The Non-existence Of God

[Era Might]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1349647353' post='2491012']
In response to your last point, not all Catholics are content with "just accepting the general outline". Much of our faith is and must remain trust in those who have preceded us as being honest and truly giving it thought. I have taught world religions in college and can tell you that I find none so compelling as Catholicism. They are truly different, even if society today wants us to believe differently.
[/quote]
While it's not for me to tell you what to find compelling or not, I will just say that this is largely determined by causes other than Catholicism itself. As a member of the western world who experiences life in a western way, then a western religion like Catholicism is naturally going to seem not only more compelling but more rational. That's not just true about Catholicism, of course. Someone formed in American individualism is better disposed to accept the Protestant / Evangelical conception of a "personal relationship" and an "altar call" faith. Someone formed in Catholic Europe less so. Someone formed in Hindu India even less so.

Certainly, religions are "different" but they all share fundamental patterns: conception of divinity and/or mystery, taboos, clerical leadership, integration with culture, legends and holy / wise men, sacred texts, miraculous events and supernatural visions, etc etc. There are many different variations in these patterns, but the patterns are common to humanity. The early Christians didn't deny that the pagans had supernatural dealings, the Christians just attributed the pagan dealings to demonic deception. That's certainly a convenient explanation.

Muslims in Saudi Arabia "trust in those who have preceded them" just as much as Catholics in America do. They believe in their saints and miracles just as much as you do.

Religions aren't just religions, they're civilizations. That's why imposing religion (and language, and economy, etc.) is important for colonial powers. Christianity did not triumph apart from force and colonialism...and that's one of the biggest arguments against it. The Christian faith narrative is that the blood of the martyrs converted the world, but that's not quite true. Christianity is all too human (though the Gospel itself is something different from Christianity as a social religion). That doesn't have to make Christianity a "villain"...it just makes it a human enterprise, like all the other human enterprises we call religion. The early Christians expected the reign of Christ, but it never came. The church learned to live with that failed expectation, just as an indian wouldn't lose faith in the rain dance even if the rain didn't come.

Edited October 7, 2012 by Era Might

[Aloysius]

Era,

You make some very good and insightful points... you are spot on about the "apologetics" view of history as being a bit of mental gymnastics, it's something I have certainly noticed as well. I think you have some very strong criticisms of institutionalized Christianity, but also some skewed perspectives and ultimately your conclusions are not as self-evident to the insights you are expressing as they might seem to you. Christianity has been incarnated into every age, such that yes we can speak of the present popular ecclesiology as a mental construction with the function of reaffirming the social conceptions of the bourgeois family; we can see the historical fantasies that certain traditionalists live in, and the cognitive dissonance of certain liberals and conservatives; we can see in every age going back to the earliest days these types of categories and historical constructions of the institutionalized Church... there are common threads that go through that history though, and there is certainly the common spirituality that continues to be the lifeblood of that institution all the way back.

I think your analysis of the development of early Christianity is a bit skewed; it's very hard to pinpoint with absolute certainty from the historical record the construction of authority structures and institutions as merely a response to a failed eschatological expectation; that's a popular academic way of characterizing it sometimes, but from just the historical record one can see from the earliest stages that the Apostles were constructing institutions and hierarchical structures intended to last and propagate themselves; the Didache describes the offices of the early Church quite well, and it is entirely possible to construct that historical time period as containing, as it does in every age, various Christians who expected a quick and soon eschaton and various Christians who simply believed in an eventual eschaton that may not come in their lifetime. I think it's very simplistic to reduce their movement to nothing more than an end-times cult that overstayed its time on earth after their predicted apocalypse... the fall of Jerusalem was the big event they had expected to usher in an entirely new era of the Church as the new Israel, but they always expected a Church, from the beginning; they expected a Church comprised of offices like those described in the didache to fulfill worldwide the prophesies they interpreted from the book of Malachi of a perpetual sacrifice offered across the globe and all the nations praising the lord... yes, none of this was literalist Protestant apocalyptic second coming scenarios, but there is every reason to believe that what happened historically was entirely what the literature of the time expected to happen.

