The Non-existence Of God

[Era Might]

Ok, so I'm starting this thread without intending to scandalize people who might be scandalized, so forgive me if that's the case.

I've lost my faith, and this thread is about the basic argument / discussion on my reason why.

When you look at the history of Christianity, you can understand it in the same terms as any other religion. In the early Church there was the eschatological hope of Christ's return. There were miracles in abundance. People were speaking languages they never spoke. There was this wonderful new brotherhood devoted to outdoing one another in charity, giving up everything to follow Christ, serving the poor, etc.

As this eschatological hope fades when Christ fails to reappear, the Church sets in (I'm reading a book on the early church right now and the author quotes a humorous observation about how the early Christians were expecting Christ and what they got was the Church). Gradually the bishops consolidate their institutional power and the church becomes another religion that thinks in centuries.

I'm summarizing here, but let's take, for example, the miracles. One might point to them as "proof" that the Church is what she thinks she is. But when one looks at the pagan society that preceded Christianity, there were claims to the presence of gods, although in a different way than the Christians claim. There was oracles where the gods supposedly spoke. As in Homer, the gods walked among men. There were rites for the gods. Etc Etc. The Christian claims to see angels, etc. were not new. It was part of the way people were in the ancient world. That doesn't mean their claims were true or false, but one can place Christianity in the context of non-Christian religion. That's the point.

Here we are, 2000 years on, and Christ has not returned. The miracles of the early church haven't technically gone away, but nobody believes in them the way they did in the early church. We still talk about saints who walked around doing wonderous things, but deep down we know those are legends, because nobody walks around that way anymore. Where are the tongues of fire? Where are people being raised from the dead? There are still claims to "apparitions" (Fatima, Medjugorje, etc) but those are not substantially different from the ancient pagan claims to oracles and visitations from the gods. In other words, one can understand them in terms of the sociology of religion.

That's the main thrust of why I no longer believe. The 20th century has lifted the veil, so to speak, on a lot of human behavior. We've been able to understand history in scientific light (sociology, anthropology, biology, etc.). The Church today, unsurprisingly, has none of the character of the ancient and medieval legends. Bishops and priests today are largely bureaucrats who want to preserve things like happy families and religious liberty. I'm not saying they're bad people, but they are unremarkable reflections of their times. They still have faith, but the church has had to come to grips with the massive changes in society. Of course, the church still struggles to interpret these changes in old religious categories (the judgment of god, the fear of death, etc.). But the world has moved on.

Now, I wouldn't say I'm an atheist. Even if there is no god, I think religion is still part of the human experience, like culture, like politics, like poetry. And maybe there is a lake of fire awaiting sinners, but that doesn't ring true to me with humanity. Why do we like literature? Because it is a reflection of our capacity to learn and grow from failure. I find it hard to believe, in a world where the fun is largely about learning and growing, that there are invisible, eternal stakes to our experience. It rings truer to me that, if there is an eternity, it has some resemblance to our experience here in the world, that there is always the possibility to amend, learn, correct, change, etc.

Certainly, it is a great and complex thing this thing called humanity, How do we understand good and evil, without God? That's something a lot of people have thought on. But Christianity today is mostly bourgeois society translated into spiritual terms. Traditionalists bemoan the collapse of the liturgy and traditional Catholic culture, but this is just part of the sociology of religion...it's Christians moving with the times. Some Traditionalists cling to former times (monarchies, clericalism, anti-Judaism, etc). But these traditionalists can just as much be understood within the sociology of religion...their religion is a way to uphold a society that no longer exists.

I can't go along with what Catholicism has become, a sociocultural institution that has to justify its correctness throughout history. The Catholic narrative does not hold up well to examination. I'm not anti-Catholic, anti-Christian, or anti-Religion. My point is just that the world can be understood in many different ways, and the institutional narrative is not very convincing once it's exposed.

And the Christian claim that there is no happiness without god also rings hollow to me. I can very much construct meaning, joy, etc. in a world without god. Religion is part of that, because religion is part of our attempts to navigate meaning in the world. Now, my happiness or unhappiness does not prove anything true or false...but the point being that this claim is more about emotionalism than anything. I think faith is definitely a human necessity, but faith can be constructed in many senses.

I am more inclined to believe in some kind of universal sense of divinity rather than the historical monotheistic narrative.

Anyway, this is the general thrust of my argument, which I'm just throwing out there without trying to pretty it up or make it rhetorically pleasing. I haven't so much lost my faith as recognized that it no longer exists...though I still consider myself Christian because, again, religion is part of the human experience, and it is tied up in culture, identity, community, etc. It can still be a good, but I am more or less a Christian atheist (that may be putting it too harshly, since I don't believe in "atheism" as such).

I am open to being wrong about the non-existence of God, and at this point, open to alternative ideas about God, though I am thoroughly formed in the Christian mindset and the idea of being an Apostate will always haunt me. I've come to accept that with peace, at least for now.

Thoughts on my argument?

Edited October 3, 2012 by Era Might

[Anomaly]

Edited October 3, 2012 by Anomaly

[Groo the Wanderer]

So...yer basically saying because the all-too human sinners who make up the Church do not always follow the teaching of the Church and sadly stray from it, you also must fall away from it? Why do you discount all the good done by humanity as well? Jesus plainly told us the weeds would grow with the wheat until the harvest time has come. If He decides to delay the harvest until as much wheat can grow as is possible, who are we to argue or lose hope?

