From Amy Welborn
Okay, so I was thinking about all the virtual ink that’s been spilled, tears that have been shed and skin that’s been worn off hands because of all that wringing over the LCWR/Sr. Farley business, and I figures at some point soon, the columnists and bloggers are going to run out of material, and they just might need another example of a Religious Sister, Kept Down By The Men.
(Not a fake issue, historically speaking, by the way! Not kidding!)
So, I thought of one!
Here you go: the American religious sister who’s had more conflicts with more bishops than any other over the past few decades. Who’s gone head-to-head with a bishop or two, whose work has been supported by lay people, but who’s had bishops has her primary opponents, both overtly and covertly, who, up until various shifts and changes of the past 5-7 years, has had probably 80% of the American bishops strongly in opposition to her ministry.
Nun v. Male Bishops! For your next column, blog post, Colbert bit or #hashtag campaign! Ready?
Now this is an interesting comparison, but a comparison with a major difference. Mother Angelica certainly clashed with some bishops and in many ways it was a mirror image of the CDF/LCWR situation. There were certainly some bishops quite unhappy with EWTN especially in comparison the the Bishop conferences foray into cable television. You might ask “What Bishop’s conference cable show?” – well it was less than popular and not always exactly brimming with orthodoxy as I have heard told.
One of those things that nerved some bishops was EWTN’s televised Masses that dared to be devoid of all the experimentations that were so common and of course still exist. It must have been quite striking for some to see the difference between EWTN’s televised Mass that epitomized “Read the black, do the red” in contrast to “Read the black, ignore, the red, and make it up as you go.”
Specifically EWTN’s use of Ad Orientum with the priest facing East towards the Tabernacle really bothered some people. It did not matter that this is totally valid and it was only on that fictions list of “things done with at Vatican II.” Regardless their were complaints made to her bishop and ultimately her bishop ordered EWTN to not televise Masses conducted Ad Orientum. Now while EWTN was technically correct in having Masses this way, they still complied with their bishop. That is what obedience looks like. If you are obedient only when you agree with your bishop, than you are not obedient. Now EWTN still went on using Ad Orientum for Masses not televised and conducted at their temple, but did indeed comply with the specific restriction of their bishop.
This is the aspect of obedience that is almost totally missing among nuns/sisters who are among the media darlings for resting the “evillll” Vatican. There is a total lack of humility when it comes to clashes. There is no humble reply as the result of a CDF theological investigation – it is always cast into almost political lines where every dissident theologian is a martyr to the Vatican. The use of “leadership” in the initialism LCWR is a total misnomer since they have shown no real leadership. Instead of course correction and fulfilling their vows (especially obedience) they refused to clean up their own mess and after decades forcing the CDF to intervene. Then of course when the inevitable happens they are totally shocked. Not exactly leadership and certainly not obedience.
There will always be clashes between people and their bishops and between priest and religious and their bishops. In some of these cases the bishop will be handling something badly or even being totally wrong. But again if your obedience is dependent on how much the bishop is on the same page as you, it isn’t obedience.
As the start of Veritatis Splendor states:
- Called to salvation through faith in Jesus Christ, “the true light that enlightens everyone” (Jn 1:9), people become “light in the Lord” and “children of light” (Eph 5:8), and are made holy by “obedience to the truth” (1 Pet 1:22).
This obedience is not always easy. As a result of that mysterious original sin, committed at the prompting of Satan, the one who is “a liar and the father of lies” (Jn 8:44), man is constantly tempted to turn his gaze away from the living and true God in order to direct it towards idols (cf. 1 Thes 1:9), exchanging “the truth about God for a lie” (Rom 1:25). Man’s capacity to know the truth is also darkened, and his will to submit to it is weakened. Thus, giving himself over to relativism and scepticism (cf. Jn 18:38), he goes off in search of an illusory freedom apart from truth itself.
49 comments
>As a result of that mysterious original sin, committed at the prompting of Satan, the one who is “a liar and the father of lies” (Jn 8:44), man is constantly tempted to turn his gaze away from the living and true God in order to direct it towards idols
So. Your all powerful, all good, all knowing god is foiled by Satan, a being whom your god created and knew would eventually cause it all sorts of problems.
