If You Don’t Agree with That, Are You Still Religious?

Spot on! It is now the moral duty of any Catholic to leave the Catholic Church and request their number be removed from the total number of Catholics.

I’m not a Catholic, but I had a lot of things that bothered me about my faith:

1) I do not believe the infallibility of the Bible. I didn’t know as much about it as I do now, but even when I was a Christian, I didn’t believe everything in it. What chiefly bothered me was the Old Testament and how it was expected that we ‘just ignore those bits.’ I knew it was written by priests and people trying to sell a story, so I looked at it as a book of mythology rather than a statement of truth.

2) I couldn’t look at the universe and honestly think it was made 6000 years ago. I tried to fit ideas into it, but came up with Last Thursdayism type realities. ‘Well sure, the universe LOOKS billions of years old, but god could have made it look that way.’ Which brings me to point three:

3) Looking at the universe, it looks old. Science says it’s old. If god made the universe appear to be as old as it does, then he’s being purposefully deceptive, and making it so lovers of science won’t make it into heaven. How can I believe ‘goddidit’ when I see natural explanations for everything?

4) My church, while not outwardly advocating it, could be easily seen as promoting the foolish idea that somehow homosexuals and women were less important than the straight male. Women in the church generally held positions like nursery work, administrative assistants, or worship team. They were never the heads of any of these, either.

5) Don’t get me started on how I was expected to treat homosexual people. I was member of the ‘I have gay friends, so I’m a tolerant person’ club. I will never forgive myself for how I treated a lesbian friend of mine, unless I get the chance to apologize.

6) Good people going to Hell, that also bothered me. If you were the nicest, most selfless person in the world, it didn’t matter because if you weren’t Christian, you’re going to Hell. Yet at the same time, I would see practicing Christians behaving in reprehensible ways who still, according to my church, were going to Heaven.

I could go on, so I will.

Nah, just joking.

Brought up Roman Catholic but I think the first and biggest thing I gave up on was that I had to believe in a God to make my life worth living. In other words I started asking why? 😉

Everything else slowly pulled itself apart after that.

Nothing. I didn’t give up a single teaching of the Catholic Church until my apostasy, when I rejected absolutely everything. My “faith” was very rational: If I believed anything because the church taught it, I had to accept everything the church taught. There’s no way around it. There was no way for me to know whether all the mystical claims are true. I wasn’t willing to reject something because I didn’t like it, which is what about 95% of Catholics do. Liberal believers annoy me more than fundamentalists sometimes because they’re inconsistent.

Unfortunately, this cartoon’s punchline doesn’t apply well to my sister. She believes in all of the above.

I was never a Christian, thankfully, but I did ascribe to a lot of occultist and New Age woo. I never fully accepted the woo, but the last dregs of belief were wiped away in my psychology graduate program. Basically, I learned that our knowledge of the brain, as limited as it is, provided a much more convincing set of explanations for religious experiences.

These are all administrative issues.

They don’t really hit at the spiritual (or so-called spiritual) experiences that believers have.

My situation was a bit different. Different church (Mormon), but my shock was in realizing that the only thing I really believed in were many of the administrative, “temporal” features. E.g., the church is a great source for learning professionalism, organizational skill, management, etc.,

But what I realized was…that doesn’t make a church. To be religious is to believe in the underlying theological framework. Which I simply did not.

No matter how good your organizational framework is, the theological framework can wreck things (e.g., Prop 8 was a great example of organizational strength…but there was a deep theological difference for it that made it more than just administrative difference.)

One question I always had was Why, if we are supposed to sell everything we have, give our money to the poor, then come back and follow Jesus, WHY do we have great big churches with great big statues and gold chalices etc., etc., when there are people starving all over the world?

Then my freshman year of high school theology (Catholic school) when I learned that the most of the Gospels weren’t written until way after Jesus and by people who had never even met or seen him… It was just all downhill from there.

I had always been very vocal about my beliefs but then I had a very good friend who was gay and I decided it wasn’t my place or the Church’s to tell anyone they couldn’t find love and be happy.

I wish I could take back so many things I said and did in the name of the Catholic Church. Looking back on it, I am disgusted.

I suppose if I’d belonged to a much more liberal church, I might still be there. Belonging to a racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-education, fundamentalist church and having the “inerrant” pieces fall down around my ears helped me out of the rabbit hole.

I know the exact moment. I could keep using my ‘faith’ to overlook historical inaccuracies in the Book of Mormon, I could look the other way when the Word of Wisdom was broken by family members, but when the Mormon church put millions of dollars into the Prop 8 campaign, I could no longer associate myself with them.

And I walked away.

I joined the church, not too many years ago, for the fellowship and comfort in a bad situation, and it helped a great deal. Once the bad situation was gone, the inconsistencies and idiocies and ignorance were too much for me to even pretend to swallow. Papal infallibility, my foot!