Be not afraid.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1349318412' post='2489796']
So...yer basically saying because the all-too human sinners who make up the Church do not always follow the teaching of the Church and sadly stray from it, you also must fall away from it? Why do you discount all the good done by humanity as well? Jesus plainly told us the weeds would grow with the wheat until the harvest time has come. If He decides to delay the harvest until as much wheat can grow as is possible, who are we to argue or lose hope?

Be not afraid.
[/quote]
No that's not at all what I'm saying. Just the opposite. I'm inclining TOWARD the humanity of the church. It's only against the claim to divinity and the narrative of election that the humanity of the church becomes a scandal to be explained away. And I'm questioning the idea of there being a "teaching of the Church" that is not a figment of the historical imagination. As I said, what we call "Catholicism" today is largely a fantasy of bourgeois society. The American pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-Latin, etc. agenda has more to do with middle class fixations than it does with historical Christianity. I say that not in criticism but as an observation that we construct "the teaching of the Church" the same way we construct our conceptions of god: according to our self-obsessed prejudices.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Era Might

[Nihil Obstat]

My thought is this:

You can, if you choose, look at religion in general, and the Catholic Church in particular, as having adapted to the wider historical and cultural context since their inception. There's enough evidence that this is not a spurious argument. But I think it has things the wrong way around.
Reality itself, all of human history, waited in anticipation for Christ and His Church.
It isn't that human nature wants to create comfortable institutions. It's that human nature is created to long for God, for the Catholic Church. Before Christ the pagans tried to find it in nature, in animism, in legend, and the Jews had the Law, and all of it was in preparation for the Catholic Church.
But human nature is nebulous and often rather spiteful, so it tries its hardest to attack everything, even the things it loves most. Like a child having a tantrum, it just lashes out into the void, not even trying to destroy, just simply trying to assert itself. So of course it attacked the Church too, even while at the same moment needing the Church more than food or water or air.
No wonder things get screwed up all the time.
But still, reality itself points to the Church, and even while we lash out, we still need Her. The Church is written into our hearts, and we will always gravitate towards it.

So in my opinion, the way you're looking at it is, essentially, that we create emergent religions simply because we need them as a form of identity, as a way of expressing our humanity. In reality, we are created to need religion, to need Catholicism, because the Church is what purifies our humanity, just as much as God is the One Who created it.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1349319920' post='2489808']
My thought is this:

You can, if you choose, look at religion in general, and the Catholic Church in particular, as having adapted to the wider historical and cultural context since their inception. There's enough evidence that this is not a spurious argument. But I think it has things the wrong way around.
Reality itself, all of human history, waited in anticipation for Christ and His Church.
It isn't that human nature wants to create comfortable institutions. It's that human nature is created to long for God, for the Catholic Church. Before Christ the pagans tried to find it in nature, in animism, in legend, and the Jews had the Law, and all of it was in preparation for the Catholic Church.
But human nature is nebulous and often rather spiteful, so it tries its hardest to attack everything, even the things it loves most. Like a child having a tantrum, it just lashes out into the void, not even trying to destroy, just simply trying to assert itself. So of course it attacked the Church too, even while at the same moment needing the Church more than food or water or air.
No wonder things get screwed up all the time.
But still, reality itself points to the Church, and even while we lash out, we still need Her. The Church is written into our hearts, and we will always gravitate towards it.

So in my opinion, the way you're looking at it is, essentially, that we create emergent religions simply because we need them as a form of identity, as a way of expressing our humanity. In reality, we are created to need religion, to need Catholicism, because the Church is what purifies our humanity, just as much as God is the One Who created it.
[/quote]
The problem I would have this this analysis is that what we usually mean by "the Church" is nothing more than the institutional adaptation of certain theological principles. The earliest church, of course, was a loosely defined communion, and over the centuries it adapts to the human circumstances.

So, I think your poetic exaltation of the church could mean something if we're talking about "the church" as a spiritual thing, a mystical thing. But in reality, the church is something different. The idea that I am created for an army of clerical beauracrats, which is usually what we mean by "the church," is not something I can warm up to.

Of course, "the church" means different things in different times. Our current conception of the church as a sort of spiritual UN is our unique fantasy. I find most of what "the church" does to be nothing more than keeping itself busy. After all, once you ordain all these priests, you have to give them something to do. The church feeds on its own self-importance, and has to justify its place in society.

And then, of course, there are billions of people around the world who live and die without the church, and construct meaning every day. As I said, I am not anti-Christian or anti-religion. The Gospel is a beautiful thing, but one can recognize a beautiful thing without the absolute claims that the church makes for itself.

I don't see the history of the Church as a purification of our humanity, but as the gradual corruption of a beautiful idea (the Gospel). The church is a worldwide fraternity of well-fed, permanently employed clerics worshipping someone who preached voluntary poverty and renunciation of power.

