who have not yet known the Gospel are not doomed to Hell if they are really sincere in doing good in the way they are able to and their intellect provides. However, upon hearing the Good News (from the authentic data source of course, not just some opinion), many can be culpable of their voluntary evil acts. There’s a lot in Christian moral philosophy actually that can be argued to be more convincing than those of Greeks.

      Anyone who has read Thomas of Aquina? http://www.iep.utm.edu/aq-moral/

      Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s