I just grew out of religion as if it was the most natural thing in the world. I didn’t really think about it; I just know that at some point before my early teens I realised that religion was just a bunch of stories, a rough handbook on morality for kids, and I thought believing in God was as silly as believing in Santa or Zeus after a certain age. I certainly didn’t think people took it seriously once they grew up. I remember one time in Secondary school my teacher asked people to put their hands up if they believed in God, and I was shocked that three or four people at the back actually put their hands up – I was shocked! Bear in mind I went to a Catholic Grammar school, where several of the staff were priests, including the Principle, and we had prayers to say in the morning and things like that. I thought it was just some stupid tradition and played along. That day was when I was really enlightened – when I realised how stupid I had been to not see that people actually took this stuff seriously and weren’t just saying it because the rule-book hadn’t been updated in a while. Thats when I stopped saying prayers, and as my teenage years progressed I became a bit more active in my atheism, almost militant – openly mocking religious people and their silly beliefs. Then I watched a few Richard Dawkins documentarys and realised how much of a dickhead I was being so I stopped. (: I still enjoy a bit of debate now and again though; constructive debate. I hope to enlighten someone sometime but unfortunately most are set in their ways. People, especially older people, are terrified of letting go of their beliefs. It’s understandable though – I imagine it would probably feel as if they’ve wasted their life at first – so they scare away the doubting thoughts and continue to believe, if just for comfort. If only they could see the beauty in the unknown.

I freely admit, I started questioning religion when I was about 12-13 because of the “masturbation is bad” thing…it was all down hill from there!

I disagree with the above cartoon’s presumption that being a Christian means you have to agree with all your church’s political issues. It is quite possible to be a Christian and believe in all their theological positions while disagreeing politically and many congregations within the same denomination may have different positions on political issues even if they all have the same theological views. I was never a Catholic, but when I was a Christian I believed that the bible was the inerrant word of God yet at the same time I disagreed with my congregation’s support of the Iraq war. One of my friends is also a Catholic who has conservative theological beliefs but has moderate political beliefs. Like she believes premarital sex is a sin that you shouldn’t do but at the same time she supports comprehensive sex ed over abstinence only because she’s practical that people are going to have sex anyway. She’s also pro-life but she said her congregation told her that you’re never going to find a politician who agrees with all your beliefs, so you shouldn’t vote for a politician just because they’re pro-life.

On the one hand this cartoon makes a great point, unfortunately the same reasoning has been used to convince people to stop paying taxes. It’s all too easy to forget that most people would rather have inconsistent beliefs than no beliefs.

This is why, as much as I want to spit when I say it, the non-religious need something like the religious’ PR and Lobbying powers.

When I was a young Catholic, I believed whatever was handed to me by the Church because I lived in mortal terror of Hell if I disobeyed. Because many of these beliefs were absurd or contradictory, embracing such beliefs became more and more of a strain. Finally, my mind could not bear the weight of any more ridiculousness, and I rejected Catholicism outright. I never looked back, and I’m a much happier, saner person for leaving.

As far as good people going to hell, you are missing the pertinent theological position that “there are no good people.” Since God’s standard is perfection, no one deserves heaven but His own Son, the Lord Jesus. Because of His sacrifice anyone may now go to heaven but still only because of His merit, not his or her own.
The reason “good people go to hell,” as you put it, is because they choose to ignore, denigrate, or otherwise reject His provision.
If you are God, how good is someone who tells you, “No, I don’t need you. I am big enough, able enough and good enough without you.”?

Well certainly not big enough to counter the eternal cosmic consequences of that choice.

I disagree with the above cartoon’s presumption that being a Christian means you have to agree with all your church’s political issues.

Well, I think that it is very important to remember one of the biggest reasons to leave a church. I think that leaving a big church is a good thing, regardless of if you’re a sane, moderate believer or a non-believer who used to go to church.

All big churches, and probably the Catholic Church in particular, use their numbers as an argument to have power. Both when they try to convert people (“How could a billion believers be wrong?”) and when they exert their political power.

The Catholics can get US schools to support abstinence only education. They can get a lot of people all over the world, even in the most AIDS-stricken areas of Africa, to reject condoms. They can get a man expelled from school for smuggling out a cracker. They can cover up sex abuse scandals. They can pull out of charities because they aren’t allowed to discriminate against homosexuals, etcetera…

They can do all that and still be considered a great, big force of good by people in general – because they have a huge number of normal, sane, nice followers.

The Catholic Church does crazy, oppressive, dangerous, homophobic, misogynistic stuff – utilizing their large amounts of money and power to push their, in my eyes frankly evil, agenda… and most people would never call them on it. Because for most people, saying “the policies of the Catholic Church are evil” would feel like the same thing as saying “my neighbors/friends/family/coworkers/ are evil.”