I think there are beautiful moments in "the church" but these usually have nothing to do with the church as such. Sitting in a church with a handful of people praying the Rosary...that to me is a beautiful moment. But the endless documents and statements from bishops I find to be mindless chatter. I have more in common with a random stranger on the street than I do with the anonymous crowds gathered at Sunday Mass. The amesome, beautiful side of the church is rarely found in its official feet dragging.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Era Might

[Nihil Obstat]

Your assessment of the Church is begging the question. You have a good point... IF (and only if) the Church is what you say it is. But you have said nothing that demonstrates that the Church is in fact a purely human institution of clerical bureaucrats.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1349321601' post='2489818']
Your assessment of the Church is begging the question. You have a good point... IF (and only if) the Church is what you say it is. But you have said nothing that demonstrates that the Church is in fact a purely human institution of clerical bureaucrats.
[/quote]
Well that can be said about any religion. All we can do is examine the facts. When we look at, for example, the spiritual legends of the church, they can be very beautiful, just as Shakespeare is beautiful, but they can also be put into human context. The "apparitions" of the church are a good example. They are not substantially different from the ancient pagan oracles, where the gods brought messages to certain people. There is no overwhelming difference between "true apparitions" and "pagan apparitions." When apparitions are examined, they follow similar patterns. The same is true, for example, for religious movements...they follow demonstrable patterns (holy founder, for example, followed by a community struggling to keep together after the founder is gone, growth of the community, etc). The case of Christianity is particularly noteworthy in light of such analysis because the early Christians were so eschatalogical, awaiting the return of Christ...and gradually, when he failed to appear, the church had to come to grips with reality, and so settled into the world as another religious institution among many.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Era Might

[centurion]

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1349319227' post='2489804']
As I said, what we call "Catholicism" today is largely a fantasy of bourgeois society. The American pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-Latin, etc. agenda has more to do with middle class fixations than it does with historical Christianity. I say that not in criticism but as an observation that we construct "the teaching of the Church" the same way we construct our conceptions of god: according to our self-obsessed prejudices.
[/quote]

So your argument is that the early Church and Christ would have supported or been largely neutral towards the destruction of babies and the promulgation of homosexual relationships?

And you're forgetting the fundamental issue here. If you claim to be a Catholic then you also must claim to believe certain core values and principles of the faith. God, as the Prime Mover, acts as the progenitor of reality. He dictated natural law, and He acted to bring about the formation of the Church. Part of that genesis was the promise Christ made to the early disciples. The Holy Spirit was promised to humanity. As faithful Catholics we believe that the Holy Spirit is here with us, guiding us, and protecting the Church. Lay people, priests, bishops, and even popes have sometimes acted contrary to the dictates of scripture, but natural law and the truth of the Church itself remain above those failings. That's the great beauty of the Catechism.

Nihil Obstat also makes an excellent point concerning the nature of human psychology as it interacts with belief and religious systems.

Ultimately, If you choose not to believe that the Church serves and is guided by God in spite of sin and the suffering of the world then there is no argument that I or anyone else can make which could (or should?) change your mind. If there is no God, if the Gospel is not divine, or if the Church has not been given its authority by God, then the Catechism has no authority and is just another set of rules, and the Catholic Church is simply another secular institution seeking to manipulate people in order to perpetuate its own power.

But in the spirit of your original post...

"As this eschatological hope fades when Christ fails to reappear, the Church sets in (I'm reading a book on the early church right now and the author quotes a humorous observation about how the early Christians were expecting Christ and what they got was the Church). Gradually the bishops consolidate their institutional power and the church becomes another religion that thinks in centuries."

---It is true that the early Christians interpreted the return of Christ as something which was imminent, but the fact that their understanding of God's plan grew over time should not inherently discredit the original message. It could even be said to parallel our own individual spiritual growth. I will also point out that the scriptures themselves establish that no man will know when Christ will return.

"Here we are, 2000 years on, and Christ has not returned. The miracles of the early church haven't technically gone away, but nobody believes in them the way they did in the early church. We still talk about saints who walked around doing wonderous things, but deep down we know those are legends, because nobody walks around that way anymore. Where are the tongues of fire? Where are people being raised from the dead?"

---Really? So you feel qualified to speak for me and all other faithful Catholics? Even if you wanted to make the argument that the advent of modern science and technology has fundamentally changed humanity's way of perceiving the natural world it does not follow that it also inherently discredits the message of the Gospel or the traditions of the Holy Spirit working through individuals. Since science is limited and it cannot prove the truth of miracles it is left up to us as individuals to choose whether we believe or not. Consider the stories surrounding Padre Pio. The man was part of the modern world, he was ascribed many miraculous abilities, and he has since been beatified by the Church. If you choose not to believe that Padre Pio actually bore the stigmata then that is your prerogative, but science will offer you no more reason to believe that Padre Pio had divine visions than it will that the Apostles could cast out demons.

"There are still claims to "apparitions" (Fatima, Medjugorje, etc) but those are not substantially different from the ancient pagan claims to oracles and visitations from the gods. In other words, one can understand them in terms of the sociology of religion."

---*Blinks* Why not? If you choose to look at the closed, pantheistic, and bloody religions of the ancient world and see some sort of strong parallel with the open and monotheistic faith of Christianity then there's really nothing more to be said. Lol.

"That's the main thrust of why I no longer believe. The 20th century has lifted the veil, so to speak, on a lot of human behavior. We've been able to understand history in scientific light (sociology, anthropology, biology, etc.). The Church today, unsurprisingly, has none of the character of the ancient and medieval legends. Bishops and priests today are largely bureaucrats who want to preserve things like happy families and religious liberty. I'm not saying they're bad people, but they are unremarkable reflections of their times. They still have faith, but the church has had to come to grips with the massive changes in society. Of course, the church still struggles to interpret these changes in old religious categories (the judgment of god, the fear of death, etc.). But the world has moved on."