There may indeed be certain sociological structures that developed the same way as other religions have developed... most certainly there were. the Church was a social community, sociology studies HOW social communities develop; the whole theory comes out of the mindset of a post-judeo-Christian society so of course their theories would apply first and foremost the Christianity (in distinguishing Christianity from other religions, I'd be more inclined to argue that you are over-simplifying them to create a comparative account by putting their unique cultural events into the types of categories our society has defined than to say that the theories don't apply to Christianity; indeed, the likely apply to Christianity much more than they apply to any non-Western religious movements being simplified by those categorizations). I think your analysis of religion takes on a sort of sociological evolutionism that is increasingly being challenged and disputed among social scientists... it's a relic from the days of armchair positivistic sociologists who thought the evolution of societies/cultures/religion could all be as taxonomically classifiable as stages in biological evolution. of course there are some structuralist insights that can be made in comparative studies of different religions in their foundations, but one runs the risk of being overly simplistic when one tries to say that they all "follow the same pattern".

your assertion is that Christianity began as a loose community without any institutional mindset; to which I would ask you to prove that assertion... they came out of the Hebrew religion and they knew very well how to organize an institutional "religion"/organization/community; it'd be like insinuating that in the early stages Martin Luther's movement was just an amorphous blob and after some failed expectations finally acquiesced and became institutional; no, just like Martin Luther came from an existing institution and created a competing one, so too did the early Christians form a competing institutional group from the very onset.

None of this is designed to give you back your faith; if you don't have it, I can't give it to you, that's for you to figure out in your journey... but I do think some of the points you are making are missing some of the picture and transposing onto the time periods the same kind of anachronisms (just in reverse) that you see apologists generally transposing in defense of the Church... but as was said earlier in the thread, there is always more to the story. one needs to be wary of any type of theoretical answer that seeks to explain away the entire history of humanity into any category, and recognize that your own culture and preconceived notions is coloring that kind of thing from the very beginning and you are likely losing subtle and not so subtle differences that make every culture and society in the world and all the events in their development completely unique.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1349651177' post='2491028']
While it's not for me to tell you what to find compelling or not, I will just say that this is largely determined by causes other than Catholicism itself. As a member of the western world who experiences life in a western way, then a western religion like Catholicism is naturally going to seem not only more compelling but more rational. That's not just true about Catholicism, of course. Someone formed in American individualism is better disposed to accept the Protestant / Evangelical conception of a "personal relationship" and an "altar call" faith. Someone formed in Catholic Europe less so. Someone formed in Hindu India even less so.[/quote]Are you basing your decision off of general trends or personal convictions? I don't think you'll find general trends satisfying, but I honestly can't say that with certainty.

[quote]Certainly, religions are "different" but they all share fundamental patterns: conception of divinity and/or mystery, taboos, clerical leadership, integration with culture, legends and holy / wise men, sacred texts, miraculous events and supernatural visions, etc etc. There are many different variations in these patterns, but the patterns are common to humanity. The early Christians didn't deny that the pagans had supernatural dealings, the Christians just attributed the pagan dealings to demonic deception. That's certainly a convenient explanation.[/quote]But they all use and interpret them very differently. Our relationship to our sacred texts are extremely different. Catholics have a Scripture/Tradition approach; many Protestants do Sola Scriptura but then realize that Scripture comes through Tradition and cannot be separated from it; Hinduism has multiple Sacred texts, but then often looks at the Bhagavad Gita for its more authentic understanding of life; Muslims see the Koran as God's word dictated directly through the Angel Gabriel to Mohammed.

All I'm trying to say is that there is something special about religion, otherwise billions of people in the course of human history would not have committed to religion in the way they have. Don't dismiss religion as something always extrinsic to people; sometimes it becomes a part of who they are.

[quote]Muslims in Saudi Arabia "trust in those who have preceded them" just as much as Catholics in America do. They believe in their saints and miracles just as much as you do.[/quote]Well, yes and no, but that's not really relevant here. What I meant is that you have to see EWTN and other such resources as part of a larger whole. They haven't just accepted the narrative they give. They present that narrative to a particular group of people, but they realize full well that they aren't giving the whole story.