Because the normal, sane Catholics don’t differentiate themselves from the overall power structure. Everyone knows that there are many millions of nice Catholics, so the Church can do whatever they want but it isn’t considered “nice” to question or call them on it – because “Hey, don’t say that Catholics do evil things! Most Catholics aren’t like that.”

I would personally love it if only the hardcore, Pope Ratzi-like Catholics would stay in the Church and all the sane, moderate Catholics would take their tithings and the political pull their numbers bring and leave.

I haven’t believed in God for a day in my life, but it doesn’t bother me if others do. I just don’t like it when they implicitly support a power structure doing really bad things by staying as members, even when they don’t agree with the bad things being done.

“I don’t see the issues being brought up in the cartoon as being political at all, except for perhaps the covering up for pedophile priests which would be church “politics”, not civil politics. It’s definitely a moral decision, something churches claim to have a good insight on.”

By political issues, I was referring to the panels on Catholics supporting the ban of condoms and birth control. Just because a Christian personally believes that premarital sex is a sin doesn’t mean they can’t also believe things like comprehensive sex ed are still better than abstinence only teachings. Contrary to popular belief, it is possible to receive a decent sex education but still choose to save yourself for marriage. If the cartoon character making presumptions about what the Catholic girl believes, they could always you know, ask the Catholic what they believe instead of making presumptions which is what the cartoon character is doing. The cartoon is called stereotyping.

“The Catholics can get US schools to support abstinence only education.”

For the record, my Catholic friend I mentioned earlier is British, but I don’t know if Catholics in the UK are generally more moderate than Catholics in the U.S.

Roman Catholics seem to ‘cherry-pick’ when it comes to belief issues…such hypocrites. I’m glad I was of sound enough mind to leave the church as soon as I turned 18. Life is awesome now, even though I will be burning in hell for eternity. 🙂

Yeah, definitely… things i renounced before i left the whole church-

1) Angels
– never really bought it. especially guardian angels.
2)The “Word of God”
– it didn’t make sense that an obviously imperfect human book was said to be god’s word.
3) Prayer and Miracles
– Even though i considered myself a devout Catholic, I hardly ever prayed on my own. Especially not for miracles, i considered praying for miracles a waste of time.

It’s amazing, that even in spite of these things i was a Catholic for several years, but it’s no wonder that the bricks brought the whole building down eventually.

Great cartoon!

@jeff:

The reason “good people go to hell,” as you put it, is because they choose to ignore, denigrate, or otherwise reject His provision.
If you are God, how good is someone who tells you, “No, I don’t need you. I am big enough, able enough and good enough without you.”?

“Worship me or be punished!” is the clarion call of dictators through the ages. A good and fair god wouldn’t hinge eternity on whether a person worships them or not. A good and fair god wouldn’t create a universe that appears naturally made and expect people to reject scientific explanations for it, live in ignorance, and if they don’t – let them burn forever in punishment.

A good and fair god would look at a person and realize their intents behind their lives. I attempt to be as selfless and kind as I can manage, for no benefit besides the fact I like to make people happy. I do it because I remember how my grandfather acted. I do not have to worship a god and tell people to worship the same god in order to be a good person.

If a good and fair god looked at me, and saw my behavior, my attitude, and my infinite interest in the things of science – my curiosity into my existence – they wouldn’t punish me for it, they would reward that.

A good and fair god would not reward people who treat other people in an ugly fashion, like a lot of Christian people do.

It really doesn’t make sense to claim to be something if that thing is deeply and radically inconsistent with what you both reason and intuit to be true.

The pastor who baptized me marched with MLK in Selma. My home church has women in leadership and pastoral positions. It was open to and tolerant of questions and discussion. It has accepted and empowered gays and lesbians. It leveraged it’s inner city location to provide food, shelter, and job training to the homeless. It’s message of Christ’s grace, God’s justice and inclusiveness was..well..one of the reasons I stuck around and am still doing the whole Jesus thing.

jeff said,

If you are God, how good is someone who tells you, “No, I don’t need you. I am big enough, able enough and good enough without you.”?

I don’t see what feeling a need has to do with being “good” or “bad.”
I don’t feel I need therapy. Does that make me a bad person to therapists? I don’t feel sick, does that make me a bad person to doctors? If it turns out I have cancer do I now owe the doctor an apology for not recognizing that I needed chemo?

It sounds like your God takes rejection very hard.

Listen, Jeff’s God, it’s not you, it’s me. OK?

Yes, my God takes rejection very seriously. It’s the most serious thing there is.

Yes, my God takes rejection very seriously. It’s the most serious thing there is.

That seems childish of him.

When Rudolph was rejected by the other reindeer, he didn’t even wish them harm. But, his special gift made him important and eventually forced them to include him. If your God has any special talents or abilities I’m sure in due time they, too, will be recognized and appreciated. But he really shouldn’t force it. It needs to happen naturally.