---So...a Straw Man Argument. If that's how you choose to see the advent of modern science and the modern Church then I can't stop you. As a historian I'm frankly confused by your assertion that science has somehow been able to magically illuminate history in some way which offers evidence against the validity of the Catholic Church, but I will point out that some people choose to look at science as a wonderful opportunity to explore the reality gifted to us by God. And again, it is not the responsibility of the Church to conform to the secular world.

"Now, I wouldn't say I'm an atheist. Even if there is no god, I think religion is still part of the human experience, like culture, like politics, like poetry. And maybe there is a lake of fire awaiting sinners, but that doesn't ring true to me with humanity. Why do we like literature? Because it is a reflection of our capacity to learn and grow from failure. I find it hard to believe, in a world where the fun is largely about learning and growing, that there are invisible, eternal stakes to our experience. It rings truer to me that, if there is an eternity, it has some resemblance to our experience here in the world, that there is always the possibility to amend, learn, correct, change, etc.

Certainly, it is a great and complex thing this thing called humanity, How do we understand good and evil, without God? That's something a lot of people have thought on. But Christianity today is mostly bourgeois society translated into spiritual terms. Traditionalists bemoan the collapse of the liturgy and traditional Catholic culture, but this is just part of the sociology of religion...it's Christians moving with the times. Some Traditionalists cling to former times (monarchies, clericalism, anti-Judaism, etc). But these traditionalists can just as much be understood within the sociology of religion...their religion is a way to uphold a society that no longer exists."

---There are more personal opinions here, assumptions, and unfounded statements, but I'm not seeing much substance to argue here. I feel like a broken record: if the Church derives its authority from God then it is under no obligation to conform to any "sociology of religion" or to become something which you personally find more palatable, and if the Gospel is true then the Church is ultimately guided by the Holy Spirit. If the Church has no divine authority then it is a completely superfluous institution. I would go one step further by suggesting that in a world with no God--a reality in which we have no clear understanding or morality or natural law--the Church would actually be an extremely negative (inasmuch as anything could be negative in a postmodernist paradise) element.

"I can't go along with what Catholicism has become, a sociocultural institution that has to justify its correctness throughout history."

---Sigh...ok? Says you?

"The Catholic narrative does not hold up well to examination. I'm not anti-Catholic, anti-Christian, or anti-Religion."

---If God hasn't granted His Church divine authority then you should seriously think about being anti-religion. After all, if there are no rules we should be doing whatever we want, and the Church stands in the way of that with its guilt and Bible verses.

"My point is just that the world can be understood in many different ways, and the institutional narrative is not very convincing once it's exposed."

---Exposed by who? By what? Obviously, you have already made the decision that the Church does not enjoy objective moral authority, and this postmodernist rhetoric offers nothing to directly debate. There are Muslims in the Middle East who REALLY believe that they need to torture and murder innocents in order to secure their salvation. There are people in Africa who mutilate female genitalia as part of a socio-cultural tradition. In the West we destroy millions of defenseless fetuses and the laws of our respective "civilized" countries protect the people who perpetuate this situation. Are these valid worldviews?

"I am more inclined to believe in some kind of universal sense of divinity rather than the historical monotheistic narrative."

---Ok. You can believe this if you want, but as a personal opinion it offers no evidence which might call into question the validity of the Church's divine authority.

"Thoughts on my argument?"

---Your narrative reads like your response to your waning faith was to go back and construct a philosophical worldview which could support your abandonment of the Catholic faith.

[Era Might]

[quote name='centurion' timestamp='1349332499' post='2489858']
So your argument is that the early Church and Christ would have supported or been largely neutral towards the destruction of babies and the promulgation of homosexual relationships?[/quote]
No, the early christians (I hesitate to speak of "the early church" since it carries so much anachronistic baggage) were very much against abortion and homosexual acts...but they were also largely against heterosexual acts. Sex was a sort of necessary evil among the early Christians. Modern Christians may share moral tenets with the early christians, but both groups had very different worldviews. Christian morality today is largely about preserving the bourgeois family. Early christian morality was more about preserving the ascetic ideal. I say this not to hold up one or the other as the "true" version, only to point out that Christianity is a historical and sociological phenomenon, and I would argue, once it is seen in context, its "official" narrative of the unchanging church doesn't hold up well to scrutiny.

[quote]And you're forgetting the fundamental issue here. If you claim to be a Catholic then you also must claim to believe certain core values and principles of the faith. God, as the Prime Mover, acts as the progenitor of reality. He dictated natural law, and He acted to bring about the formation of the Church. Part of that genesis was the promise Christ made to the early disciples. The Holy Spirit was promised to humanity. As faithful Catholics we believe that the Holy Spirit is here with us, guiding us, and protecting the Church. Lay people, priests, bishops, and even popes have sometimes acted contrary to the dictates of scripture, but natural law and the truth of the Church itself remain above those failings. That's the great beauty of the Catechism.[/quote]
This is the official narrative I'm referring to. I don't want to scandalize anyone. If you believe in that narrative, I can't say anything to you. I can only speak for myself and how that narrative does not hold up well under scrutiny.

