Curious 18 year old seeks conversation

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

Before I star please bear in mind that im 18 yrs old, Im not trying to start a fight, This is all my opinion. Please read the entire post as well. thanks in advance---------

I dont know the church has been worse than some of the greatest tyrants ever. The inquisition where millions of people where mercilessly tortured and brutally killed in the name of god. The bible basically describes woman as an inferior creature. "Likewise ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel......"-1 peter 3:7 Religion was made to keep people scared and stupid, they're easier to control, " Religion keeps people happy, or, at least willing to suffer"-Vince Williams. The rich and mighty foster and nourish divine idiocy and religious stupidity. It is, in fact, part of their business; it is really a question of life or death to the domineering and exploiting classes whether the people at large are dumbfounded religiously or not. With religious lunacy stands and falls their power. The more man clings to religion, the more he believes. The more he believes, the less he knows. The less he knows, the more stupid he is; the more stupid, the easier he is governed. The easier to govern, the better he may be exploited; the more exploited the poorer he gets. If god desires that we know, love and fear him, why does he not show himself?....If he is omniscient, why bother him with private affairs and prayers? If he is omnipresent, why build him churches? If he is omnipotent, how can he permit that we blaspheme. IF he is just, why the supposition that man, whom he created full of faults, shall be punished? If we do good only by the grace of god, why should we be rewarded? If god is inconceivable, why should we occupy ourselves with him? "Is god willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? then why call him god?" Epicurus The idea of hell was born of ignorance, brutality, fear, cowardice, and revenge. This idea testifies that our remote ancestors were the lowest beasts. Only from dens, lairs, and caves, only from mouths filled with cruel fangs, only from hearts of fear and haterd, only from the consience of hunger and lust, only from the lowest and most debased could come this most cruel, heartless and bestial of all dogmas. "Infinite punishment is infinite cruelty, endless injustice, immortal meannerss. To worship an eternal jailer hardens, debases, and pollutes even the vilest soul." Eternal punishment is eternal revenge, and can be inflicted only by an eternal monster.

-- Sarkis Castro (Sarkis128@yahoo.com), March 04, 2005

Answers

Actually this is not your personal "opinions" but merely a hodgepodge of cut and paste ideas from several sources. Still I'll offer a brief response to the listed points ...

>I dont know the church has been worse than some of the greatest tyrants ever.

A: "The Church" has not been worse than the greatest tyrants. It never could be. But some who have professed to be members of the Church may well have been tyrants. These are examples of people who did not live by the Church's teaching. The greatest saints are examples of people who did. You judge the value of a medicine by its effect on those who use it properly, not those who pour it down the sink.

>The inquisition where millions of people where mercilessly tortured and brutally killed in the name of god.

A: This is sheer ignorance. In fact, the number of people executed in the entire history of the Inquisitions was less than four thousand; and many persons accused of various crimes begged to be tried before the Inquisition, rather than before the civil courts of the time which would hang a man for stealing a chicken.

"The bible basically describes woman as an inferior creature."

A: In fact, the Bible says that in Christ there is neither male nor female. Every person is equal before God. Jesus Christ elevated women to a level of dignity they had not known in any previous culture. It was the ungodly who looked on women as inferior, and still do today.

> Religion was made to keep people scared and stupid, they're easier to control "

A: It doesn't seem to be working. Christians live their lives free of many of the fears that consume the ungodly, and the Church has produced some of the greatest minds who have ever lived.

>The more man clings to religion, the more he believes. The more he believes, the less he knows. The less he knows, the more stupid he is; the more stupid, the easier he is governed.

A: Curious then that totalitarian regimes which exercise absolute control over their people and which deny them basic human rights invariably suppress and persecute religion! Seems like they would encouage it, if it made the people easier to control? In fact though, it is obvious throughout history that the Church has been the chief antagonist of such regimes, which is precisely why they persecute it!

> If god desires that we know, love and fear him, why does he not show himself?

A: He does, in many ways. Hopefully you are not suggesting that your personal lack of experience constitutes evidence that the reality you haven't experienced therefore doesn't exist? That would be the height of ignorance.

>If he is omniscient, why bother him with private affairs and prayers?

A: Not because He needs to know, but because we cannot be complete without relating to Him. He allows us such intimacy for our own sake, not His own, as one would expect of One Who is love.

>If he is omnipresent, why build him churches?