@jeff

Theologically speaking, children are protected by God until they reach such an age

Wishful thinking? Do you have any actual scripture that says this?
Also if said child is in some far away place where missionaries have not yet managed to interfere and grows up to be an adult , perhaps to be a pagan, is he also protected?

There have been other non-canonical Rudolph stories that suggest his reaction but the sole canonical source does not.

You know, I do recall a version of the song just this past Christmas wherein Rudolph expresses resentment and hostility toward the other reindeer. He even goes so far as to refuse their invitation to join in their games.
Now, I believe this particular carol is a modern invention and, hence, apocryphal. I don’t even remember the name of the singer, but he was definitely not authoritative what with a completely untoward twang to his voice. However, I admit that I felt a great deal more respect for that Rudolph than the nambi-bambi pacifist one of ancient lore.

As to your pathetic attempt to impose upon God what His behavior should be,

I wouldn’t think of imposing. It was merely a helpful suggestion.

He’s God. What may or may not seem appropriate to you from your limited experience and point of view is therefore immaterial.

Fair enough. It just seemed that since it’s my acceptance he’s gunning for, he might want some feedback.

@Jeff

As to your pathetic attempt to impose upon God what His behavior should be, you are quite similar to a tantrum throwing two-year-old who is smarter than his parent. He’s God. What may or may not seem appropriate to you from your limited experience and point of view is therefore immaterial.

Ah and here the mask cracks. Well actually my God respects reason and intellect and will punish all these false religions and especially people like you. He’s God , and he laughs at your pathetic views. It may not seem appropriate to you based on your limited intellect , but your views are really immaterial.

We are told that god loves us more than anything in the world, loves us! But gosh, if you don’t believe in him, if you don’t have blind faith, then so very sorry, but you’ll need to burn in the fires of hell for eternity. Ouch. Doesn’t matter how good a person you are at heart.

I love my dogs more than just about anything in this world, I love them. And there’s not a single thing they could do, not a single thing, not a bite, not a “denial of my existence” that would make me hurt them or burn them or cause them distress or pain for a single second, not a single second.

Sounds like I love my dogs way more than “god” loves us.

@Neon Genesis
I believe the point is that most Catholics believe that condoms / birth control are not harmful/sinful even though the Vatican says so and believes it is important that Catholics do not use it(so there is a disconnect between what is practised and what is preached).

But again, just because a Catholic themselves doesn’t believe they should be used doesn’t mean they have to believe that other people who are not Catholics should be forced to not use them.

Ah surely you dont believe this? When abortion is banned , is it banned only for Catholics? When abstinence only is taught and/or funded is it only to catholics? Id probably agree that some catholics dont care ,but it isnt the official position, it isnt the public position.

Deiloh said:

I suppose if I’d belonged to a much more liberal church, I might still be there.

I’m exactly the same way. It was my stint with fundamentalism that made me see the shallowness of what I’d believed before, and eventually to question the whole lot. Had I kept being a liberal, fluffy, cafeteria Christian, I’d probably still be a believer (and entirely unskeptical and lacking in critical thinking skills).

You seem to be under the impression that the only way religious people can convince other people to agree with them is by force

Strawman?
I have merely pointed out that some religious people, especially high ranking ones , lobby to have laws passed, sometimes successfully (e.g. gay marriage) that impact everybody , not just people who claim to believe in their religion. Do you deny this?

@Zabinatrix
+1

This rings very true for me. While I was never a Catholic, I attended a Baptist church for a brief period in my adolescence (I went with a Christian friend, as my entire family was rather secular). While I was determined to be the Best Christian Possible, I had a lot of problems reconciling the things that the Bible and my pastor told me. So I was a “Liberal Christian” for a while, and I believed that Christianity was essentially correct, but the Bible was a flawed rule book written by fallible men. I was even willing to believe that the Bible was wrong about who got into Heaven, and that everyone would just be judged on their deeds, because I couldn’t stand the thought of being in “Heaven” without my family and secular friends. That just didn’t sound very Heavenly to me.

My breaking point was slow, but I think the last straw, finally, was all the stupid sex rules. Like most Christian teens, I had taken an abstinence pledge. But when I got into high school and some of my friends started experimenting with sex (one even had an abortion) I began to think more clearly: Who on earth has the right to tell someone how they can and can’t behave when it comes to sex? Who has the right to decide when the “right” time to have sex is? If gay people are in love, why can’t they have sex? Or even if they’re not in love… they’re just two consenting adults, being safe and honest with each other… why is that wrong? I started wondering why marriage was the only institution where sex was allowed, and pondered that maybe that would make people get married for reasons that are completely wrong. I started thinking that maybe I didn’t even want to get married, but I sure as hell didn’t want to die a virgin. In the end, I was still determined to wait for love before I had sex, but I no longer thought it was right to demand that other people wait until they’re in love, or engaged, or married.

