What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Longhorn]

By that I meant that no one is perfect, so no one is going to do everything the right way all the time. We just have to continue to try our best.

Having been an active Catholic my whole life, I can tell you that Catholicism is not about guilt.

Hell, there's a separate term for it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_guilt

[rexbeccarox]

You never know... what, exactly?  And why would you trust someone who is fallible until he claims otherwise?  That's pretty circular, and completely untrustworthy.  What if, say, the pope said one day, "ok- I'm declaring myself infallible.  Everybody is now to worship Satan." Or what about... I dunno... the fact that a bunch of popes have denied the idea of papal infallibility full stop?  Popes: the people who are supposed to be able to proclaim their own infallibility, for chrissakes.

So, really, truly, honestly: what is the point of the pope?

Sorry I did not make myself clear. What I meant was not that the pope says "ok, I'm infallible now!" But rather, he says "I have an infallible announcement to make in regards to faith or morals." ...and then he does so.

Like I said, this is very very rare.

Even though Popes are people who are still capable of making mistakes and acting immorally, we believe that when it comes to making infallible announcements, they literally cannot do so unless it is directly inspired by the holy spirit.

What is the difference?  It's still circular, whether it's him proclaiming his own infallibility, or the infallibility of his words.  I realize it's rare. I read; a lot.

Can you please answer a question straight: If there have been (quite a few) popes in the past who have denied papal infallibility (and please don't correct me on this term; it's the correct one) how can you possibly believe it's true?

[Mr.wizard]

Wait what? You just said you think the story is allegorical and that god did not command these men to rape. I pointed out that whether you think the story is allegorical or literal god was clearly commanding the men to rape.

God in the story was commanding them to rape. God in real life, on the other hand, I don't believe ever did this.

As I said before, the OT God is portrayed through the filter of man, who wrote it. The OT was not written by God Himself, and so it is not infallible.

---

The cognitive dissonance is strong with this one. 


That's some world class mental gymnastics you got going on there.

It is what the Church teaches.

So you don't think these stories are allegoric , you think these stories are just wrong? How do you know which parts of the bible are right?

[Cyberman]

I'm siding with rexbecca here. If these infallible announcements are so rare - I think you said a dozen of them in two millennia? - what is the point of Il Papa the rest of the time? There's been many, many popes over the centuries; at the rate you suggest, they cannot all have been necessary to make such announcements. What were the others needed for?

For extra credit: what does it say about the 'holy spirit' that it requires a single mouthpiece to relay its "inspirations"?

[Nope]

Randy, no one is lying. The bible verse in question has been copied on this forum multiple times.

And now I have shown more of the same book which contains additional provisions for the treatment of women captives. So, while no one MAY have been lying when they were ignorant of that, if they continue to claim that God condones rape, they are lying.

The Israelites destroyed a village and kept the young virgins. Many of these girls were probably just barely 13 or 14, maybe younger.  They probably saw their entire villages destroyed by the men that they were being told to marry.

If you are forced to marry someone who kills your family and have sex with that person, yes that is rape.

Why would the girls be upset that they remained with the Canaanites who were their family members?

Again, why can't American soldiers do this now? Why can't a young soldier see a pretty Afghan girl, kill her family and bring her home for his wife? He would be marrying her, after all.

I agree the times were different but your god is all powerful and all knowing. He is the one who came up with the rules in Deuteronomy. Sometimes Christians like to claim that certain stories are just reporting historical events without judgement. The problem is that in Deuteronomy is a book of god's own rules to the Hebrews.

This is a insanely,  long thread.

Let's make this simple.

1. Was the treatment of women captives specified in Dt. 21 better than the way they were treated before the giving of the Law or by other nations?

2. Given that the women WERE spoils of war, was it better that they be treated as wives than as mere sex toys?

Yes or no.

Randy, you did not answer my question. Please answer this.

Again, why can't American soldiers do this now? Why can't a young soldier see a pretty Afghan girl, kill her family and bring her home for his wife? He would be marrying her, after all.

Marital rape is still rape.  