A: Again, churches are not for His benefit, but for ours. Since we cannot be fully human except in relationship with God, it is only right that we should provide places dedicated to the pursuit of that relationship. We build huge edifices dedicated to pursuit of such transient goals as education and wealth. Why would we not construct places dedicated to pursuit of the only goal that will matter for more than a few years?

>If he is omnipotent, how can he permit that we blaspheme.

A: If He is omnipotent He can permit anything He wishes to permit, since his authority is infinite. If there was something He lacked the authority to permit, He would not be omnipotent.

>IF he is just, why the supposition that man, whom he created full of faults, shall be punished?

A: He did not create man full of faults. The faults of humanity are self-inflicted. And yet, He continues to go far beyond justice in offering us freedom from punishment, and perfect peace and joy in spite of our faults. If He were merely just, and not simultaneously all-loving and all-merciful, He would simply allow us to suffer the natural effects of our chosen ungodly acts. But that isn't how a parent provides for a child's welfare.

>If we do good only by the grace of god, why should we be rewarded?

A: We are not "rewarded". Salvation cannot be earned, and God does not owe us anything. God offers us eternal life as a free and undeserved gift. We choose to accept it or to reject it. Obviously rejecting eternal life means eternal death, but that is a free choice. It isn't imposed upon us.

"Is god willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

A: True. But irrelevant, since He does not lack the power to do anything he chooses.

>Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent."

A: Nonsense. Any good parent recognizes that being overprotective stifles growth. Is a parent malevolent when he/she allows children to experience the natural consequences of their actions? God has given us the incredible gift of free will, which raises us above the status of mere animals. Only through our choices of free will can we grow spiritually and experience our humanity fully. Free will would be meaningless of God said "you can make your own choices, but when you make bad choices I'll jump in and make sure nobody gets hurt". Perfect love demands that we be allowed to experience the consequences of our actions and the growth that comes through it. If God prevented the evil we choose, we would not be free.

>The idea of hell was born of ignorance, brutality, fear, cowardice, and revenge.

A: The reality of hell is not only revealed to us by God, but is also an inescapable logical necessity. If you are given a choice to accept or reject something, obviously there must be the possibility of existence both with and without that which was offered. When that which was offered is eternity in God's presence, and if we are truly free to accept or reject that offer, then obviously there must exist a state of eternal separation from God. If you don't like the term "hell", call it something else; but the reality is inescapable.

>Eternal punishment is eternal revenge, and can be inflicted only by an eternal monster.

A: Nonsense. "Revenge" means retaliation for harm done to oneself. How could a mere human being cause harm to the omnipotent God?? Hell is not eternal "punishment". It is voluntarily chosen eternal separation from that which we have freely and personally rejected. Only an eternal monster would claim to offer us a free choice, and then deny our choice and force us to exist eternally in the very place we have rejected. God loves us enough to allow us complete freedom.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 04, 2005.


great post sakris!

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.Com), March 04, 2005.

'A: "The Church" has not been worse than the greatest tyrants. It never could be. But some who have professed to be members of the Church may well have been tyrants. These are examples of people who did not live by the Church's teaching. The greatest saints are examples of people who did. You judge the value of a medicine by its effect on those who use it properly, not those who pour it down the sink.'

[the church did teach many evil things]-sdqa

"A: This is sheer ignorance. In fact, the number of people executed in the entire history of the Inquisitions was less than four thousand; and many persons accused of various crimes begged to be tried before the Inquisition, rather than before the civil courts of the time which would hang a man for stealing a chicken."

[the inquisition was there to kill every non-catholic during the time of the reformation]-sdqa

"In fact, the Bible says that in Christ there is neither male nor female. Every person is equal before God. Jesus Christ elevated women to a level of dignity they had not known in any previous culture. It was the ungodly who looked on women as inferior, and still do today."

[but the women is described inferior]-sdqa

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.Com), March 04, 2005.


the church did teach many evil things

you consider living a life without having sex to be wrong... what do you know of evil teachings?

the inquisition was there to kill every non-catholic during the time of the reformation

wrong again, the purpose of the inquisition was to stop heretical teaching and public practice. take the cathars as an example, who believed that all procreation (thats sex) was absolutely wrong and even assasinated people. these were caught up and tried in the inquisition. suffice it to say, the term millions is ridiculous. paul m is quite correct, even at the WORST historically valid estimates the number is still in the thousands over a period of more than 700 years. if you can show me one major country that hasnt killed more innocent people in the space of 100 years i might consider that a valid point.

but the women is described inferior

HISTORICAL CONTEXT. i repeat, HISTORICAL CONTEXT. in a world where physical violence and strength were dominant factors women IN GENERAL needed to be protected from heathen men who would force themselves upon them. you can play gender equality all you want, but put a barbarian with an average female and the woman will probably need some protection.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), March 04, 2005.


learn some history paul h,about the inquisitions against the protestants...