Once I threw out that belief and started thinking about how harmful it really was, it became a lot more clear that the Church was the #1 organization responsible for keeping women down for all this time. I started looking more closely at the clear sexism in the Bible, and I decided it was garbage.

Then I decided the homosexuality stuff was garbage.

Then the creation story.

The last thing to go, I think, was belief in Jesus.

Then, one very reasonable day, I don’t know exactly when it was… I just decided I could no longer call myself a Christian. Not even a “Liberal” one.

@Neon Genesis
Are stances against birth control, homosexuality, abortion, political stances? If so someone should really inform the Catholics.
Second you are mistaken , the Pope is only infallible when he invokes something (I forget what exactly), which to my knowledge has only been invoked once.

Chelsea,

You wrote, “Who on earth has the right to tell someone how they can and can’t behave when it comes to sex?”

The answer is God. He has that right and He chooses to exercise it.

Zabinatrix,

Your primary mistake is a failure to recognize and appreciate the fact that God is categorically different than we are. What applies to our relationships with one another does not apply to Him. it is insulting and vain of you to suggest, imply or consider that He owes us some explanation.

You may choose to love the cockroaches who live in your home but you would never be able to explain yourself to them.

At the same time, whatever level of comprehension they were capable of you may rightly expect at least a stab at obedience and respect for whatever rules you set down, such as “stay off the dining room table!”

Cheers to you.

Neon Genesis:

In an ideal world, the Episcopal church and the Catholic church would make a trade and all the moderate Catholics would switch to to the liberal branch of the Episcopal church and all the evangelical members of the Episcopal church would switch to the Catholic church. But as far as I’m aware, in Catholic doctrine, the pope is only infallible in issues on theology, not political stances.

I don’t know if that last part is true, but even if it is it doesn’t change the reality that the Catholic church uses its vast number of members and funds to butt in on political issues. Even if the Pope and the members have a disagreement on how it should be done, it is being done and they are implicitly supporting it.

An exchange with the Episcopal church might not be practical – but if they don’t agree with the practices that they support they can always leave the church and keep believing in what they do believe.

Let’s say I joined the KKK because they had awesome tea-parties (not the political kind), a kickass classical videogame collection and nacho-nights. Then I go on a march with them, for a fun social gathering with my tea and videogame friends, but to my shock I realize that the organization I’m supporting is racist.

Well, I’d quit. And if the people I like in the organization were also non-racists who were simply suckered in by the promise of tea and nachos, I’d convince them to leave with me. Then we could gather at my house to have our own tea-game-nacho-nights, without supporting a racist organization. It would be totally possible. And all the moderate, sane Catholics can do something similar – an ideal world isn’t needed.

Jeff writes:

As far as Scripture to support my argument for the safety of children there is a plethora, but here is one to consider.

John 15: 22-24.

No one who has not had a revelation of Christ will be held accountable for their sin, according to Christ Himself.

Unfortunately there is no question that many on this forum have had a sufficient revelation but are choosing to stubbornly, obstinately rebel against Him. For those that have not and are in genuine unbelief, don’t sweat it. Children, the foolish, ignorant and mentally impaired are all covered.

What I’m hearing you say is that kids who die young, and adults who remain ignorant of the existence of Jesus, are the lucky ones.

Quite simply because we can know what God has chosen to reveal to us, and most of that revelation is based upon what is appropriate for us to be able to comprehend.

And, Gary, the “lucky ones,” as you put it are those who have a living, vibrant, fulfilling relationship with the living God of all that is. The inference which is logical to draw from Scripture regarding those who die young and those who remain ignorant is that this same God is not capricious or arbitrary when judging the eternal fate of said same.

The truth is that atheist have a particular habit of creating straw man arguments regarding God, attacking the straw man and congratulating themselves for dismantling the myth. I don’t believe in the caricature that most atheists are attacking here either. That “god” does not indeed exist. However, the true God revealed by the whole, comprehensive counsel of Scripture is Who He says He is.

Jeff:

And, Gary, the “lucky ones,” as you put it are those who have a living, vibrant, fulfilling relationship with the living God of all that is. The inference which is logical to draw from Scripture regarding those who die young and those who remain ignorant is that this same God is not capricious or arbitrary when judging the eternal fate of said same.

What I’m hearing you say is that atheists would have been better off if they had never grown up. Indeed, they would have been better off if they had never been born.

Zabinatrix:

yes.