The more you come to know in theology, however, the more I think that narrative holds out. I've been studying theology for something like 9 years straight now. The more I learn, the more I stick to that when explaining things to those who know very little and are just beginning. I think telling people all the intricacies up front is pointless, but I'm more than willing to address them as they arise in my class. I'm very comfortable telling the story of the Council of Nicaea that says it is the triumph of the Church over Arianism. The council determines once and for all the Church's belief in Christ's full divinity. Historical circumstances over the next 55 years or so don't change this fact, they ensure it. The simpler narrative isn't wrong, even if it isn't up to a doctoral level of analysis. Most people aren't up for that right away and tend to get confused/discouraged by the [b][i]amount[/i][/b] of material available.

[quote]Religions aren't just religions, they're civilizations. That's why imposing religion (and language, and economy, etc.) is important for colonial powers. Christianity did not triumph apart from force and colonialism...and that's one of the biggest arguments against it. The Christian faith narrative is that the blood of the martyrs converted the world, but that's not quite true. Christianity is all too human (though the Gospel itself is something different from Christianity as a social religion). That doesn't have to make Christianity a "villain"...it just makes it a human enterprise, like all the other human enterprises we call religion.
[/quote]
I don't understand your last paragraph. Christianity thrived better before it had the force of civil authority behind it. In fact, Christianity went through a crisis of sorts when the persecutions stopped it.

As for the martyrs, there were whole cults devoted to them. Martyrs were often more revered than bishops and wielded tons of authority. It was a big deal when St. Cyprian of Carthage and Pope Leo the Great began to ward off their works through new teachings. I can direct you to a series of books on this topic. I didn't say that you've tried to villainize Christianity (or I didn't mean to), but it's certainly not a cultural thing you can choose to join or not. You might see it as a particular history in the West (although this ignores the influence it has also exerted in the East), but that doesn't change how Christianity sees itself. No one can truly determine that for any group of people.

[Era Might]

Thanks, Aloysius. I'll just respond briefly to two main points you make:

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1349651888' post='2491032']your assertion is that Christianity began as a loose community without any institutional mindset; to which I would ask you to prove that assertion... they came out of the Hebrew religion and they knew very well how to organize an institutional "religion"/organization/community; it'd be like insinuating that in the early stages Martin Luther's movement was just an amorphous blob and after some failed expectations finally acquiesced and became institutional; no, just like Martin Luther came from an existing institution and created a competing one, so too did the early Christians form a competing institutional group from the very onset.[/quote]
If we're speaking of an "institution" merely as an organized enterprise, then of course it was always present in Christianity...it's next to impossible to have any kind of concerted enterprise without organization of some sort. I don't believe Christianity (or, rather, the Gospel) was the absence of community, but a turning of those old categories on their heads. Christianity was a new thing where leaders would be slaves, where the first would be last, where if a man asked for your shirt you would give him your cloak as well. One example is St. Paul's explicit admonishment about Christians taking each other to court rather than dealing with it as between brothers. The Gospel was based on very different principles than the old religious categories present in Judaism and other religions. But just a few centuries later Christians are not merely taking each other to court, but they have become the court. That's the real scandal of Christianity, not that there are sinners, but that the fundamental newness and freedom that the Gospel made possible was lost.

[quote]None of this is designed to give you back your faith; if you don't have it, I can't give it to you, that's for you to figure out in your journey... but I do think some of the points you are making are missing some of the picture and transposing onto the time periods the same kind of anachronisms (just in reverse) that you see apologists generally transposing in defense of the Church... but as was said earlier in the thread, there is always more to the story. one needs to be wary of any type of theoretical answer that seeks to explain away the entire history of humanity into any category, and recognize that your own culture and preconceived notions is coloring that kind of thing from the very beginning and you are likely losing subtle and not so subtle differences that make every culture and society in the world and all the events in their development completely unique.
[/quote]
With this I can absolutely agree. I am as much a product of my times as anyone else...the questions I start with are largely determined by subjective factors. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing, so long as we're aware of it. It's what makes respect for the past possible without worshipping the past. That's what I was getting at in my previous post when I said I can't really buy into the narrative, but I can buy into the conversation. Each person in the conversation was acting in an historically and personally limited context, but that's what makes each person unique. But I think we can also draw from that a certain dose of healthy relativism and skepticism.