[quote]Ultimately, If you choose not to believe that the Church serves and is guided by God in spite of sin and the suffering of the world then there is no argument that I or anyone else can make which could (or should?) change your mind. If there is no God, if the Gospel is not divine, or if the Church has not been given its authority by God, then the Catechism has no authority and is just another set of rules, and the Catholic Church is simply another secular institution seeking to manipulate people in order to perpetuate its own power.[/quote]
That's not the only alternative. If we accept the premise that the church is not what it thinks it is, there is still much to be treasured. As I said, I don't distinguish religion from other human endeavors. They are all part of our attempt to construct meaning. And if you believe that the church is the true religion guided by god, even though sociologically and historically it operates very much like other religions that claim the same thing, then there's not much I can say to you. You have your faith, and I'm not trying to dissuade you from it.

[quote]---It is true that the early Christians interpreted the return of Christ as something which was imminent, but the fact that their understanding of God's plan grew over time should not inherently discredit the original message. It could even be said to parallel our own individual spiritual growth. I will also point out that the scriptures themselves establish that no man will know when Christ will return.[/quote]
Well that's a convenient conclusion. My point is not to say that because Christ has not returned, therefore that invalidates everything. My point is only: how curious that, despite the fervent expectation among the early christians, the church played out along conventional lines. It followed the same pattern as other religious figures who make claims and then, when nothing happens, the believers have to come to grips with reality. Again, my point is that Christianity follows similar patterns as all religions...that Christianity is not unique, even in its claims to miracles.

[quote]---Really? So you feel qualified to speak for me and all other faithful Catholics? Even if you wanted to make the argument that the advent of modern science and technology has fundamentally changed humanity's way of perceiving the natural world it does not follow that it also inherently discredits the message of the Gospel or the traditions of the Holy Spirit working through individuals. Since science is limited and it cannot prove the truth of miracles it is left up to us as individuals to choose whether we believe or not. Consider the stories surrounding Padre Pio. The man was part of the modern world, he was ascribed many miraculous abilities, and he has since been beatified by the Church. If you choose not to believe that Padre Pio actually bore the stigmata then that is your prerogative, but science will offer you no more reason to believe that Padre Pio had divine visions than it will that the Apostles could cast out demons.[/quote]
I am not trying to dissuade you from believing. My point was that Christian phenomena like Padre Pio are not unique among world religions. The ancient pagans believed in apparitions and wondrous signs too. You would probably say that they were deluded, but Christianity was born out of the same ancient world, and followed similar patterns in its claims. And my point is not that Christianity is just paganism reborn, but that Christianity and paganism are both human phenomena that follow similar patters, and given this, it's hard to take the Christian leap of faith that says Christianity is the "true" phenomena...even among Christians phenomena is claimed among people with vastly different beliefs between Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox.

I am not saying that religion is a bad thing, simply saying that once you see the familiar patterns logic among them, it's hard to take seriously the claim of one to being the "true" phenomena.

[quote]---*Blinks* Why not? If you choose to look at the closed, pantheistic, and bloody religions of the ancient world and see some sort of strong parallel with the open and monotheistic faith of Christianity then there's really nothing more to be said. Lol.[/quote]
I will leave alone the claim that the pagan religion was "bloody" and Christian religion is not. It's too vast a subject that is patently false in light of history. Although Christianity began as a persecuted minority, once the tables turned, Christianity began persecuting its own enemies.

Second, the idea that Christianity was "open" as opposed to a "closed" paganism is not historically true, In fact, one of the things that made Christians suspicious in the early church was their secrecy. They met mostly in private homes and guarded very tightly the process of conversion.

The pagan oracles were not "closed." The oracles were part of civic life for the pagans. They sought the oracles for guidance and answers. And the oracles were given through chosen individuals, just as the christians claimed to have prophets who had special visions. In the early church christian prophecy was, like everything else, a loosely defined affair. Gradually as the bishops became more prominent in the life of the church, visions and prophecies had to be more tightly guarded. We can see that today where visions such as Fatima and Medjugorje have to go through an institutional process to be accepted (but, in reality, simple believers rarely wait for the authorities to justify their faith in something).

[quote]---So...a Straw Man Argument. If that's how you choose to see the advent of modern science and the modern Church then I can't stop you. As a historian I'm frankly confused by your assertion that science has somehow been able to magically illuminate history in some way which offers evidence against the validity of the Catholic Church, but I will point out that some people choose to look at science as a wonderful opportunity to explore the reality gifted to us by God. And again, it is not the responsibility of the Church to conform to the secular world.[/quote]
The church has already conformed to the secular world. As I said, our conception of the church today is largely as a spiritual United Nations, a global charitable organization.

Modern science has not "magically" illuminated anything. I said it has lifted the veil on a lot of things. That doesn't mean there are no questions or that science is the answer to everything. I simply said that that the official narrative that the church upholds today does not hold up well under examination.