Are you sure this makes sense?
Salvage, please quote the exact sentence in the above blurb from the VS that states that God was foiled by Satan.
Fr. Philip Neri, OP
Jeff,
Excellent post.
Your example of EWTN and the ad orientem issue was a good one. EWTN complied with the wishes of the bishop.
Next to giving up one’s life, there is no greater sacrifice than giving up one’s will. When there are two or more valid options and your superior wants it a certain way, the humble path is to sacrifice your own will. This is pleasing to God because it is an imitation of Christ, who followed the will of the Father.
I think Numbers 16:3 sums it up well. “They came as a group to oppose Moses and Aaron and said to them, “You have gone too far! The whole community is holy, every one of them, and the LORD is with them. Why then do you set yourselves above the LORD’s assembly?”
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Ah, yes, the US bishops’ failed attempt at TV in the ’80s. It was doomed from the start, since they produced programs to be distributed to dioceses, who would supposedly figure out themselves how to get them on air. Great way to build an audience, hm? The head of a Catholic radio apostolate once crunched some numbers and concluded that the bishops had spent so much money in vain on TV, it was enough to pay for a personal phone call to every Catholic in the US from Pope John Paul II. 🙂
@Fr. Philip Neri, OP:
As a result of that mysterious original sin, committed at the prompting of Satan,
Ok, so your god did want Satan to “prompt” the original sin? That was the plan?
Your god builds a perfect world that gets ruined because Eve eats some magic fruit right? And if it weren’t for Satan putting on his snake suit and goading Eve into eating it everything would still be paradise right?
So which is it? Your god built the world to fail or you god created the thing that screwed it all up.
It’s funny how little sense it all makes when you give it a slightly closer look isn’t it?
Gosh, what could that mean??!?!
Ha! Ha! I’m a Troll!!
A rambleing blithering idiot Troll!!!
“rambling”
I cannot imagine why the lovely sisters of the LCWR haven’t yet
spoken out to defend and praise Mother Angelica. I’m certain she’s
a heroine to them all…
But seriously, Mrs. Welborn makes an excellent point in her post.
Well when you’re talking with people who think myths are historical and magic factual it’s hard not to sound like a troll.
But please, correct me if I am wrong.
Invincible ignorance cannot–by definition–be corrected.
No, there is hope that one day you will read the unvarnished history of your religion, the latest books and papers on biology, evolution, geology and anthropology as well as current Vatican events and come to the only possible conclusion.
But be warned, it means that you won’t have an all-powerful deity who shares your political and cultural views looking out for you and waiting to reward you in the afterlife. I’m afraid reality isn’t very comforting and does not have a happy ending.
But everything before that inevitable sadness? Fantastic!
I found this incredible image of savage at a recent “furry” meeting. At least he’s consistent:
Can’t post images? OK, here’s the link.</a?
If only you could link to a something that counters my points!
It’s strange, I’m totally wrong about stuff but you guys can’t seem to articulate it.
Salvage, you’re really looking forward to that black ending, aren’t you?
If there is no real ending, if ultimately nothing we say or do or create matters, if it’s all for nothing, then I don’t see how I’ m expected to much enjoy the journey along the way. Can we say “deck-chairs-on-the-Titanic” boys and girls? I knew you could.
You keep calling us fools for believing in an unseen unknown God but somehow your sensible alternative of Nothing lacks much real appeal.
Okay, I know I’m setting myself up for things, but you really don’t like people disagreeing with you, you know that?
Salvage: how cute! Sorry I don’t speak your invidious, strawman-filled dialect, so why bother? Enjoy the swatting cat-turned -troll animated gif, I got more from that than 100 of your agitprop soliloquies.
>Salvage, you’re really looking forward to that black ending, aren’t you?
Not at all! That’s why I eat right, exercise and generally try to extend the precious gift of life as much as possible.
>If there is no real ending, if ultimately nothing we say or do or create matters, if it’s all for nothing, then I don’t see how I’ m expected to much enjoy the journey along the way.
Pure, high-school grade nihilistic nonsense. The fact that it does end is all the motivation needed to enjoy and make your mark in this life. Life that goes on forever is what is pointless. Why do anything now? I can do it later and there will always be a later.