Edited October 7, 2012 by Era Might

[Winchester]

I think it's all that Jerry Springer you're watching.

[Era Might]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1349652679' post='2491036']Christianity thrived better before it had the force of civil authority behind it. In fact, Christianity went through a crisis of sorts when the persecutions stopped it.[/quote]
This is a large topic which we can't really go into here. You're right that the end of persecutions presented a new problem: Christians had nobody to fear but themselves (lol). This is partly how monasticism got started, Christians fleeing to get away from all the drama among Christians. But the real "triumph" of Christianity came about because Christianity gradually phased out the civil role that paganism played. There were other factors, of course. For example, after a few centuries Christianity had been around for a while and pagans were growing used to it being around (like Judaism had been previously). But Christianity triumphed when it filled the civil function that paganism had once filled.

[quote]Martyrs were often more revered than bishops and wielded tons of authority. It was a big deal when St. Cyprian of Carthage and Pope Leo the Great began to ward off their works through new teachings. I can direct you to a series of books on this topic.[/quote]
Indeed, the martyrs were the early face of the ascetic ideal, and that moral authority was somewhat threatening to the authority claimed by the bishops (prophets presented the same threat to authority and had to be reigned in). That's why today "apparitions" are such an institutional process...it's a threat to church authority for someone to claim access to heaven that hasn't been vetted through the bishops. In the early church the institutional infrastructure was very different and groups like the Montanists presented problems for this reason. As the early phenomena of martyrs died out, the monks became the new superheroes. I would definitely be interested in getting the titles of those books.

[quote]I didn't say that you've tried to villainize Christianity (or I didn't mean to), but it's certainly not a cultural thing you can choose to join or not. You might see it as a particular history in the West (although this ignores the influence it has also exerted in the East), but that doesn't change how Christianity sees itself. No one can truly determine that for any group of people.
[/quote]
I would say certainly religion also has a personal dimension...the dimension of belief, of personality, etc. But it is also largely a cultural thing and always has been. This is one of the difficulties of early christian texts...just because the spokesmen said one thing, doesn't mean they represented the actual situation "on the ground" where people were not as motivated with the same personal zeal. The persecutions brought out much of these problems with people lapsing, martyrs giving out "passes" to get people pardoned and bishops worried these passes were being given out indiscriminately, etc. The church's internal problems did not begin with its triumph...the triumph simply brought the problems to more prominence, and the emperor became involved in mediating them. (My comment about the church as "villain" was not directed at you, I was just referencing something Socrates had said in a previous post). One just has to read St. Paul's epistles to see how many problems there were in Christian communities.

Edited October 7, 2012 by Era Might

[Anomaly]

"In truth I don't know the answer to your lament. But then do you need a logical reason for everything you do? Do you always have to have conclusive proof? How can a creative person create if everything is already proven? Cannot you do anything by love, faith or trust? Cannot you remove the plank from your eye and the chip from your shoulder?"


I hve no chip on my shoulder and my eyes work fine, thank you. I have no innate hatred of vchristianity, and in fact have much in common with some Christian values. Almost my entire family, friends, and people I love and respect are Catholic. There are some things I no longer could lie to myself about, fake, or ignore.
Virtuous and altruistic deeds are done daily by non Christians and atheists, so yes, logic and reason for our actions aren't required. But it is something else to act without reason as compared to deliberately act against principles and values.

I think Era is pointing out that Religion has always been more than a shared belief in a Diety, but an almalgamation of philosophy, superstition, culture, sociological necessity, societal institution, community behavior, governing power, and all the other ways humanity deals with the unknown and work out how to deal with each others as creatures more intelligent than the average beehive.