[quote]---There are more personal opinions here, assumptions, and unfounded statements, but I'm not seeing much substance to argue here. I feel like a broken record: if the Church derives its authority from God then it is under no obligation to conform to any "sociology of religion" or to become something which you personally find more palatable, and if the Gospel is true then the Church is ultimately guided by the Holy Spirit. If the Church has no divine authority then it is a completely superfluous institution. I would go one step further by suggesting that in a world with no God--a reality in which we have no clear understanding or morality or natural law--the Church would actually be an extremely negative (inasmuch as anything could be negative in a postmodernist paradise) element.[/quote]
You're missing the point. I'm not asking the church to do anything. Simply pointing out the problems with its narrative. You're a believer in that narrative. Again, I'm not trying to dissuade you from anything. You accept the narrative's premise. There's nothing I can say to you to convince you otherwise, and I'm not trying to convince you anyway.

[quote]---Sigh...ok? Says you?[/quote]
Well of course. Who else would I speak for?

[quote]---Exposed by who? By what? Obviously, you have already made the decision that the Church does not enjoy objective moral authority, and this postmodernist rhetoric offers nothing to directly debate.[/quote]
I wasn't debating you in the first place, but since you don't feel there's anything to discuss, we don't have to discuss it anymore. Thanks for your contribution to the thread.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Era Might

[Anomaly]

[quote name='centurion' timestamp='1349332499' post='2489858']
And you're forgetting the fundamental issue here. If you claim to be a Catholic then you also must claim to believe certain core values and principles of the faith. God, as the Prime Mover, acts as the progenitor of reality. He dictated natural law, and He acted to bring about the formation of the Church. Part of that genesis was the promise Christ made to the early disciples. The Holy Spirit was promised to humanity. As faithful Catholics we believe that the Holy Spirit is here with us, guiding us, and protecting the Church. Lay people, priests, bishops, and even popes have sometimes acted contrary to the dictates of scripture, but natural law and the truth of the Church itself remain above those failings. That's the great beauty of the Catechism.[/quote]You do realize there have been different versions of the Catechism over the years. Opinions and direction on homosexuality and the death penalty have changed for example.

I would question your ascertation that the Holy Spirit has guided and protected the Church. Protected it and guided it how? Did it protect it from the rampant Simony during Luther's time? Did it prevent the East/West Schism? How has it protected it from the abandonment after V-2, or how about the pervasive and destructive sexual scandals that were enabled and ignored by Bishops? This 'protection' cannot be claimed with a fair reading of Church History.

[quote]Ultimately, If you choose not to believe that the Church serves and is guided by God in spite of sin and the suffering of the world then there is no argument that I or anyone else can make which could (or should?) change your mind. If there is no God, if the Gospel is not divine, or if the Church has not been given its authority by God, then the Catechism has no authority and is just another set of rules, and the Catholic Church is simply another secular institution seeking to manipulate people in order to perpetuate its own power.[/quote]Exactly.
I think, speaking for myself, this is the reasonable conclusion. Recognition of virtures, good behavior vs bad behavior, is not exclusive to the Catholic Church and is reflected in other philosophies and religions without ascibing to an ever-present, omnipotent, and constantly involved God Catholic Church (as an infallible witness) professes.

[Egidio]

Two things; first, the early christians were not against the conjugal union of man and wife, you just need to read St Paul to see that! You may be thinking of the numerous Gnostics sects that saw all material being as evil, and the perpetuation of the physical by means of pro-creation as adding to the evil.

Second thing, and this is a personal question, to the which I don't recommend a public reply . . . How long after you stopped praying ( and I mean that personal prayer between you and God) did you begin to have these opinions? Or what moral or personal issue occured, for you to think as you do now?

Please forgive these questions if they seem inappropriate, but I have seen these aguments more than once from former catholics, and it almost always goes back to lack of prayer, and/or a moral disorder, and/or a personal tradgedy.

Until the "why" of your present state of heart is addressed, it might be somewhat accidental to address the issues you bring up here.

Be assured of my prayers that you may be given peace and light to know where the Truth lies.

[font=comic sans ms,cursive][size=5][color=#000080]AVE MARIA![/color][/size][/font]

[Era Might]

[quote name='Egidio' timestamp='1349360112' post='2489918']
Two things; first, the early christians were not against the conjugal union of man and wife, you just need to read St Paul to see that! You may be thinking of the numerous Gnostics sects that saw all material being as evil, and the perpetuation of the physical by means of pro-creation as adding to the evil.[/quote]
Completely against it? No. And in fact, as you note, St. Paul was one of the moderating influences in the early confrontation with sexuality among Christians. But the ascetic ideal was always the primary emphasis. The orthodox christians did not get rid of marriage and sex, but there was always the tension with it as an unfortunate necessity, partly because the ascetics were the dominant spokesmen in the early church. And the greater leniency in understanding evolved as ordinary believers had to grapple with being a christian and being in the world. The ascetic idealists were the face of the church, but not everyone could live up to their zeal.

[quote]Second thing, and this is a personal question, to the which I don't recommend a public reply . . . How long after you stopped praying ( and I mean that personal prayer between you and God) did you begin to have these opinions? Or what moral or personal issue occured, for you to think as you do now?[/quote]
None. The first thing I do every morning is pray. I don't know if anyone's listening, but prayer is still an orientation toward something greater than myself. And I still pray in a Christian context. Before I eat meals I still pray the Glory Be. As I said, I'm more of a Christian atheist. I haven't abandoned Christianity so much as I've recognized that my faith no longer exists.