>You keep calling us fools for believing in an unseen unknown God but somehow your sensible alternative of Nothing lacks much real appeal.
Appeal has nothing to do with it, nor does mortality. Your god is clearly not real based on facts and reasons I have listed endlessly here.
For instance, you say your god made the universe and explained it in the Bible yet the Bible’s account of Genesis does not match the physical evidence. It does have much in common with older creationist myths however. So taking those two facts what other conclusion can be drawn?
>Okay, I know I’m setting myself up for things, but you really don’t like people disagreeing with you, you know that?
Like has nothing to do with it, I present facts and rather than address them you say pointless stuff like this.
If I am wrong, show me!
> Sorry I don’t speak your invidious, strawman-filled dialect, so why bother?
I don’t think you understand what a “straw-man” argument is because I haven’t made any that I can see. Can you please show it to me so that I can explain my point properly then?
Salvage, I have a graduate degree in the philosophy of science and a doctorate in literary-critical theory.
Like the Catholic Church, I have no problem with the theory of evolution as an explanation for man’s physical development over time. In fact, some of the most revealing research in cosmology is being done by the members of the Pontifical Academy of Science.
If you were not invincibly ignorant regarding the Church’s history you would know the universities, hospitals, orphanages, hospices were all founded by the Church. Oh, and we invented western material science too.
Fr. Philip Neri, OP
P.S. Yes, I know, folks. . .I’m feeding the troll. Now going to do something productive.
>Salvage, I have a graduate degree in the philosophy of science and a doctorate in literary-critical theory.
That’s nice, and that’s why your god said it made the cosmos in 6 days but made it look much older?
>Like the Catholic Church, I have no problem with the theory of evolution as an explanation for man’s physical development over time.
That’s nice, and that’s why you believe that your god made Adam, the first man exactly as we are now and that it made Eve from his rib and everything was great until a talking snake tricked her into eating a magic fruit?
See I have trouble with the dichotomies that you don’t even seem to acknowledge much less bother to explain.
> In fact, some of the most revealing research in cosmology is being done by the members of the Pontifical Academy of Science.
That’s nice and certainly an improvement over burning people alive for saying the Earth goes round the sun. Can you please show me some of this? Goofy me, I look to NASA and Hawkings for that sort of thing but I’m sure the Vatican’s space program is as remarkable!
>If you were not invincibly ignorant regarding the Church’s history you would know the universities, hospitals, orphanages, hospices were all founded by the Church.
Yes, the Catholic Church is the only religion in all of history to ever do that stuff!
And I’m not ignorant of those things I just don’t think they excuse war, genocide, allying with Nazis and letting child rapists rape more children.
I do confess to being pretty intolerant on those points.
>Oh, and we invented western material science too.
Really? I’m not sure what “western material science” is or how it was invented but it sure does sound impressive! I do know that for the most part your church has been hostile to any science that suggested even slightly that the Bible was in error. At times, violently hostile.
Sadly it doesn’t change the fact that your religion is based on Babylonian myths and Roman superstitions, really the opposite of science.
But it’s cute you trying to grab some of that shine!
Heh: > P.S. Yes, I know, folks. . .I’m feeding the troll. Now going to do something productive.
She keeps telling Charlie Brown she’ll let him kick the football this time. He keeps falling for her deceitful ploy.
Dear Salvage,
How did you know that my favorite subjects of interest are just those you mentioned: biology, evolution, geology, and anthropology? I long ago came to the conclusion, somewhat different than yours of course, that nothing that we discover in this big, beautiful, natural universe is any other than what God created. So nothing we discover in nature should ever give us pause about our faith in God.
Faith is a strange concept, isn’t it? I have faith in God, even though I cannot prove that He exists! You do not believe in God, even though you cannot prove that He does not exist! Since we are not supreme beings ourselves, we cannot know everything and so we have faith. I have my faith and you have yours.
When you answer this time, Salvage, will you tell me more about your faith rather than comment on mine? Thanks.
“Sadly it doesn’t change the fact that your religion is based on Babylonian myths and Roman superstitions, really the opposite of science.”
Like I said earlier, folks: invincible ignorance. This sort of atheist is no threat to the faith. . .until they decide that they need to be eliminated us for political expediency, a la Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot.