I see no overwhelming evidence of any religion being divinely superior to any other. I see no evidence of a superior theory of a god in any religion that is transcendent of culture and historical happenstance.

All humanity has a shared existence on this planet for a relatively short period of time. Shared ideas and values (the realities of true empathy) are what helps us cooperate and guided our evolvement into more than the dominant predators in the ecosystem. Sometimes it's helped by religions, often times hindered. I don't pray to a God I can't believe in nor repress what I believe are desired virtues to a corrupted societal construct. Many aspects of my life, relationships with family and friends, and even a more robust social life would be significantly easier if I continued to profess Catholicism or a belief in a God.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1349633780' post='2490955']
Sorry, but your responses to me just prove that we're having two different conversations. I know you believe what you believe, but it's not even your beliefs I'm questioning, it's the categories you believe in and the assumptions and premises you bring to those categories. The answers you come up with largely depends on the questions you start with, and you and I are asking very different questions. You're trying to convince me that your faith is reasonable and true. But that's not the conversation I'm having. My faith cannot be salvaged by Catholic apologetics. I guess there is something of the post-modern and relativistic in me, and the only way to change that is to live in a fantasy world of a past that's not coming back. That's the cognitive dissonance of being a Christian today, although played out in different ways, whether it's EWTN types trying to defend the reasonable "development of doctrine" and prove that everything has played out nice and orderly, whether it's the real traditionalists who refuse to abandon their fantasy of a pre-Vatican II church, whether it's the deluded liberals who believe that Christianity has been what they wish it was all along, etc.[/quote]

Sorry, but I think the point of posting on a message board should be to communicate with others, and have a coherent conversation, and I've asked you to clarify some things that you said that I apparently did not understand correctly, but you continue to be vague and evasive and change the subject.
I really don't see what the point of posting is if you're only talking to yourself in your own made-up language which only obfuscates your message to others.

Your comments in earlier posts seemed to claim that the Church's teachings on abortion and marriage are simply the result of current middle-class American fixations, and that the Church (or "historical Christianity") originally was okay with abortion and sexual immorality.

But it seems you're unwilling to either defend your original statements or to clarify them, if in fact I misunderstood them.


And yes, there are nuts and heretics on both the extreme "rad-trad" right and the liberal left - just as there have been various heretics and dissidents throughout the Church's history - but as neither of them truly "reps the Church," their views don't trouble my faith. That's why we have the authority of the pope and magisterium. And EWTN is not infallible, though from what I've heard of them, they sound pretty solid.

I'm not sure what your point is there; that since different people claiming to be Catholic disagree, the Faith can't be true?


[quote]Mother Teresa, St. Paul, St. Augustine...all of them have an historical context. I recommended by the book "Pagans and Christians" by Robin Lane Fox in my previous post. He does a lot of the work of putting the Christian mind in historical context. For example, examining the Christian conception of martyrdom and and how it is tied up in things like textual accounts of martyrdom, social make-ups, etc. One example that Fox examines is Constantine's "vision" and how claims to visions usually followed patterns. In the early church there was no real iconography, and christian "visions" reflected this lack of mental image (e.g., in the book of Revelation the vision of Christ with seven horns and seven eyes is not at all realistic, whereas modern visions are: e.g., St. Faustina's depiction). Previous pagan visions were also influenced by pre-existing expectations (through depictions of the gods, Homer, etc.) In other words, in visions people generally see 1) What they know, and 2) What they want to see.

After Constantine, as the church has more room to develop art and a christian culture, the visions become more specific, and the legends of saints pick up into the medieval age. One could study modern "visions" in the same way. And one can study beliefs in the same way. It's not an attack upon Christians to put them into historical, social, etc. context, though, naturally, Christians aren't very open to that since they have to preserve their faith narrative, which I understand and sympathize with, but can't go along with anymore.

I'm not against things such as legends of the saints, heroes, etc. but I can't confuse them with reality either. It's a convenient belief to imagine that Constantine saw a vision, conquered by the power of Christ, and the hand of Providence guided Christianity into power. But when you read an actual analysis of history, such as Fox's book, you see how complex things are, and above all, you see that the legends can be explored rationally.[/quote]
My point was that orthodox Christian teaching on abortion, marriage and sexual morality has not changed since Christ, and that these moral teachings are not modern American middle-class inventions, but the changeless moral teachings of the Church.