Zabinatrix I do not recall anyone calling you names, so if you could refrain from naming believers ‘bigots’ it will keep everyones collar cool.
Christians do not believe in different gods they simple have misconceptions of God most of which are based on an inability to accept the truth of what God has said.
As far as revealed knowledge goes the only revealed knowledge that applies to all of humanity is that which is found in scripture. All other revealed knowledge that is imparted to people is for the individual or for a specific group of people, and it will never contradict the knowledge of God that He has given us in the Bible.
God does not fail to reach Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc. There are millions who reach out to those groups. In fact any Christian who is near those of different beliefs has a responsibility to not only love and care deeply for them, but also to breach the topic of religion.
Yes, revealed knowledge is difficult to accept because its true. There are billions of people around the world who hate others just because they are a different race, or they don’t understand them. The truth for them is there is not a logical cause to deny respect for that person, but billions do any way.
It is not arrogant because knowing the truth about something is not about being right it is about knowledge and understanding knowledge.
Personally I have deeply thought about the religions of other people and have found all to include elements of my own yet that is what makes them more believable. For the greatest lies are those that contain truth.

Renee:

Zabinatrix I do not recall anyone calling you names, so if you could refrain from naming believers ‘bigots’ it will keep everyones collar cool.

And here I thought that I was clearly differentiating believers who are bigots and believers who are not bigots. I did not categorically say “all believers are bigots” – I mentioned that there exists believers who are bigots and hide behind the Bible as they oppress women, homosexuals and knowledge. That is a fact, just like it’s a fact that there are non-believers who are bigots – only they don’t have a Bible to hide behind.

I also said that there are believers who are not bigots and who clearly interprets their “reveled knowledge” quite differently. But it’s much more fun to misrepresent my words and say that I “name believers bigots” – when I was careful to do no such thing. My entire point was that it isn’t defensible to hide behind the Bible when you oppress people, because being religious doesn’t necessarily make you a bigot.

But this is like what I was talking about Catholics up above. We all know that there are millions of good, nice, non-bigoted Catholics. So it’s difficult to call the Church on any of its shady doings, because as soon as you do someone will swoop in with a “But not all Catholics are like that! Stop saying that!”

And when I talk about the fact that some believers are bigoted, someone will swoop in and say “I’m not like that so stop saying that believers are like that!” – they try to make it impossible to complain about those who do wrong, for some reason.

Christians do not believe in different gods they simple have misconceptions of God most of which are based on an inability to accept the truth of what God has said.

So, a special way of knowing? Some interpret the Bible as “God hates fags!” (actual, well-known quote, I’m not misrepresenting Christians or saying that all Christians are bigots) while some interpret it as “God loves everyone!” – how do you know that you are right in whatever your interpretation might be? And can you really say that they believe in the same God if one person believes in a God who hates homosexuals while the other believes in a God who loves them? I’d say that those two Gods are very different.

As far as revealed knowledge goes the only revealed knowledge that applies to all of humanity is that which is found in scripture.

So, the Qur’an? The Vedas? The Edda? Theravada? The Five Classics of Confucianism? The Ginza Rba? The King James Bible?

All other revealed knowledge that is imparted to people is for the individual or for a specific group of people, and it will never contradict the knowledge of God that He has given us in the Bible.

Oh, of course the Bible – how could I believe anything else?

So, when other holy texts talk about multiple gods, about reincarnation for everyone, about the lack of an afterlife, about other creation myths… it doesn’t contradict the Bible? Glad you cleared that up.

Anyway, I was about to go on, but I’m being too verbose and long-winded again. I’ll just try to get to my point.

You seem to be arguing for this whole “we all have a different way of knowing God, all believers are all one happy family and everyone will get to heaven because Jesus loves us all” or something similar.

That is all very nice and good, theologically speaking. You can believe in that as much as you want and I’ll think that that’s great.

But I really, really don’t care about God or the Truth about scripture. I don’t believe in it. I do believe in people. I believe that there is a big, beautiful world around me that I love. I believe that we should keep it as beautiful and wonderful as we can. Part of that is speaking up against those who oppress others.

You might have some beautiful idea about the love of God, but many don’t. I’ll continue arguing against those who oppress no matter what beautiful Truth you personally believe in.

And in doing so I’ll continue to point out that you can’t seem to agree on what “revealed knowledge” really is, so it’s not something you can use as an excuse for anything.

You personally might or might not use it as an excuse, but I think that my argument still stands, and there still exists way too many bigots who use “revealed knowledge” as an excuse. So I’ll continue to argue against it even if you are a nice person.

I started doubting at age eight. There were two things I could never accept even at such a young age. One, I couldn’t be an altar boy (no other term then) because I was a girl and two, only Catholics could go to heaven. These two things seemed so wrong and unfair I started doubting the whole thing.
Personally, anyone who still puts money in any Catholic collection plates is supporting and promoting the protection of pedophiles. They (unfortunately much of my family) can spin it any way they want, but that’s what it is.

Regarding my cryptic “yes” response. I am affirming, with a “yes” response, every question posed by Zab that can be answered with a simple “yes”, or “no” response.