Carry on and God bless, Fr. Philip Neri, OP
>You do not believe in God, even though you cannot prove that He does not exist!
Well I can’t as far as proving a negative is technically impossible but what I can do is look at the specific god’s attributes and what “evidence” we have of it and draw a conclusion.
In your god’s case it’s quite easy to say it doesn’t exist because the Bible makes it clear that the god featured knew nothing of how the universe was formed, seemed completely unaware of things like the dinosaurs, bacteria and evolution. It even thought our sun and the stars different things!
That’s just off the top of my head, I can pretty much find fault and ill logic with everything your god has done from demanding foreskins to the whole Jesus business and all that followed.
Here’s a question for you not to answer, has your god ever solved a problem without violence?
>Since we are not supreme beings ourselves, we cannot know everything
Quite right! But just because we don’t know everything that doesn’t mean we know nothing, we know reality, we know truth, we know right from wrong. Your god on the other hand seems very confused by all of that and more.
> When you answer this time, Salvage, will you tell me more about your faith
I have faith in anything that is proven to be likely and successful, science for instance has increased our not only the length of our lives but the quality of it as well so I am a great believer in it.
In short I believe in the believable a sensible policy, no?
>Like I said earlier, folks: invincible ignorance.
So that would be no, you can’t answer any of my points but would rather just stick to name calling? That’s okay, about what I expected.
> This sort of atheist is no threat to the faith. . .until they decide that they need to be eliminated us for political expediency, a la Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot.
Ahahah! Yes! Those guys behind the atheist revolution… oh, wait, no, those were communists, it wasn’t really about atheism or religion, the closest thing to what you’re trying to describe happened once in history, a brief period during the French Revolution.
And once again, shall we talk about the slaughter your religion is steeped in from the beginning right up to the 20th century? I’m sorry what was the Vatican’s policy on the fascists of Italy? Oh yes, cut a deal with them and get your own “sovereign” state and then make allies with the Nazis. Well a natural fit considering Germany was what percentage Catholic between 1930 and 1944? And Hitler born and raised Catholic no? Gosh, I wonder why Jesus love didn’t make him a better person? Oh I know why, Germany Catholics were already viciously anti-Semitic and it really didn’t take much to push them over the edge. After all the Jews did kill your god so that score needed to be settled!
Did you know that the Nazi military and civil service oath specifically was made to your god?
I know, I know, those weren’t REAL Christians, real Christians never do anything bad and real atheists are ALWAYS bad.
What a simple man you are.
There’s a difference between “life going on forever” and hope, which is what part of the Christian or Jewish or Buddhist or Pagan faith is.
Sure it’s “nihilistic”, the argument of what it’s all for if it all ends in blackness, but at the same time what difference does it make what I do if the ending is the same in any case? So we enjoy today, then we look back after even the longest more productive live and wonder Is that it? Was there any value to me at all? Was it really worth it? But I suppose only lordly atheists have real serenity.
I admit I can’t think of one counterclaim you’d listen to, but why is it so wrong for me to accept Pascal’s wager?
I’m not going to answer you anyway. But there is a difference between accepting facts and bashing people over the head with them, you come off as a closet Fundie.
It takes many peas, each one unique, different from the other, to make a nice pea soup.
Go figure.
It came to the attention of Father Robert Maguire, a “once was” controversial catholic priest in South Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, that from the clearing of the land, to squeezing the olives, that it is cheaper & more environmentally friendly to produce olive oil than canola oil.
& olive oil is twice the price.
We in Australia NOW PAY LESS THAN 1/2 the $$$$ to what we payed before Father Bob found out.
Yes my friend $23.00 Australian & before Father Bob it was $48.00 per 4 liter can.
What is a persons worth & contribution to humanity ?
& who is to judge ?
>I admit I can’t think of one counterclaim you’d listen to, but why is it so wrong for me to accept Pascal’s wager?
Because it’s a silly bet, you waste a part of your life praying and praising an insane god on the off chance that it is real and will reward you for your blind devotion.
> But there is a difference between accepting facts and bashing people over the head with them, you come off as a closet Fundie.
I’m sorry the words I put on your screen have such a figuratively violent effect but I list these facts and they are ignored so “bashing” I suppose is my only resort but when it comes to facts and reality what choice is there but fundamentalism?