The idea of a sexually libertine, "pro-choice" early Church is simply a liberal fantasy with no actual basis in historical fact.

The rest of your post, while interesting, is irrelevant to my point. Christian art and visions may change in different eras and cultures, but that has nothing to do with moral doctrine - which you have still failed to demonstrate that it has changed. Your "argument" once again is an incoherent non-sequitor.
St. John's Apocalypse use highly-symbolic imagery, while other visions were more literal; so what's the point?

Besides, the Church is not primarily based on visions. Beyond the revelation to St. John, in fact, the Church does not require that we believe in any particular visions.

Also, keep in mind that the Emperor Constantine has no magisterial authority in the Church, nor was canonized as a saint - in fact he only was baptized a Christian on his death bed - and thus the controversies regarding him and his ideas or visions are largely irrelevant regarding the truths of the Faith. Personally, I see no reason to deny the truth of Constantine's vision, and I think he certainly did good by legalizing Christianity in the empire; but again this is all a tangent which does not prove or disprove any Catholic doctrine.

Edited October 8, 2012 by Socrates

[Era Might]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1349656171' post='2491056']
I really don't see what the point of posting is if you're only talking to yourself in your own made-up language which only obfuscates your message to others.
[/quote]
Because I know people here. If I wanted to have an apologetics debate I'd go to the Catholic Answers forum where I don't know anybody. That's not what I post on Phatmass for.

[quote][color=#282828][font=Open Sans', sans-serif]The idea of a sexually libertine, "pro-choice" early Church is simply a liberal fantasy with no actual basis in historical fact.[/quote][/font][/color]
I never claimed such a thing.

[color=#282828][font=Open Sans', sans-serif][quote]Christian art and visions may change in different eras and cultures, but that has nothing to do with moral doctrine - which you have still failed to demonstrate that it has changed. Your "argument" once again is an incoherent non-sequitor.[/quote][/font][/color]
[color=#282828][font=Open Sans', sans-serif]Art is very relevant to the history of ideas, including theological ideas. Art, like religion, like politics, like literature, is how people and societies express themselves.[/font][/color]

Edited October 8, 2012 by Era Might

[Era Might]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1349656171' post='2491056']Your comments in earlier posts seemed to claim that the Church's teachings on abortion and marriage are simply the result of current middle-class American fixations, and that the Church (or "historical Christianity") originally was okay with abortion and sexual immorality.[/quote]
That's not what I claimed, but I know I'm incomprehensible to you, so we can drop it. Rest easy in your faith, Socrates, I have no interest in convincing you away from your faith.

Edited October 8, 2012 by Era Might

[Socrates]

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1349635170' post='2490964']
I don't think Catholicism is a "villain" in history. Just the opposite, I'm claiming that Catholicism is remarkably like all other characters in history: it follows identifiable patterns of sociology, development, myth, etc.

My problems with Christianity qua Christianity is not on an historical level but on a spiritual level...I see Christian history as the gradual corruption of a beautiful thing (the Gospel of Christ). I don't see history as either the ascent or decline of Christianity, but as its corruption and transmogrification.[/quote]
When you speak of "Christianity qua Christianity" are you referring to Christian doctrine, or the behavior of Christians?

There have always been saints and sinners, heroes and villians, wheat and chaffe, throughout the history of the Church, even among Christ's Apostles. Judas, one of the Twelve, betrayed Christ for 30 pieces of silver. Even Peter, the first Pope, denied Christ three times. And there are exactly two people in history whose lives were without sin - Jesus Christ and His Blessed Mother.

And yes, most of us will agree that these are in general, bad times in the Church. Yet even today, there is holiness and sanctity in the Church.

You still have yet to show how Catholic/Christian doctrine has been "corrupted" from the past.