To answer Gary re: witnessing to those of other faiths, we do so primarily because He instructs us to. Matthew 28:19 and 20 is one pertinent Scripture about that.

Zabinatrix wrote: “If they can’t know the mind of God when He chooses to let people die horribly, they can’t know the mind of God when they think God wants them to oppress homosexuals and women. You can have it one way or another, not both.”

Well of course you can. You can know, regarding God, what He has chosen to reveal to you, probably according to what you are capable of comprehending. His moral code is fairly easy to comprehend and is obviously of great importance to Him since He chose to leave heaven and suffer the most agonizing torture, brutality and death ever inflicted by humans onto a fellow human, as the method of payment for it on your behalf.

Jeff:

Well of course you can. You can know, regarding God, what He has chosen to reveal to you, probably according to what you are capable of comprehending. His moral code is fairly easy to comprehend and is

Well, you just get back to me when you can prove any of that, okay? Or at least when you can prove that any two believers received the same revealed knowledge?

I had a couple of Mormons here recently, preaching to me. When I asked how they could know what God really wanted, they used the “he has revealed it to us”-thing. But the two of them couldn’t agree if the ban on “hot beverages” from the book of Mormon included hot chocolate or not.

Usually believers disagree about much more important stuff, but regardless they don’t seem to have some crystal-clear line to God, giving them any exact instructions.

obviously of great importance to Him since He chose to leave heaven and suffer the most agonizing torture, brutality and death ever inflicted by humans onto a fellow human, as the method of payment for it on your behalf.

Please. Your Jesus had a bad weekend. Three days and then he was up in heaven living the good life.

If the worth of your religion is measured in suffering, there are some other myths you can try. I seem to remember some from my school days, about people spending an eternity getting their liver eaten by a bird, an eternity holding up the world on their shoulders and stuff. And don’t forget the poor boar Särimnir from Norse Mythology – killed and eaten every day, just to come back to life the next day to be eaten again.

Oh, and you can try to prove that Jesus existed, was crucified, was the Son of God and was here to somehow pay for our sins (whatever that actually means), before using it as an argument. So far I’m not convinced about any of those things.

Jeff writes:

To answer Gary re: witnessing to those of other faiths, we do so primarily because He instructs us to. Matthew 28:19 and 20 is one pertinent Scripture about that.

Yet your witnessing actually tends to work to the disadvantage of those witnessed to, by making them liable to be guilty of sin for which (as you have so cogently argued) Jesus is said to have claimed they would not otherwise be guilty. It seems as though Jesus actually wanted an increase in the number of people guilty of sin, and that’s why he left instructions to go around witnessing. Puzzling.

Perhaps Jesus hadn’t thought through the implications of his teachings very carefully. Or perhaps some of the teachings attributed to him are not actually authentic. Certainly I have no difficulty questioning the authenticity of any statement said to have been made by a supposedly risen-again-from-the-three-days-dead-and-stinkin’ Jesus, because I don’t believe that such a Jesus existed. Curiously, that instruction seems to contradict the earlier instruction attributed to the not-yet-dead Jesus, “Do not go in the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter any city of the Samaritans; but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

The instruction suppsedly given in Matthew 28 to “go and make disciples of all nations” was impossible for the original followers of Jesus to carry out, because Jesus did not leave behind any information about where “all nations” might be found. Thus, the inhabitants of the Americas were spared the horrible burden of knowing about Jesus for fifteen centuries. Good thing for them, apparently, as they were thus spared the all-too-real risk of “rejecting” Jesus.

That’s why I don’t believe in your god. . . far too small. The Bible God has no such human limitations.

Jeff writes:

According to Scripture those who will be held accountable know deep within that God is real….

Well, that’s certainly good news. Even if I’m wrong about the existence of God, it sounds like I’m not going to be held accountable.

Not damned if I do, not damned if I don’t. Hot damn.

Every man wants to be king.

For a short time I had the strange ambition to be Comptroller of the Currency. I think it’s the title that drew me. Plus, monetary policy fascinated me when I was studying Economics.
It’s really a god-like position in the banking industry. Do you think Lucifer ever wanted to be head of the OCC? If I were God, I’d probably find something for him in the financial arena. He’d argue at first, complaining that he wants to be in charge of the whole deal not some glorified bean counter sporting green shades. But, I’d convince him to try it just for a season. Maybe Alan Greenspan knows something about this. I’d check his clothes for the stench of sulphur, at the very least.

“Let’s say I joined the KKK because they had awesome tea-parties (not the political kind), a kickass classical videogame collection and nacho-nights. Then I go on a march with them, for a fun social gathering with my tea and videogame friends, but to my shock I realize that the organization I’m supporting is racist.