Salvage: you are to “facts” what Foster Brooks is to sobriety. We get that; you don’t. Either you suffer from pathologies that include symptoms such as schizophrenia, you lack fundamental cognitive skills, or my guess, you are a troll. Among my brothers and sisters here, my sense of charity is rather poorly developed, so I take the more cynical approach; nothing to be proud of.
There, I just gave you another biscuit. Strawman + invidious response in three… two… one…
Yes, Kyle,that’s right it is easier to call some names then to think about what they say that you disagree with and offer some sort of cognitive rebuttal.
It’s sad really, you seek to defend unreality, myth and magic that you simply could not do without. The real world not having gods to look out for you and yours makes it unappealing, I get that and have a certain measure of sympathy and even envy.
Life is so much easier with magic.
And you still don’t know what a straw man argument is, may I suggest you read the article on Wikipedia on it, then please tell me which of my argument qualifies?
You’d never know by reading this thread that the original post was
a well-thought-out article about the LCWR and Mother Angelica.
Such a hijack.
So it’s just silly to spend my time praying and living my life as if faith matters, as if devotion to decency and charity makes no difference. That I shouldn’t pray and seek insight and act as if my life makes a difference. You amaze me with your insight you really do.
> Yes, Kyle,that’s right it is easier to call some names then to think about what they say that you disagree with and offer some sort of cognitive rebuttal.
Behold, projection at its fullest.
More biscuits for the troll! Nom nom!
>So it’s just silly to spend my time praying and living my life as if faith matters,
No, it’s just silly to spend your time praying and living your life as if faith in ancient myths and superstitions is warranted.
>as if devotion to decency and charity makes no difference.
Of course it makes a difference, those are great things to be devoted to, what I am saying is you don’t need a supernaturally entity or motivator to do so.
In short you don’t need gods to be good.
>That I shouldn’t pray and seek insight and act as if my life makes a difference.
Well from what I can see prayer is pointless but insightfulness is a brilliant thing that we should all be striving for.
And for certain your life makes a difference, you just don’t need to dedicate it to unreal things.
>Behold, projection at its fullest.
So, you don’t know what “projection” means either.
>Such a hijack.
Yeah, the way I quoted a line from the post and asked questions about it is really a “hijack”.
(((Yeah, the way I quoted a line from the post and asked questions about it is really a “hijack”.)))
Folks, there’s really no “hijack” here cause Jeff knows exactly what he’s doing and by the way if “I” said HI Jack, would “I” be wrong?
Please don’t get me wrong cause I’ve kind of always been a softy for the so called under dog and not because “I” personally was born in the year of the dog but simply because salvage has made me feel sorry for this fictional “Jesus” who can’t really defend HIMSELF. I guess, “Jesus” is no more real than my so called imaginary sinner vic who says that he owns about 93% of my body cells. Believe “IT” or not folks but my 7% so called “Jesus Cells” keep sinner vic in line so “I” guess that thinking “The Jesus Way” is OK although some might say that “I’ve always been crazy” but for arguement sake, let’s just say that “IT” and/or is that http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VO6bI-xrj8 “Jesus” who keeps me from going in-sane! 🙂
Peace
Salvage, how does my praying to a god you don’t believe in hurt you? If this is the way we losers wish to spend our lives, does it really hurt you.
Salvage, how does my praying to a god you don’t believe in hurt you?
It doesn’t in fact I would take a bullet for your absolute right to do so.
>If this is the way we losers wish to spend our lives, does it really hurt you.
See, you read what I say then you twist it around to make me sound like something I’m not. Where have I called you “losers”? Where have I suggested is affects me in the slightest or that I have any desire to see you stop or otherwise change your lives?
What I am doing is asking you questions about your beliefs that don’t make sense to me. This was my first post:
I first quoted something from the blogger’s post:
>As a result of that mysterious original sin, committed at the prompting of Satan, the one who is “a liar and the father of lies” (Jn 8:44), man is constantly tempted to turn his gaze away from the living and true God in order to direct it towards idols
Then I asked:
>So. Your all powerful, all good, all knowing god is foiled by Satan, a being whom your god created and knew would eventually cause it all sorts of problems.