[quote]As far as bias in history, of course there is bias...but Christian historians are also biased. To cite Fox's book "Pagans and Christians" again, he closes the book looking at Eusebius and Lactantius and their intentions as historians in the Constantinian age. The eschatological expectation of Christianity had faded, and Christians were now facing an unexpected turn of events: not the end of the world, but the beginning of a christian world. Fox explores how Eusebius and Lactantius, as Christian historians, were trying to come to grips with that, and Fox has an extended analysis of Constantine's own speech on Good Friday in 324 and how Constantine was trying to define that new age in history by, for example, using pre-Christian pagan sources such as Virgil to suggest that Christianity is an unfolding historical prophecy. But Constantine's use of Virgil has some very embarrassing mistakes, as Fox examines.

Christians accept the early Christian texts uncritically, because they accept those texts through the lens of faith. But when one puts the texts and authors into context, the plot thickens.[/quote]
I don't think there's any such thing as history with absolutely no bias. To be coherent, any historical narrative has to have a point of view. My point was simply that you can't always automatically trust non-Catholic historians over Catholics regarding the Church (or vise-versa, for that matter).

Again, as the views of Constantine have no magisterial authority in the Church - the man was not even baptized until his deathbed! - this is basically irrelevant to the truth of the Faith.

Frankly, whether Constantine was right or wrong regarding Virgil and such has absolutely no bearing on the truth of the Christian Faith.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1349656387' post='2491058']
Because I know people here. If I wanted to have an apologetics debate I'd go to the Catholic Answers forum where I don't know anybody. That's not what I post on Phatmass for.[/quote]
If you have no interest in communicating, I suppose that's your problem.

[quote][/font][/color]
I never claimed such a thing.[/quote]
Okay. I'm just genuinely curious as to what you [i]did[/i] claim.
But if you're not interesting in sharing that with us, I'll leave you alone.



[quote]Art is very relevant to the history of ideas, including theological ideas. Art, like religion, like politics, like literature, is how people and societies express themselves.[/quote]
True, but pointing out that styles of Christian art have changed through history does not in the least prove that Christian dogma has changed.


[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1349657026' post='2491064']
That's not what I claimed, but I know I'm incomprehensible to you, so we can drop it. Rest easy in your faith, Socrates, I have no interest in convincing you away from your faith.
[/quote]
Again, I was interested in having a two-way conversation, but if you have no interest in communicating and explaining your idea, I'll leave you in peace.

[Ice_nine]

WIsh I could join the convo, but I'm so friggin exhausted and I'd be out of my league anyhow.

Era I've always appreciated your view on things. I think you bring a radically different perspective than what I'm used to and it's good to have that. It's too bad you lost your faith, although you may say an apology is unnecessary. Sux bro.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1349654871' post='2491049']


I hve no chip on my shoulder and my eyes work fine, thank you.
[/quote]
Have you been involved in drama or taken lessons? You do a great impersonation of someone who has been blinded to truth and carries an awful large chip on teh shoulder!


[quote]
I have no innate hatred of vchristianity, and in fact have much in common with some Christian values. Almost my entire family, friends, and people I love and respect are Catholic.

[/quote]
Interesting concept! You don't dismiss Christian teachings and values because those whom you love and respect demonstrate it to you. Yet you don't believe in God? God the father is the central intellect, But he is more than that. Through his son, his human/divinity and his spirit which is all that is good he is all those things that you find to your liking and could not exist without.

[quote]There are some things I no longer could lie to myself about, fake, or ignore.[/quote]
Okay I get that you've observed that this physical reality is a fallen one, full of evil and deception and falseness. But what do you have against the prospect of a dream, a dream that could be a reality for you if you were to make it so? One where you can observe perfection.


[quote]Virtuous and altruistic deeds are done daily by non Christians and atheists, so yes, logic and reason for our actions aren't required. [/quote]
Undoubtedy! All humans were made in the image of God and I'm not referring to my ugly face. I'm talking ethos. So even atheists can live in the heart of Christ. The problem for most is to let Jesus not only exist in their hearts but also to their minds. Their entire being!

