The Non-existence Of God

[Era Might]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1350565604' post='2494403']You probably wouldn't be too far wrong to label us both as modernists of the enlightened philosophy variety, but labels and definitions are always subject to miscommunication.
[/quote]
I wouldn't put myself in the "Enlightenment" camp. Socrates is correct that Western modernity owes its existence to Christianity. But while he credits that to Christianity's glory, I credit it to Christianity's shame. Our modern conceptions had their roots largely in the Christian middle ages. It is true that Christianity introduced a new conception of "personality" to social history, though Americans interpret this in their own anachronistic way. And I do not read the modern culture wars as a de-Christianization but as as the logical conclusion of "Christian" civilization. To me, Christian history is not the flowering of Christian ideas but the gradual corruption of the original Christian idea of freedom and vocation (in the sense of calling). Christian history began as a supernatural athletic contest, a war not against flesh and blood etc., but Western Christianity has become the lifeless, institutionalized, irrelevant relic that it is today. Our modern secular conceptions often have their roots in originally Christian ideas. The modern social worker and peace corps type has taken the place of the missionaries of old, going to the ends of the earth to rescue to infidel from his ignorance. This was a gradual process, of course. In the early church the "Other" was conceived of as "the pagan," later as "the infidel," later (as modernity dawned) as the wild rebel against civilized manners (increasingly seen in economic terms), later as the poor uneducated native who exists alongside civilization, and finally, in contemporary times, the "Other" is the underdeveloped third world man who needs "development" on a massive social scale (with all our secular missionaries we can spare). There is no doubt that modernity owes its existence to Christianity...it's just unfortunate how blind Christianity is to its own mutations. Christianity has become just another social service agency (and Christians will be the first to point it out as an apologetic device). That original supernatural athletic contest where "many are called and few are chosen" disappeared from the earth early in Christian history. It was replaced by many things over the centuries. I do not look at modernity as an Enlightenment, but as another step in long corruption of Christianity. And I speak of "corruption" not as the presence of sinners or corrupt men, but corruption in the sense of taking something and turning it into something else. There's an old Latin proverb "corruptio optimi pessima est"..."the corruption of the best is the worst".

Of course, one could argue that this was the "plan" all along, that Christianity was meant to be another world religion, biding its time until Christ's return. But I don't buy that. To believe in the Gospel is to believe in something that never existed except in theory, or else existed very briefly in human history. And perhaps one could keep one's faith knowing that it did (and does) exist in theory. But that gets back to one of my previous points, that to be a Christian today is to live in a self-constructed historical fantasy world that doesn't exist. I think it's possible to be a Christian today and live and understand the Gospel, but it has to be done largely on the margins of "official" Christianity, at least as far as I can see, from where I'm standing. But this scandalizes people of a different temperament for whom the institutional history of the church is its anchor, so it's better if I don't press my opinion too far, and let people be where they are.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Era Might

[Socrates]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1350565604' post='2494403']
You're right, it isn't free from bias. It's written by a Catholic, and was peer reviewed by other Catholic Academia. It's a book used in many Catholic schools, etc. Check it out on Amazon and read his preface, ask opinions about it from Catholic Scholars. The bias is from the other end of the spectrum, it's very pro-Catholic Church and very positive.[/quote]
Unfortunately, today, the author calling himself Catholic, and being popular among "Catholic" academia really doesn't mean jack squat. But I'll reserve judgment on it until I actually read the book.

I really haven't seen any compelling specific arguments put forth on this thread against the truth of the Catholic Faith, beyond the shocking revelation that there have been plenty of members of the Church on earth who have failed to live up to the moral teachings of the Faith.

[quote]I readily admit the Catholic Church has been more than 'largely' a force for good in history. The Church still is mostly a force for good in global society and mostly a positive good in today's culture as well. As an institution that generally has identified positive virtues and values and mostly promotes them, I welcome it. I also acknowledge, as any reasonable Catholic should, these same principles are evident and worthy whether they're being promoted by the RC Church, Islam, or the Taoist Tai-Chi Society.[/quote]
As the Church has long taught the idea of natural law morality - that moral principles are imprinted on the hearts of all men, and can be known by natural reason - you'll find little argument from me here.