1.Men have been kidnapping women to use as concubines and wives for a very long time so the Hebrews weren't doing anything unusual but they also weren't doing anything better than other cultures. AGAIN, your god is all powerful and all knowing. He made laws against mixing fibers but couldn't pass a simple law that said, don't force anyone to have sex with you; instead, his own laws say that soldiers can force captive women to be their brides.

2. What were the women if not sex toys? The only difference is that they got to cook and clean for the captor on top of being raped by him.

I have another question for you Randy. Do you believe that there is such thing as marital rape?

[Metis]

You've read the Myth of Hitler's Pope by Rabbi David Dalin?

Some years ago, I can't say I even remember it that well. I recall Dalin expounds upon some of the rescue plans of Mother Pascalina and a few clergymen but he does tend to skirt around a few more awkward facts such as when Pius XII was Papal Nuncio in Berlin he was observed by no other than Pascalina herself giving funds to an anti-communist/anti-semitic group ran by no other than...*drumroll* Adolf Hitler. It also ignores the total inaction by the European Catholic church on an official level, when Jews were being forced to wear the yellow star the church did speak out, but only for Catholic Jews who were being made to wear it too, the rest could all go to hell quite literally.

Perhaps the saddest case of all on that front is of Saint Edith Stein, we know she appealed to Pius XII directly for help or condemnation of Hitler, her letter survives but did he do anything? No.

It's a wonderful trend in Catholicism that you can actually murder someone or be comlicit in their death as it was in that of Joan of Arc, Edith Stein and many others; only to proclaim them saints a few years later. Marvelous PR I have to say, truly something of awe. I really have no idea how the RC manages to get away with it.

But then you engage me in a discussion of the very topics you want to get away from. What's up with that?

This is something that I think is very telling...in an atheist forum, the subforum with the most threads and views is the Christianity forum. And right now, for any number of reasons (not all of them positive I concede), I'm the one everyone is enjoying taking shots at.

Either way, you're obviously not talking about "other things with similar minded people". Your talking about Catholicism with me.

I engaged with you because you inspired my curiosity Randy, it takes a rather unusual person to try and "minister to the atheists" as I think you posted elsewhere and use the aggressive rhetorical style you do. I also found that some of the points were incorrect, in ways that only a believer would readily know and I thought I'd amend them originally.

I won't lie I do have some questions about Catholicism, but they are not ones I can ask. I have been a member of Catholic Answers for long enough to observe how any thread about anti-semetism in Catholicism or any thread in which any inconsistencies within Church doctrine are pointed out results in an immediate ban for the party that dared to ask. I remain silent there, but on a forum where we actually do have free speech I thought I'd take the opportunity to ask a Catholic apologist about it.

It's a rare opportunity for me, I might spend my day with Theologians but it's considered taboo to ask "aggressive" questions such as these from outside the faith. I imagine I could ask on Traditionalist Catholic websites such as Fish Eaters or Suscipe Domine but they are not mainstream Catholics and their answers cannot be considered valid for the actual Church of Rome as opposed to that of Econe (SSPX base) which you and most Catholics wish to speak for.

And what would be the ideas that I'm supposed to be acting out on behalf of the Vatican, Metis? (I need to know in case I'm not doing something!)

Furthering the interests of the Catholic Church, voting their preferred candidates? I think one of the best in your case is your attempts to convert people to Catholicism, drawing in more people to control.

Think about it, some people just want to be in control. Some of the places the Romans went were dirt poor, they didn't go just to get rich, they went to obtain power, fame and glory. It's not so readily apparent in America but in Ireland for instance there are Catholic political parties, more or less the entire education system with exception to a few Jewish and Anglican schools is still attached to the Catholic Church.

That's going to be a great disappointment from your co-non-religionists here.

I don't think so, there is a thread ongoing here about would athiests be happy to see religion go, many of us myself included actually said no.

I do not "hate" all religions on principle, I see them as having some considerable worth in upkeeping a code of conduct within society. They inspire people to great acts of good but on the same hand they also inspire people to fly planes into buildings stuffed with thousands of innocent people.