>Are you sure this makes sense?
And no one has actually answered me.
Your god is all knowing right? It made Satan right? It knew even before it put the wings on the angels that it was going to all go wrong, right? Yet it seems like it blames us for the problems that it made and set in motion!
So you can say “yes, salvage, that makes perfect sense because…” or you can say “No, salvage it doesn’t make any sense because…” or you can say “You don’t understand salvage, here’s what actually happened, this is what you’ve gotten wrong and why it all makes perfect sense…”
Or you can ignore me, but please don’t put words in my mouth like “losers”, believe me, if I thought that, you’d know it and I would have been banned from here long ago for expressing it.
(((Yet it seems like it blames us for the problems that it made and set in motion! ))) ((( Or you can ignore me, but please don’t put words in my mouth like “losers”, believe me, if I thought that, you’d know it and I would have been banned from here long ago for expressing it.)))
I agree with ya salvage so please don’t start throbbing at the mouth cause these gods must be stopped, well at least the “ONE” who says without saying “IT”, that a zillion human years for HIM is a butt moment or was that some of Victor’s reality butt cells who implied that while “IT” was sitting on the throne that we his 93% godly cells provided. Salvage, I recall “IT” being said when Victor was a butt child serving high mass that, and come to think about “IT” , “I’M” almost sure that it was a priest who said in so many words that “IT” would be easier to believe that Cartoons were real then understanding “The Father of Jesus”. Long story short, you’re right salvage He doesn’t exist and unless He answers all of our questions as we ask them and to our satisfaction “I” might add.
As far as “I’M” concerned we gods which includes you and all humans being who believe in U>S (usual sinners) would find “IT” easier to let’s say, believe that you salvage don’t exist and are only a ficment of human imagination then to believe in this so called “Son of The Father” and we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that’s not true cause science say so! Right salvage?
Look folk, my wife who has put up with me for almost 42 years wants to go to the cottage so I must close NOW . Don’t tell anyone but instead of taking her there last night, I got feeling good if ya get my drift? 🙂
Please wake UP before “IT” is too late and stop picking on our http://jetpress.org/v19/dvorsky.htm gods cause if truth be known we are the real gods and not this so called Abba! 🙂
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2012/06/14/human-exceptionalism-and-equality-must-be-defended-on-all-fronts/
Peace
Salvage: a rephrase might be why does an all-loving God allow for bad to happen (i.e., Satan) This has been addressed by far worthier people, but here goes. God so loves His creation he allows for them (angels and men) to freely choose their own actions. Thus, I’m free to do bad things contrary to His design. God didn’t create Satan imbued with evil, Satan freely choose to be evil. The irony of this is the clamor for the empirical evidence of the existence of God would remove our free will to deny His existence. We’d have to do His bidding, in the same way we have to take shade from too much sun; an ugly slave-like relationship. God so loves us that he allows us to reject Him entirely.
Your god made everything right?
Every. Thing. Every atom, every quirk, every quark, every single solitary bit of matter, anti-matter, energy, force and all that is in-between.
Yes or no?
So, your god made evil, it doesn’t matter if you think it didn’t directly make such a thing, it created the environment that not only made evil possible but inevitable.
I’m afraid you can’t escape that unless you say that your god didn’t make everything.
See that’s the problem with absolutes.
Your god is all knowing right? It knows everything that has, is and will happen. Your god is everywhere at once right? So it sees exactly what is going on so nothing can happen without its awareness and by the power of omnipotence; permission.
So it’s weird that your god acted all “What’s going on here!” in the Garden of Eden when it must have know exactly what was going on. It made all the pieces and set them in motion.
So no, for your god there is no free will, there is only what it knows what will happen which is what it wants to happen and when these things do happen your god blames it on us.
That is beyond psychotic.
So is this:
>God so loves us that he allows us to reject Him entirely.
And if we do it has us tortured for an eternity. That’s your idea of love? Really?
Now I assume rather than answer these points you’ll insult me and declare them all “straw man” except there is nothing in the above that I have made up. Your religion teaches that anyone who rejects your god is sent to Hell. You can try and say “No, no, it means you don’t get to hang out with my god in the afterlife!” but that’s not what your church has been teaching for the last 2,000 years or so.