I'm currently reading a biography of Malcolm X, and he went through something similar when he could no longer believe in Elijah Muhammad, the man he had devoted his life to for 10 years. Eventually Malcolm moved into orthodox Islam and away from Elijah Muhammad's version of it. But again, this is a common motif in religiosity: the collapsing of the world you had absolute faith in. I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. It can be a moment of self-knowledge.

[quote]Please forgive these questions if they seem inappropriate, but I have seen these aguments more than once from former catholics, and it almost always goes back to lack of prayer, and/or a moral disorder, and/or a personal tradgedy.[/quote]
No, there hasn't been anything of the sort. I've just grown up (I entered the church as a zealous young convert).

As I said, I haven't "lost" my faith so much as recognized that it no longer exists. This isn't a moral or spiritual crisis. The evidence has just been mounting. When I came into the church I bought into the EWTN / Catholic Answers narrative. But that was a house built on sand.

[quote]Until the "why" of your present state of heart is addressed, it might be somewhat accidental to address the issues you bring up here.[/quote]
Basically, I've found the world more complex and complicated than the official Christian narrative admits. I knew nothing when I came into the church. Now I know more than I knew. I don't claim to know everything.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Era Might

[Socrates]

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1349275159' post='2489569']
. . .
Thoughts on my argument?
[/quote]
Era, sorry that you've lost your faith. I'll be sure to pray for you.

You really haven't provided any actual argument, but rather a long, rambling, and rather unfocused diatribe, so it's hard to actually debate without more specific and focused arguments. Forgive me if my response is similarly sprawling. I'll try to stick to a few basic points that I think are relevant.

[quote]When you look at the history of Christianity, you can understand it in the same terms as any other religion. In the early Church there was the eschatological hope of Christ's return. There were miracles in abundance. People were speaking languages they never spoke. There was this wonderful new brotherhood devoted to outdoing one another in charity, giving up everything to follow Christ, serving the poor, etc.

As this eschatological hope fades when Christ fails to reappear, the Church sets in (I'm reading a book on the early church right now and the author quotes a humorous observation about how the early Christians were expecting Christ and what they got was the Church). Gradually the bishops consolidate their institutional power and the church becomes another religion that thinks in centuries.[/quote]
I don't know what book you're reading, but it sounds questionable, to put it mildly.

The Church is specifically mentioned by Christ Himself in the Gospels, and He gave His Apostles specific authority at various times (most notably to St. Peter, regarding the Keys to the Kingdom). Bishops (called "Elders" or "Presbyters") are referred to in the New Testament. There was an "institutional Church" for as far back as we have records of the Christian Faith. The individualistic "just me and Jesus" brand of Christianity is a distinctly modern invention, which would be foreign to early Christians.

[quote]I'm summarizing here, but let's take, for example, the miracles. One might point to them as "proof" that the Church is what she thinks she is. But when one looks at the pagan society that preceded Christianity, there were claims to the presence of gods, although in a different way than the Christians claim. There was oracles where the gods supposedly spoke. As in Homer, the gods walked among men. There were rites for the gods. Etc Etc. The Christian claims to see angels, etc. were not new. It was part of the way people were in the ancient world. That doesn't mean their claims were true or false, but one can place Christianity in the context of non-Christian religion. That's the point.[/quote]
The reality is that the Christian Faith is quite different from the various pagan myths in that it regards a particular historical man in a very specific historical time and place, whom specific people have personally witnessed, who claims to be God Incarnate.
This is different from the myths of the various pagan gods taking place in a vague, unspecified mythic past.
Christians alone among the major world religions claim their founder was in fact God.

More importantly, Jesus Christ and His disciples were [i]not[/i] polytheistic pagans (for whom the line between man and god was often blurred, as with the claims of many kings and emperors to divinity), but lived in a devout, strongly monotheistic Jewish society. For the ancient Jews, there was only One Living True Almighty God, the great "I Am," who was infinitely above man and the rest of creation. Any human claim of equality with God was regarded as not only unthinkable, but blasphemy - which was regarded as the worst possible human offense, punishable by death. All four of the Gospels tell how Jesus was condemned to death by the Jewish leaders for the blasphemy of claiming equality with God. Yet Jesus willingly accepted a horrible death by torture, rather than renounce His claims, or explain them away to His accusers.

[quote]Here we are, 2000 years on, and Christ has not returned. The miracles of the early church haven't technically gone away, but nobody believes in them the way they did in the early church. We still talk about saints who walked around doing wonderous things, but deep down we know those are legends, because nobody walks around that way anymore. Where are the tongues of fire? Where are people being raised from the dead? There are still claims to "apparitions" (Fatima, Medjugorje, etc) but those are not substantially different from the ancient pagan claims to oracles and visitations from the gods. In other words, one can understand them in terms of the sociology of religion.[/quote]
It's simply false that nobody believes in the miracles of the early Church anymore, and there are in fact miracles occurring to this very day, and they cannot all be successfully explained away. Study of these miracles has in fact converted a number of unbelievers. Whether you choose to believe in miracles is another matter, and there's simply not room to go into all the debates here. God tends to work miracles to reward Faith where it already exists, and does not use them to force belief on obstinate unbelievers. (Jesus Himself refused to work miracles for those who were simply trying to put Him to the test or "looking for a sign.") To use the example of Fatima, which you mentioned, people witnessed the Miracle of the Sun who were hardened unbelievers who had come only to scoff and mock the visionaries.
We could probably argue about this stuff all day, but case against miracles is not so closed as you make it to be.