[quote]I think Era is pointing out that Religion has always been more than a shared belief in a Diety, but an almalgamation of philosophy, superstition, culture, sociological necessity, societal institution, community behavior, governing power, and all the other ways humanity deals with the unknown and work out how to deal with each others as creatures more intelligent than the average beehive.

I see no overwhelming evidence of any religion being divinely superior to any other. I see no evidence of a superior theory of a god in any religion that is transcendent of culture and historical happenstance.[/quote]
Era is quite right on religions being truth that was molded to suit culture, superstition, ethnicity and all manner of human habits. They were born from their traditional roots. However Christianity arose from tradition that opposed and repressed it. The Romans were militant, the Jews stuck on their own harsh traditions and earth bound concepts. This conflict resulted in the crucifixion of it's creator. Ever since then humans have tried to mold Christianity to suit their own particular desires. But like a rock that is thrown into the air that keeps coming back, Christianity keeps moving back to it's core values because they are truth and you cannot suppress truth indefinitely.


[quote]All humanity has a shared existence on this planet for a relatively short period of time. Shared ideas and values (the realities of true empathy) are what helps us cooperate and guided our evolvement into more than the dominant predators in the ecosystem. Sometimes it's helped by religions, often times hindered. I don't pray to a God I can't believe in nor repress what I believe are desired virtues to a corrupted societal construct. Many aspects of my life, relationships with family and friends, and even a more robust social life would be significantly easier if I continued to profess Catholicism or a belief in a God.[/quote]
Religion is a very common excuse for evil acts or reason for good acts, but in actuality have little cause to do with evil but much to cause good. The leaders of those that do evil have other selfish reasons and use religion to fool their followers. Those such as missionaries know that what they do is for their religion and truth. There are many countries where war and evil is committed for reason of ethnicity and land as well as those that do the same using religion as the excuse. I mean humans will commit evil in the name of religion to gain power, wealth and all those cold troublesome unsatisfying physical possessions. But many also do good for loves sake which is richly rewarding. I'm sure you have experienced that what you do for your loved ones is more satisfying than what you do selfishly. To do things out of love and then deny the existence of God is a contradiction. God is not a person, he is all those things that you find pleasing and cherish. More importantly than praying to God you have to live God. Our relationship really is one of a parent and child. Do you expect your children to bow down to you or do you dote on and worship them as being more important than yourself even though you are the boss and their teacher? A priest once said in a homily that we need God but God doesn't need us. I disagree! God created us because love cannot exist as a sole entity. For us to love God he had to give us free will to choose it. All those that you love are independent beings that love God but ironically by love we are all one with God.

[BarbTherese]

Much this thread as it has developed is beyond me and well and truly out of league also. But I did take to[i] [i]a[/i] great deal[/i] of what[i] [/i]Mark of The Cross had to say in the previous post - Post #59. Just watched a video by Jimmy Akin, apologist with Catholic Answers, and I do take to the way he can present complex matters so even such as I can understand. If we are going to evangelize, we need to be able to explain what we believe and the why's of it all and to answer questions if asked. [u]Just as an aside[/u], I have taken to the way that the difference between evangelizing and proselytizing has been underscored in relation to the Synod of Bishops which commenced on 7th Oct 2012 last.

It is not at all uncommon when one's concepts about God are broken and deconstructed to have a feeling that one is either loosing or has lost one's Faith. Not uncommon at all for those who do go through deconstructions/loss of their existing concepts about a 'god'. One is not necessarily loosing one's Faith at all unless one decides to simply 'chuck the baby out with the bathwater'. What one is loosing is faith in one's preconceived concepts and what is a false image of God. And if one does not do the latter and 'chuck the baby out', it is Faith per se that will take one through the crisis and the darkness, the impasse, to the other side of crisis and impasse, the other side of darkness, and greener pastures of trust and confidence. That's the best way such as I can put it I think. God is "I Am Who Am". Athiests, and I am not inferring that anyone posting is an athiest, might be closer to the truth of matters than they realize; well, just possibly closer than some who have a clearly conceived image of God and claim to know all about God per se.

Edited October 9, 2012 by BarbaraTherese