Or was that all wrong and it’s only been in the last few decades that they’ve gotten it right?
Weird isn’t it? Your god let the majority of Christianity be so wrong and only got around to making it proper when you came along to practice it.
Or was burning heretics alive the right thing to do and you’d like to see a return? You know that right? Popes have executed people like that in the name of your god?
Yes, Salvage for every issue raised, there’s a counter-issue, which isn’t limited to the metaphysical. There are many problems to approaching God. Yet, I knowHe is real. He doesn’t fit into your rhetorical vortex of conundrums, as such anthropomorphisms delight the angry more than it gives light to the beauty of poetry.
>And if we do it has us tortured for an eternity. That’s your idea of love? Really?
Sure, why not?
If God were to be whole comprehended by human understanding, than I’d agree with you that He is merely a man-made artifice. Regardless, the joy of God’s love isn’t found in the fear of eternity, it’s the “wholeness” when one acts with His will.
> Weird isn’t it? Your god let the majority of Christianity be so wrong and only got around to making it proper when you came along to practice it.
Heh; didn’t you bristle when someone loaded your throat with wrong sentiments? I never made such a claim. Or is reciprocity not a humanistic moral value?
Atheists delight in the murders committed in Christ’s name; and for good reason: it is so clearly hypocritical and against irrefutable sources. How’s atheistic, um, “humanistic” civilization turning out? I’d say your team is far more efficient at the torture and murder of dissenters; heck, 20th century godless statist barbarism beats the 5 centuries before it. Additionally, what moral or ethic does such godless state-sanctioned murder violate?
>Yet, I knowHe is real.
How?
>And if we do it has us tortured for an eternity. That’s your idea of love? Really?
>Sure, why not?
Because infecting pain on someone for not loving you is insane.
>when one acts with His will.
And which version of that will would that be? The one you follow or the ones that every other religion that isn’t yours follows?
Your god is quite keen on confusion isn’t it?
> Atheists delight in the murders committed in Christ’s name; and for good reason: it is so clearly hypocritical and against irrefutable sources.
Not delight (that’d be a strawman by the way) considering that atheists are amongst those who have been murdered in Christ’s name.
>How’s atheistic, um, “humanistic” civilization turning out?
Uh.. have you noticed America? That was founded by humanists who made sure to put a wall between church and state. Have you noticed that lifespans have increased? That at no point in history have so many people had so much freedom and luxury?
So it’s turning out very well thank you.
>I’d say your team is far more efficient at the torture and murder of dissenters;
Yeah, that atheist inquisition was pretty awful. The atheist crusades? Terrible, and of course atheist Nazis with their allies in atheist Italy.
>heck, 20th century godless statist barbarism beats the 5 centuries before it.
Yeah, teh godless states of Europe, I’m sorry how many world wars started there again?
>Additionally, what moral or ethic does such godless state-sanctioned murder violate?
So you need Jesus to have morals? Is that your point with all this?
>How?
Heh; yea, what’s your metric for proving love, or that a song or poem makes you feel great? How do you know you love a song, person or a painting?
>Because infecting pain on someone for not loving you is insane.
God isn’t inflicting (the word you meant to use?) the person chose otherwise. God respects our choice.
>And which version of that will would that be? The one you follow or the ones that every other religion that isn’t yours follows?
You’ve brought your friends to the dance! That’s a different topic. I only have so much time.
>Your god is quite keen on confusion isn’t it?
He’s not mine, and dont conflate your inability to understand to God’s will. You’re keen on invidious rephrasing and tangents, yes.
>So it’s turning out very well thank you.
Yes, America is awesome. Wouldn’t it be nice if history followed your desired narrative? America’s founding father’s tolerated religion and that wall was in respect to it. Your society lies with Marx, Engels, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, etc. The least you can do is man up and own your pedigree.
>So you need Jesus to have morals? Is that your point with all this?
You can only interpret that question to this inference if you you’re illiterate or paranoid. Re-read the sentence, as I didn’t say atheists were amoral.
>How?
>Heh; yea, what’s your metric for proving love,
I’m not sure if there is a metric but everything from sex to sacrifice is part of it.
>or that a song or poem makes you feel great?
If it makes me feel great.