[quote]That's the main thrust of why I no longer believe. The 20th century has lifted the veil, so to speak, on a lot of human behavior. We've been able to understand history in scientific light (sociology, anthropology, biology, etc.). The Church today, unsurprisingly, has none of the character of the ancient and medieval legends. Bishops and priests today are largely bureaucrats who want to preserve things like happy families and religious liberty. I'm not saying they're bad people, but they are unremarkable reflections of their times. They still have faith, but the church has had to come to grips with the massive changes in society. Of course, the church still struggles to interpret these changes in old religious categories (the judgment of god, the fear of death, etc.). But the world has moved on.[/quote]
This isn't much of an argument. The fact that many bishops and other clergy are lukewarm, and largely bureaucratic in mindset, says more about the sad state of contemporary society (both within and without the Church) than it does about the truth of the Catholic Faith. God doesn't take away free will from anybody, including priests and bishops, and everyone is capable of sin and evil.

This isn't the whole story, though. There are still truly holy and saintly people in the Church, including priests and religious. In fact, I've had the good fortune to know quite a few good and holy priests personally. You just generally won't find them in the headlines of your local secular newspaper. Catholics, including priests and bishops, continue to make heroic sacrifices and willingly undergo horrible persecution for the Faith in parts of the world where it is persecuted, such as China and Vietnam. There have in fact, been more martyrs for the Faith over the past century than in any other period in history. You have to look at the big picture, and not be confined to the attitudes of suburban America.

[quote]Now, I wouldn't say I'm an atheist. Even if there is no god, I think religion is still part of the human experience, like culture, like politics, like poetry. . . [/quote]
[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Whether or not there is a God is actually a separate issue from whether the Christian Faith is true (though, obviously Christianity cannot be true if God does not exist).[/font][/color]

I believe (as does the Church) that the existence of God can be known and proven through human reason, and that the case that the universe was created by a Being who is infinite pure Act (or unconditioned Reality) is far more compelling than the alternative. (Don't have time to go into this, but if you're interested in this issue from a scientific or philosophical standpoint, I'd strongly recommend reading Robert J. Spitzer's [i][url="http://www.amazon.com/New-Proofs-Existence-God-Contributions/dp/0802863833/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1349390142&sr=1-1&keywords=spitzer+new+proofs+for+the+existence+of+god"]New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy[/url][/i]


Regarding the Christian Faith, C.S. Lewis's classic "Liar, Lunatic, or Lord" argument is still quite valid (Lewis was himself a former atheist). Christ either was who He claimed to be, or else was either a fraudulent liar who willfully deceived his followers, or a pathetically deluded madman.
And trying, as many atheist "debunkers" do, to shift the blame from Jesus to His followers only compounds the problem. If, as is claimed, Jesus's divinity and Resurrection from the dead (which are central to the Christian Faith), as well as His other miracles, were only stories made up by Jesus's followers or delusions, then an awful lot of people in the years following Christ's death were willing to undergo persecution, torture and death to perpetuate a fraud or follow a hallucination. Since the Gospels and Epistles in the New Testament were written well within living memory of Christ's life, then surely someone would have recanted their claims to save their own hide, or those Christians who actually knew Jesus would surely come into conflict with those making false and blasphemous claims about their leader. Yet the record we have says otherwise. If Christ did not in fact die and rise from the dead, those who perpetuated the hoax of Christ's resurrection, and falsely led countless others into needless suffering and death fon behalf of that lie ought not be venerated as saints, but reviled as malicious frauds.

Either the Christian Faith is true and is revelation from the Only Begotten Son of God as claimed, or else it is the biggest fraud and lie ever perpetuated on the human race. There is no logically coherent "middle ground."

If there is in fact no God, then we are merely meaningless randomly-evolved bugs crawling around on a speck of space dust. Morality has no objective meaning, and there is no meaningful difference whether one chooses to engage in genocide or devote oneself to helping the poor.
If materialist atheism is true, then all our thoughts and ideas (including both Christianity and atheism) are nothing more than the purely physical reactions atoms in our brains, and none of them can have any real meaning or tell us about reality, and so such discussions are pointless. The Christian Faith and atheism are simply two different sets of electro-chemical activity in the brain, and neither can have any meaningful claim to truth or falsehood.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1349391696' post='2490072']You really haven't provided any actual argument, but rather a long, rambling, and rather unfocused diatribe, so it's hard to actually debate without more specific and focused arguments.[/quote]
I wasn't trying to present a formal argument. Just stating where I'm at.


[quote]I don't know what book you're reading, but it sounds questionable, to put it mildly.[/quote]
"Pagans and Christians" by Robin Lane Fox, a brilliant scholar of antiquity. It's a very good book, you might like it. Fox is an atheist, but he writes as a scholar, not as a believer or disbeliever...his book details the religious culture during the transition from paganism to Christianity in the Roman empire. He discusses at length the pagan oracles, and he has chapters for early Christian conceptions / development of authority, martyrdom, morality, prophecy. It's quite fascinating.

I will read your thoughts, but I won't respond, since I never intended this thread to be a "debate" as such. Thanks for contributing.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Era Might