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.Com), March 04, 2005.


the whole thing is being called contra-reformation...learn something about it

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.Com), March 04, 2005.

learn some history paul h,about the inquisitions against the protestants...

the majority of the inquisitions took place before the protestant reformation and after the great schism of the orthodox church. you assert that the point of the inquisition was to kill any non- catholics. well, orthodox weren't killed. nor were protestants because there were no protestant churches at the time.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), March 04, 2005.


"It was the Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church alone, which protested against Hitler in the cause of freedom. Up till then I had never been interested in the Catholic Church. Today, however, I cannot but proclaim my admiration for and attachment to an institution which alone had the courage to carry on a continuous battle for the maintenance of spiritual truth and moral freedom."

-Albert Einstein

-- JJ (nospam@nospam.com), March 05, 2005.


Its somewhere in the nature of "man" to be murderous. It has nothing to do with being Catholic. Catholics as humans have killed others just as Protestants have. (Not to mention every other religious group made up of human beings) THis of course does not make it right.

Not to bring this to a tit for tat thing, but during the religious wars after the refomation, Protestants killed many a Catholic. No group had completely clean hands. In England, Catholic priests were outlawed and killed if they were found. They were exterminated.

The murderous instincts we can point to through out history are based in and are a part of "mankind," not the Catholic Church. Its way too simplistic to blame it on the Church. Catholicism teaches against killing and murder. As Paul M points out there may be tyrants who were Catholic, but their actions are not the substance of Catholic teaching.

As paul h. noted it was the Catholic Church that spoke out against the evils of the Nazis. They were among the first who sounded a warning that few heeded at the time. I believe it was somewhere described as the "lonely voice" of the Catholic Church. Someone here probably knows the source of the quote that I believe appeared in the New York Times.

Man will always find reasons to kill one another. Its sort of a tribal instinct---not a Catholic teaching.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), March 05, 2005.


Jim,

One small (actually not samll at all) correction:

"Its somewhere in the nature of "man" to be murderous."

That should be fallen nature, ergo, not man's true nature at all.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 05, 2005.



Good Point Fr. Paul,

I am speaking of the "fallen nature" of man.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), March 05, 2005.


It's great to have a Catholic priest in the forum!

-- ecru (ecruw@dalton.net), March 05, 2005.

As paul h. noted it was the Catholic Church that spoke out against the evils of the Nazis

thank you jim, your words are kindly placed and well written. however, i must point out that while i have in the past pointed out the actions of the catholic church against the nazis, this time the credit must go to JJ for discovering such a great quote regarding this subject.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), March 05, 2005.


'Tweren't nuthin to it!

Here's the book where I found that quote while I was reading last night:

Christ in Dachau, by Fr. John Lenz. (It's an amazing testament to the resilience of the human spirit, especially one that has had extensive training in the Catholic Faith. Because of the Faith!)

-- JJ (nospam@nospam.com), March 06, 2005.


Sarkis, just to let you know, in case you hadn't realized, each and every one of the things you said is not yours but somebody else's thoughts. You are not the first to say those things, and you did not come up with it by yourself. You learned it from somewhere else and are impressed by it because it they are easy to understand and remember. They are also very easy and simple criticisms of a Truth that you find hard to accept and understand. Those criticisms and questions have been brought up for thousands of years, so nothing you have said is new and nothing you have said you thought of on your own. You are merely repeating the ramblings and criticisms of other people to whom you probably cannot even attribute credit.

If you look at something that is diffcult for you to accept and understand, and give very shallow, easy and recycled criticism for why you disagree with it, that is an obvious sign that you have no idea what you are looking at and are making absolutely no effort in attempting to understand it so that you may accept it or reject with an educated mind.

Please, Sarkis, make more of an effort, as someone who is on the brink of adulthood, to gaze upon things with a strong and clear mind, so that you might question things not simply to break them down, which is easy and childish, but to truly understand, which is hard, and a sign of maturity and intellect.

-- brian (brian@brian.com), March 06, 2005.



Moderation questions? read the FAQ