> How do you know you love a song, person or a painting?
So… you god is real because you feel it’s real? And so your feeling define reality?
>God isn’t inflicting (the word you meant to use?)
Ya, auto correct and me have a stormy relationship but without my spelling and grammar is even worse.
> the person chose otherwise. God respects our choice.
No it doesn’t, it throws us into Hell, that is not respect.
> That’s a different topic. I only have so much time.
That’s the problem with letting your feelings decide what is real because just as you feel that your god is real so does every other theist feel that their god is real so by your logic they are.
Or are your feelings somehow superior or otherwise more likely to be right?
>He’s not mine,
I’m afraid it is. Currently there are aover a dozen mainstream variations on your god divided up between the Jews, Muslims and Christians and all their sects and sub-sects.
So if I were to say God as I say Odin well I could be talking about any god so when speaking with theists I try to be as precise as possible and the only way to do that is to say “your god”.
I say “it” because your god requires no sexual identification and certainly not a means to physically reproduce, urinate or anything else your average man does with its junk.
>and dont conflate your inability to understand to God’s will.
It’s my fault? I see. Now that is weird, your god wants me to recognize it but it seems to have gone to great lengths to ensure I don’t. It made its story not only mythological but rife with errors both in physical fact, logic, morality and consistency.
I would have no problem with believing in your god if it made itself believable. I believe in more than a few things that are highly unlikely or improbable but they’re still possible! They still make a certain amount of sense, stay within the bounds of physical reality and the laws of physics.
They don’t order men to war and then demand foreskins.
>You’re keen on invidious rephrasing
I know as a theist you want to make your god believable, you want to make it realistic but it’s impossible with all the stories that you believe about it. So I re-tell these stories from a critical thinking point of few and reduce the to their basics, their foundation if you will.
For instance, your god sacrificed itself to itself so it wouldn’t be wrathful to its creation for behaving as it knew it was going to behave / made it to behave.
That’s the story of Jesus right there, boiled down to the facts and when you removes all the dressing, all the mythological pomp and distraction you can see that it makes no sense.
But again, correct me if I am wrong, tell me that your all powerful being needs to do these bizarre Kabukis because…
The problem being is “because” doesn’t matter to a god, it’s either it is or it isn’t reasons are needed, it can do whatever it wants whenever it wants.
>Your society lies with Marx, Engels, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, etc.
Oh it does not, what absolute dribble. If you knew anything about anything you’d know a) Marx didn’t kill anyone, what he did was write about ways that people could share stuff and live more as one.
Terrible ideas I know, Jesus never said anything like it!
Have you ever read any Marx? Tell me, right now, without Google what’s the worst thing Marx ever wrote? What idea did he propose that so outrages you that you’d list him with mass murders?
Stalin was Hitler was just like every other dictator that ever was. Do you know anything about Stalin and his rise to power and who he killed to get there? COMMUNISTS! He whacked anyone who noticed what a power mad thug they had made their leader. And it had NOTHING to do with atheism, what it had to do was with power, Stalin wanted it all centralized including spiritual. Communism was the religion, was the dogma and it, like your god, was jealous. The only difference they said Stalin was their god and he walked amongst them.
Pol Pot and etc. SO cute! Like there’s such a long list of these atrocities while ignoring the fact that theism has a 2,000 year jump start on communism. The butcher’s bills do not even begin to compare. You also ignore the staggering hypocrisy of it all.
You want a taste? You should watch the Borgias, there’ some Catholic history rife with blood and greed.
>The least you can do is man up and own your pedigree.
Once again, atheism is the believe in no gods, it makes no comment on economic or social policies.
And pedigree? You are part of a church that helped rapists abuse children, how proud you must be that your tithe goes to the legal defense.
> Re-read the sentence, as I didn’t say atheists were amoral.
But your god will treat us the same way so close enough? Tell me what you actually meant then, I clearly got it radically wrong.
Sorry, salvage, you’ve got much more free time than I do. You put so much on the plate to discuss and it falls way outside of the original thread. Maybe someone else will jump in. Later.
HA! HA! I’m a Troll!
A blithering rambling idiot Troll!!
>Sorry, salvage, you’ve got much more free time than I do.
Yeah, that must be it.