I think the Catholic Church will change with the times, much as it denies it ever will. I don't hate the Catholic Church, I despise several of it's teachings and it's complete disregard for human life in several points of its history (my boyfreind for instance is a former Catholic who's getting harassed by Catholics for "indulging in sodomy" and "committing crimes against the most holy sacrament", but I suppose that pales in comparison compared to the ten year olds raped in Ireland and told to shut up or they'd get stuffed into a Magdalene Laundry for the rest of their lives) as they put it but not the institution as a whole.

I'm being realistic, it has the potential to survive for a good while yet, particually in Africa. I think it'll go extinct in the western world unless it crawls into the enlightenment at last if not modernity.

One other personal question:

Your an atheist which means you are opposed to what the Catholic Church teaches.
You have degrees from a Protestant university, which means you have studied theology which is opposed to what the Catholic Church teaches.
You have a degree from an Orthodox university which means you have studied MORE theology opposed to what the Catholic Church teaches.

Do you think it is possible for you to be objective about what the Catholic Church teaches?

And if so, then what has Catholicism gotten right?

I'm not "opposed" to what the Catholic Church teaches Randy. I'll go with the Same Sex Marriage thing. I think you're totally wrong on the matter, I disagree with you.

Now, I'm happy to leave it at that. I don't campaign outside Catholic Churches to be allowed to marry inside them. I think your religion is mistaken and I have no desire to join or get involved. Considering I also live in a mostly Protestant country these days it's also a non-entity for the most part in my life, the only reason I have any connection to it is because my boyfreinds family are practicing Catholics.

I'm not "opposed" to it because I'm not fighting it. We've got Same Sex Marriage and the majority of the population is in support. I'm not fighting Catholics over it, I'm not going to make them change to suit any theology I concoct. I'm apathetic towards the Catholic Church. My boyfreind hates the Catholic Church for the abuse he suffered from it's agents like NARTH (such as the reparative therapy he was forced through as a teenager which I'm sure everyone today knows is nothing short of quack science and is physically dangerous), I personally myself have no reason to feel anything towards it, I didn't grow up with it, I don't meet Catholics on a day to day basis. My interest is merely curiosity of how this vast institution functions or came to be.

As for my theology why do I have to be a Catholic to be able to understand the Catholic Church? Have I made any mistakes in recounting it's history or doctrine? If you check my posts Randy I critique other religions too such as Jehovas' Witnesses and Mormonism. I think I am fairly objective about all the religions I study as I'm not trying to convince anyone about anything, believe, disbelieve I honestly don't care less so long as you're not actually trying to electrocute the gay out of people, denying or limiting how people wish to live their lives (like Catholics did in Portugal when they banned Protestant worship during Salazars reign) or throw single mothers off of the top of buildings like the ISIS lot are doing. I just like highlighting inconsistencies within because I like to see how the religious skirt around them. Doing so gives me a far deeper understanding of the mentality of the mind that formed the rulebook they use.

I'm not any more or less harsh about Catholicism as I am with any other religion or philosophy. Credit where credit is due. If it's about my personal bugbears I probably have more reason to be angry with Russian Orthodox Christians than I do Catholics but I don't let that taint my assessments of either group.

As for what Catholicism has gotten right? You may need to be more specific. Are we talking about doctrine? It's impact upon the world? On a doctrinal level I obviously think it's all based upon a false premise. That doesn't mean from time to time it doesn't produce desirable effects like social order or encourage support of other human beings. It also gives a great deal of comfort to some of the most poor and destitute individuals in the world.

If you tell me which area I can be more specific, I'm afraid I don't quite know what you mean for your last point

[SteelCurtain]

I won't lie I do have some questions about Catholicism, but they are not ones I can ask. I have been a member of Catholic Answers for long enough to observe how any thread about anti-semetism in Catholicism or any thread in which any inconsistencies within Church doctrine are pointed out results in an immediate ban for the party that dared to ask. I remain silent there, but on a forum where we actually do have free speech I thought I'd take the opportunity to ask a Catholic apologist about it.