Well, I’d quit. And if the people I like in the organization were also non-racists who were simply suckered in by the promise of tea and nachos, I’d convince them to leave with me. Then we could gather at my house to have our own tea-game-nacho-nights, without supporting a racist organization. It would be totally possible. And all the moderate, sane Catholics can do something similar – an ideal world isn’t needed.”

But what if you were raised in the racist south and later when you grew up, you realized racism was wrong? It might make more logical sense to move to the more open minded northern states but you might still feel attached to the South and wish the South wasn’t racist so you wouldn’t have to leave and stayed behind to reform the south from the inside.

Neon Genesis:

But what if you were raised in the racist south and later when you grew up, you realized racism was wrong? It might make more logical sense to move to the more open minded northern states but you might still feel attached to the South and wish the South wasn’t racist so you wouldn’t have to leave and stayed behind to reform the south from the inside.

To me, my comparison still makes more sense.

The KKK and Catholic Church are both organizations – not geographical areas. You can’t quit a geographical area and restart it elsewhere – it’ll stay put. But you can quite an organization and keep doing the things that you liked about the organization.

And changing it from the inside is the only thing that makes sense when talking about general attitudes in a geographical area – those attitudes are disseminated among the population so it’s all you can do.

In an organization with a top-down power structure like the Catholic Church it’s pretty much the other way around. Changing the minds and attitudes among the followers doesn’t do much as long as the Pope and his closest men preach what they preach.

Look, your “change it from the inside” tactic sounds very good. But like I’ve said before I’m very sure that there are millions of great, wonderful people among the ranks of the Catholics – so why hasn’t it happened yet?

How many years of scandals of the Church covering up sex abuse? How many years of the world complaining about the Church making the aids-problem worse by spreading misinformation about condoms? How many years of gay rights groups complaining about how they vilify homosexuality? Has there been any real change?

If it was possible to easily change it from the inside, we would see all those wonderful Catholics I know are there change it already. But that doesn’t seem to be the case.

Big churches have always lagged behind society in general when it comes to what is considered good and moral. Churches still supported slavery long after large parts of society started to question and fight it. Many churches still oppose homosexuality and equality between the sexes today, and even most liberal churches were behind society in conforming to changing values. Today the Catholic Church is lagging behind what most of rest of society thinks and it doesn’t seem to be changing very fast.

However, this could change tomorrow – if nice, moderate Catholics used our modern communications to organize an actual effective protest. A few million members dropping off with an angry note about “Stop doing [this] and [that] and I might come back” at roughly the same time – that would make a difference. That would make a dent in their finances and their self-assurance. And in the meantime, all the moderate Catholics who quit can keep on being Catholics with a heart full of joy over the fact that they’re helping society move forward.

Over the last few generations society has been steadily moving towards more equality, less bigotry, more understanding… and most would agree that it is a good thing. Catholics and other members of big organizations doing questionable things could change this – we have the chance to organize things like that today. Continuing to trust in “changing it from the inside” when no change is apparent and people are suffering…. To me it seems like the lesser of two options.

“The KKK and Catholic Church are both organizations – not geographical areas. You can’t quit a geographical area and restart it elsewhere – it’ll stay put. But you can quite an organization and keep doing the things that you liked about the organization.”

But I’m referring to the south as in southern culture and likewise for many moderate Catholics, their church is as much a culture as it is a religion. You just can’t quit going to church as easily as you can flip off a light switch as you seem to think.

“However, this could change tomorrow – if nice, moderate Catholics used our modern communications to organize an actual effective protest”

Like this? http://ncronline.org/print/17592

The cartoon is not only funny but poses a legitimate question, one I often grapple with. I attend Mass regularly despite serious disagreement on matters like those raised in the cartoon. I see myself as Christian rather than specifically Catholic. I’m beginning to speak out for reform on my blog The Believing Agnostic. See my recent posting: “The ‘Third Rail’ of Catholic Policy Making” at this link: http://www.thebelievingagnostic.blogspot.com/. It has angered some of my Catholic friends, but no broken relationships yet. Shane Hayes

Gary,
So far as what punishment you deserve, I wonder, if you’re being internally consistent with your inner witness. If so, perhaps to you it will not seem like punishment at all to be separated from God for eternity.

The one man, Jesus, who had the most intimate contact with the Father compared that loss and separation to living in the garbage dump (Gehenna) outside of Jerusalem and (figuratively I suppose, though I am not certain) burning, like the garbage that was burned there.

i.e. to someone who was used to close, intimate fellowship with the Father that separation would be unbearable but perhaps to someone ignorant of what that fellowship entails it may be less agonizing. I do think that, like all of us, you enjoy tangible benefits to living in a world that God created that may only become clear when you are utterly separated from His presence, influence and government.

I think it would behoove you not to find out.

It’s an interesting question, and one I wish I would answer. But according to my parents I believed in Santa for longer than I believed in god. By the age of five I was already causing problems for the teachers at my (catholic) school. I’m inordinately proud of that.