However, I believe the Church has certainly taught these principles of morality more consistently and strongly than any other religion or philosophy, and many precepts, such as the inherent value and dignity of all human life are not so universally recognized. Most atheists are perfectly okay with abortion, for example, and abortion and infanticide have been common practices in both many pre-Christian pagan societies, as well as with most modern pagans and atheists. (While you profess atheism, you do seem to hold on to Judeao-Christian notions of the intrinsic value of human life, for instance, which most atheists do not share.) There are also some significant differences in some of the moral teachings of say, Christianity and Islam, though that's getting into a whole other debate.

For me, the way the Catholic Church continues to consistently teach unpopular moral principles that almost everyone else (including most non-Catholic Christian denominations) reject, helps prove her divine moral teaching authority.

[quote]My money, time and energy that I can dedicate to propaganda is limited. I'll probably will pass.[/quote]
Whatever. Actually, the author of that book is not Catholic, but an agnostic who has declared himself "personally incapable of religious faith," but who believes Christianity to be a positive cultural/sociological influence, and dispells many of the popular historical myths regarding Christian Faith as oppressive and opposed to science and reason. I recommended that book to you deliberately, rather than others by Christian/Catholic authors, as it is not a work of Christian apologetics.

But if you automatically dismiss any work as "propaganda" simply because it takes a favorable view of Christianity, I'm afraid that says a lot more about you and your own close-minded prejudice on that matter than it does about the work in question.

[quote]I've got all that. 12 years of Catholic School Education, training to be a CCD teacher, teaching CCD and Confirmation Classes for a few years, not to mention the many years here at PM. pretty much inculcated me with a solid understanding of Catholicism.

As far as this topic that Era started, I think it we are both saying that the virtues of natural law are recognizable to reasonble humans of any culture and society, understanding of them develops, and are expressed in the religions and beliefs that are particular to the culture and societal influences that are most 'viable' at certain times in history. I think Era is saying that there is no Divine favorite and guidance.
You probably wouldn't be too far wrong to label us both as modernists of the enlightened philosophy variety, but labels and definitions are always subject to miscommunication.[/quote]
Plenty of people with far more background knowledge and study of the Catholic Faith than yourself have accepted the truth of the Catholic Faith, including those originally from non-Catholic or non-Christian backgrounds, so you're really not proving anything by touting your Catholic cred.

Again, I find the Catholic moral teachings to be the most consistent and truthful out there, and far from following the cultural and societal influences of society, the Church has stood firm in its teachings even when they are directly opposed to the culture and society of the time (as they are today).

And without divine favor and guidance, by any human standards, the institution of the Church should have died out many times already, yet lives on, despite many attempts throughout history to destroy the Church and the Faith. Maybe not "proof" in the strict scientific sense, but powerful testimony.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Socrates

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1349982429' post='2492362']
Just out of curiosity, how many women are you?
[/quote]

Mockery will get you more time in purgatory, and possibly hell if you make a child of GOD fall. For jesus said. "if any of you make one of these little ones fall it would be better for he to have a weight tide around his neck and chuck into the middle of an ocean."

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye' timestamp='1350609990' post='2494616']
Mockery will get you more time in purgatory, and possibly hell if you make a child of GOD fall. For jesus said. "if any of you make one of these little ones fall it would be better for he to have a weight tide around his neck and chuck into the middle of an ocean."
[/quote]
I interpreted that USAirways was making some light hearted humour out of a misspelling. I doubt that the comment is likely to cause anyone any severe pain. On the other hand Jesus was quite blunt at times. So obviously he thought some pain was beneficial to some people. So it is likely US had that right in this case even though it shouldn't have bothered anyone.
[quote]Jesus swore. Brood of Vipers, Whited Sepulchres were akin to swear words in His culture. And He had a sense of humour "Go tell that Old Fox" he tells those Herod had sent to enquire after Him.[/quote]

And my understanding of your scriptural quote is regarding things done to children that could cause them to lead a lesser life. I don't think ACS67 is a child apart from one of God unless there's something you know which we don't

Edited October 19, 2012 by Mark of the Cross

[Seven77]

Era,

If the ancient Church were to extend throughout the ages, what *would* it look like today? I'm firmly convinced that the supernatural athletic contest is taking place here and now--and there is much at sake. The Kingdom of God is always at hand in every single age until the end of time! How do you know that there is not a finish line for you to cross?