Interesting...

[Catholic_Lady]

Sorry I did not make myself clear. What I meant was not that the pope says "ok, I'm infallible now!" But rather, he says "I have an infallible announcement to make in regards to faith or morals." ...and then he does so.

Like I said, this is very very rare.

Even though Popes are people who are still capable of making mistakes and acting immorally, we believe that when it comes to making infallible announcements, they literally cannot do so unless it is directly inspired by the holy spirit.

What is the difference?  It's still circular, whether it's him proclaiming his own infallibility, or the infallibility of his words.  I realize it's rare. I read; a lot.

Can you please answer a question straight: If there have been (quite a few) popes in the past who have denied papal infallibility (and please don't correct me on this term; it's the correct one) how can you possibly believe it's true?

Hi, I don't know much about the history of what happened here to give you a great answer. Let me get back to you after I do some investigating. It's a good question.

[robvalue]

I have to say, if I was a Christian, or even a serious generic theist, I'd find the Pope the most offensive man on the planet. He's the nearest thing to a false god, and claims to speak for God, infallibly or otherwise. I would not like that.

All humans are fallible, so anyone claiming otherwise, even temporarily, is being ridiculous. How can we take his word for it? His fallible word.

[Catholic_Lady]

God in the story was commanding them to rape. God in real life, on the other hand, I don't believe ever did this.

As I said before, the OT God is portrayed through the filter of man, who wrote it. The OT was not written by God Himself, and so it is not infallible.

---

It is what the Church teaches.

So you don't think these stories are allegoric , you think these stories are just wrong?

I wouldn't say they are just "wrong". They're stories which I believe to be fictional, they can't be either right or wrong. The Church does not provide any interpretation for the majority of these, so I would say they do not play much of a role in forming the Catholic faith. Perhaps the only take away from these stories is that God has always been there, which is the one part of the stories that I believe is always true, even if God is not portrayed very accurately. Either way, this is not important to Catholicism.

How do you know which parts of the bible are right?

I follow the teachings of the Catholic Church. When I want to know what the Church teaches on something, I don't dig though the bible to find the answers. I look to the Church, which has the Catechism, the Magisterium, etc. The bible, while important, is not the main pillar of our faith. I'd say the parts of the bible which tell the story of Jesus and His teachings is more relevant to our faith than some OT stories.

---

I'm siding with rexbecca here. If these infallible announcements are so rare - I think you said a dozen of them in two millennia? - what is the point of Il Papa the rest of the time? There's been many, many popes over the centuries; at the rate you suggest, they cannot all have been necessary to make such announcements. What were the others needed for?

For extra credit: what does it say about the 'holy spirit' that it requires a single mouthpiece to relay its "inspirations"?

Yes, less than a dozen.

Well, they are still the representatives of the faith. A religion with over 1 billion people can benefit from having one person to represent and guide the people. Even though infalliable pronouncements are rare, you never know when one will need to happen, and if/when this is the case, a pope will be there.

You mean why does it need to happen through a person verses just havng the voice sound from the sky for all to hear? I don't know. God thought it would be best this way, apparently. A theory that is widely accepted is that if God were to reveal Himself in such a concrete way again, He would be hated and resented by many people. Being more ambiguous allows people to simply not believe He exists, and this is a better alternative than knowing He does exist and hating Him. Having legitimate hatred for God is the one sure way of ending up in the one place where God is not present. Simply not believing that He is real leaves plenty of room for hope, IMHO. In my opinion, it's a way of protecting some of us from ourselves.

---

I have to say, if I was a Christian, or even a serious generic theist, I'd find the Pope the most offensive man on the planet. He's the nearest thing to a false god, and claims to speak for God, infallibly or otherwise. I would not like that.

All humans are fallible, so anyone claiming otherwise, even temporarily, is being ridiculous. How can we take his word for it? His fallible word.

You are not alone. Many Christians believe that Catholics are going to Hell for this reason.