Ultimately (1.) the Gospel is really true, or (2.) life has no meaning.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Seven77' timestamp='1350681112' post='2495017']
If the ancient Church were to extend throughout the ages, what *would* it look like today?[/quote]
Well, it'd look the same as it always has: full of sinners, ambitious priests and bishops, lapsing heretics, renegade prophets and visionaries, martyrs and saints, etc. I don't look to the ancient church as the "pure" church. What has changed is that the Gospel has ceased to exist as a real standard of Christianity. St. Paul detailed all the sins and problems in the ancient church, but what St. Paul believed in was very different from what the church today believes in. As he beautifully expresses in his letters, the Gospel was something profoundly new and free. It was a vocation, a calling...it wasn't a centerpiece of some "Christian civilization," it wasn't a social service agency, it wasn't the chaplain of the State, it wasn't an institutionally defined organization. It was a fragile communion of people who had responded to an amazing and unexpected vocation or calling, bound together by the law of love. It was not a synthesis of faith and reason, but a scandalous foolishness that hung on a tree. It was a virgin waiting with a foolish hope for the return of a man who they believed to be risen from the dead.

[quote name='Seven77' timestamp='1350681112' post='2495017']I'm firmly convinced that the supernatural athletic contest is taking place here and now--and there is much at sake. The Kingdom of God is always at hand in every single age until the end of time! How do you know that there is not a finish line for you to cross?[/quote]
Well I certainly won't say that there are not admirable people who live remarkable lives rooted in the Gospel. I don't say that the Gospel has disappeared from people's lives...only that it has disappeared as an actual defining characteristic of Christianity. The Pope doesn't get it. The bishops don't get it. The priests don't get it. And, because of that, I can't blame the people for not getting it. The Pope is a relic, a symbol, a useless institution. I don't believe that leadership or priesthood, in theory, is useless...only that what these have become in Christianity has nothing to do with the foolish message that Christ and St. Paul preached. The Pope is a spokesman for Western Civilization. If he was in danger, he'd beef up his security. If somebody infringed on Vatican intellectual property, they'd be prosecuted. The foolishness of the cross, the law of love and the community that the Gospel made possible, disappeared with the ancient church, and in its place came another world religion called Christianity. The church has become what the Pharisees were to ancient Judaism, a dead institution with dead leaders who have no ears to hear or eyes to see. Theology has become about explaining away the power of what Christ said...he didn't *really* means to turn the other cheek or give your cloak, not if you accurately calculate the criteria of just war or if you're an American with a second amendment right to bear arms...then, of course, he was speaking in a nuanced way...this is how we've deluded ourselves in different ways throughout the centuries.

[quote name='Seven77' timestamp='1350681112' post='2495017']Utimately (1.) the Gospel is really true, or (2.) life has no meaning.
[/quote]
Perhaps the Gospel really is true, but if so it has not much to do with what passes for Christianity in the church. Contrary to what some might assume, I'm actually not an advocate for wild deviations from the Gospel. My problem is not with the Gospel, but that the Gospel has no historical community. It existed as a brief fire in human history, and has since lived on only in shadows and dark corners. I do not believe in a Gospel that is devoid of an actual community, the church that the Gospel brought forth. But I can't accept the institution as "the church." I can't accept the idea that that is what the Gospel idea was about. It's not the presence of sinners or even power hungry clerics that have destroyed my faith, but the fact that nobody who speaks for the church acts as though they were heirs to what St. Paul believed in, a foolish vocation where there can be no compulsion, no assurance, not even success...there can only be witness to the vocation and fragile brotherhood in a community where love is the law that binds.

Perhaps life has no meaning...that's been my essential point, that we all construct meaning in our own ways, and Christians have constructed meaning in changing ways through the centuries, as does everyone else. But I do not deny that the Gospel was a beautiful idea.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Era Might

[Socrates]

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1350685588' post='2495111']
Well, it'd look the same as it always has: full of sinners, ambitious priests and bishops, lapsing heretics, renegade prophets and visionaries, martyrs and saints, etc. I don't look to the ancient church as the "pure" church. What has changed is that the Gospel has ceased to exist as a real standard of Christianity. St. Paul detailed all the sins and problems in the ancient church, but what St. Paul believed in was very different from what the church today believes in. As he beautifully expresses in his letters, the Gospel was something profoundly new and free. It was a vocation, a calling...it wasn't a centerpiece of some "Christian civilization," it wasn't a social service agency, it wasn't the chaplain of the State, it wasn't an institutionally defined organization. It was a fragile communion of people who had responded to an amazing and unexpected vocation or calling, bound together by the law of love. It was not a synthesis of faith and reason, but a scandalous foolishness that hung on a tree. It was a virgin waiting with a foolish hope for the return of a man who they believed to be risen from the dead.


Well I certainly won't say that there are not admirable people who live remarkable lives rooted in the Gospel. I don't say that the Gospel has disappeared from people's lives...only that it has disappeared as an actual defining characteristic of Christianity. The Pope doesn't get it. The bishops don't get it. . .

[/quote]
Well, it's nice to know that Era Might on Phatmass gets what has somehow eluded the Popes and bishops and everyone else in the Church for all those centuries.
We can toss out all that reading of Catholic teaching, and simply read his unprecedented wisdom on teh interwebz.

It seems that you are discouraged that many in the Church today are lukewarm, and do not have the original spiritual zeal of the original Apostles. I think that many of us Catholics (including the Pope) would agree that a lot more of this zeal for living the Gospel is needed in the Church today.

However, i think you are dead wrong in your assertions that there is absolutely no one in the Church today (or since the first century or so) living the Gospel. I can't speak for your own personal experience, but I've been fortunate enough to know many Catholics (including priests and religious) who are living lives of genuine holiness, and genuinely doing their part to live the Gospel as far as their state in life allows.
My parish priest for instance is genuinely focused on saving souls, and doesn't view the Church as merely another meals on wheels charitable institution.

If you want to look at the lives of Christians who were exemplary in living the Gospel, just read the lives of the saints. You won't find many lukewarm Christians or bloodless bureaucrats among them. But of, course, if you are going to dismiss them all as lies, this just begs the question.

There are also people in the Church going to heroic measures to live their faith. For instance, recently the nephew of the late Cardinal Kung of China came to our parish to give a speech on the life of his uncle and the persecuted underground Church in China. Card. Kung lived most of his long life imprisoned in solitary confinement for his Faith, and he could have easily avoided his fate by simply swearing allegiance to the Communist-controlled "Patriotic Church" rather than to the Church in Rome. Others were executed for their Faith.

If you're concerned about living the Gospel, the first thing that needs to change is you and me. Don't blame the Church or the Faith. Neither the Pope nor the bishops, nor anyone else is preventing you from living a life of radical commitment to the Gospel.

[quote]. . . It was not a synthesis of faith and reason, but a scandalous foolishness that hung on a tree. It was a virgin waiting with a foolish hope for the return of a man who they believed to be risen from the dead.[/quote]
You seem schizophrenic in your complaints, on the one hand accusing other people in the Church of not being true to the Gospel, while at the same time denying the actual truth of the same Gospel.

If Christ was not actually God, and did not actually die and rise from the dead to save us from our sins, then, to paraphrase St. Paul, our faith is in vain, and we among men are most to be pitied.

If the message of the Gospel is nothing more than a fraud or a fable, all that self-sacrifice on account of Christ is nothing more than a lot of needless pain and suffering for nothing.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1350700544' post='2495203']It seems that you are discouraged that many in the Church today are lukewarm, and do not have the original spiritual zeal of the original Apostles. I think that many of us Catholics (including the Pope) would agree that a lot more of this zeal for living the Gospel is needed in the Church today.[/quote]
No, that has nothing to do with what I was saying.

[PhuturePriest]

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1350706283' post='2495238']
No, that has nothing to do with what I was saying.
[/quote]

You have no clue what you're saying. That's okay, that is usually the feeling people have when talking to Socrates, though these people are women, so I'm not sure what to tell you.