Is the catholic church a force for good?

[EGross]

So if a Catholic lies ("No honey, that dress does NOT make you look fat") and never fesses up to it, he is not a true Christian and will suffer for that after death.

Man, being a decent husband is a bitch for a Catholic! Or there really aren't any, and therefore they are atheists, but don't even know it, according to Lion. Which makes it easy to distance oneself from all of the theives, murderers, pediphiles, liars, and what-have-you who run or have run the Catholic Church heirarchy. And since the Pope passivley or actively supported it, they have, in reality, been without a Pope since Peter lost his keys.

There is a difference between the dogma of a Cathoolic and the beliefs of an atheist, which is a misdirect and something I tried to address to Muslim scholar.

When a Catholic believes that using a condom, not lying to his wife about her weight, divorce, and the myriad of other prohibitions are edicts that must be obeyed or suffer some torment in an afterlife, that is slavery. It is not just slavery to a god made in the image of man, but of the religious heirarchy as well, which has repeatedly been exposed of abusing its power and its youth.

When an atheis believes that there is no supernatural mythology, that does not create a slave, but releases him or her. I am free to give without looking forward to points in the afterlife (the more points, the better the mansion, as one nun explained it to me as a kid). I am free to eat meat on Friday (ok, it's not a sin anymore, but imagine those poor bastards who are still burnning for that one!), if I were an abused woman, I would be free to divorce that creep and not fear eternal damnation. Yes, the Church is more about putting the fear of not-god in the world, influencing governments and demanding their fealty (not so much these days, but they still get special perks), in enslaving a god-view to the world that the Church heirarchy itself cannot keep. Coming from a Jewish heritage, my view of the Catholic Church is one where it's foundation is built with the blood and bones of my genetic ancestors. And a Church that admittedly still have some of our stuff (they recently loaned Israel a stolen hand-written copy of the Rambam that has not been seen for centuries, if ever, under the condition that they give it back after looking it over and copying it. They got more stuff).

Has the Church been a force for good? Yup. Have they been a force for the greatest of evils? Yes. Now, does good erase evil? Never. Does evil taint the good? Always.

The problem for the Catholic is like growing up with a drunken abusive father. You don't want to talk about it, but you show eveyone the nice shiny bike he got you. And you'll ride it as soon as the cast comes off ("I tripped").

[Lion IRC]

EGross,
Do you remember the Hitchens dilemma/wager along the lines of...
...anything you can do, I can do better with an atheist level of mediocrity probably almost just as well?

It's the one he used to trot out whenever the moral argument for God was being raised.

It's applicable here because, (and this was why his counter-apologetic ploy failed,) the atheist can EQUALLY do something ''bad'' if they want. (Same free will as Christians)

However unlike the Christian who sins, none of Mr Hitchens' fellow atheists could hold up a bible and say...see how you have sinned.

My point is that the Christian can do something ''righteous'' and that Christian's Church would endorse it biblically. And that same Christian could also sin and they would for the very same reason, agree that the Church's admonishment was based on a standard set by the same God.

The sinner who asks for forgiveness and receives a clean slate from God is in a different category to the person who thinks theres no such thing as sin and no God to Whom they ought apologise. One is a True Scotsman and the other isnt even from Scotland.

So you see there IS such a thing as a True Sinner in the eyes of The Church and it IS possible to differentiate between bad things done by atheists and sins committed by those who admit the reality of sin (good/evil)

In any case, I think I could sustain an argument that The Church was a force for good even is they did have to ''cop'' the blame for (truly evil) deeds of people that you might accuse of being Christians.

I wonder if anyone ever did publically offer a successful response to Mr Hitchens challenge?

---

I thought the best contender would be laying down your earthly life for your fellow humans with no earthly reward. (ie. no insurance policy payout to your surviving relatives.) Self-sacrifice purely for love, done in the faith that there is an afterlife.

That to me would take the sort of faith that an atheist couldnt match and would be hard for an athiest to explain in secular or evolutionary terms. Why deprive your own selfish DNA the opportunity to continue propagating while simultaneously saving the life of someone else whose DNA is technically going to compete with your future offspring.

[Esquilax]

However unlike the Christian who sins, none of Mr Hitchens' fellow atheists could hold up a bible and say...see how you have sinned.

My point is that the Christian can do something ''righteous'' and that Christian's Church would endorse it biblically. And that same Christian could also sin and they would for the very same reason, agree that the Church's admonishment was based on a standard set by the same God.

Unless you're actually arguing that no atheist has ever admitted to doing something wrong and recognizing that it was wrong, then you're arguing nothing at all.

The only real difference is, when an atheist cops to their wrongdoing, they're accepting responsibility for something real and making amends to the people they've actually wronged, not praying to the voices in their heads and then informing the people they've harmed that magic sky daddy has forgiven them, so it's all okay. That's the difference.

[CapnAwesome]

I forget, is boy rape good or evil? But seriously, if you look at it in a purely secular fashion there is no way the Catholic Church could be considered a force for good.

[Minimalist]

As far back as 1967, the Catholic Church has been warning its bishops about the potential risks of perverts infiltratating the clergy.

As far back as last Thursday the Los Angeles diocese was settling for $10 million for covering up the crimes of pervert priests. Looks like the fuckers didn't listen very well.

[Tonus]

I thought the best contender would be laying down your earthly life for your fellow humans with no earthly reward. (ie. no insurance policy payout to your surviving relatives.) Self-sacrifice purely for love, done in the faith that there is an afterlife.

That to me would take the sort of faith that an atheist couldnt match and would be hard for an athiest to explain in secular or evolutionary terms. Why deprive your own selfish DNA the opportunity to continue propagating while simultaneously saving the life of someone else whose DNA is technically going to compete with your future offspring.

I'm not sure I understand. You're saying that it's tougher for an atheist to make that sacrifice, because he doesn't have a hereafter to look forward to? I guess there is merit to the idea. It would make the atheist's self-sacrifice an actual sacrifice, though, wouldn't it? Dying in the flesh with the knowledge that you're going to heaven, where you'll spend eternity with all of the good people who ever existed, sounds like a pretty big upgrade. Where's the sacrifice?

Then again, that is also the Christian example, isn't it? Jesus took a fleshly body for a time period that for him was barely the blink of an eye, then sacrificed it and returned to heaven. He gave up something that he never needed. Where was the sacrifice? That's like deciding that for Lent, you're going to stop setting your hand on fire.

[ThomM]

As far back as 1967, the Catholic Church has been warning its bishops about the potential risks of perverts infiltratating the clergy.

As far back as last Thursday the Los Angeles diocese was settling for $10 million for covering up the crimes of pervert priests. Looks like the fuckers didn't listen very well.

IT goes back FAR further than that

When I was first studying to be an Altar Boy when I was in Catholic School -
there was a priest in the Parish that both the Nuns and the Pastor told us we were NOT ALLOWED to be alone with in a room - there had to be at least two or more of us with him. IF it seemed like we would end up that way - we should run away as quickly as possible.

THey KNEW then and were already covering up some priests.

[Lion IRC]

I thought the best contender would be laying down your earthly life for your fellow humans with no earthly reward. (ie. no insurance policy payout to your surviving relatives.) Self-sacrifice purely for love, done in the faith that there is an afterlife.

That to me would take the sort of faith that an atheist couldnt match and would be hard for an athiest to explain in secular or evolutionary terms. Why deprive your own selfish DNA the opportunity to continue propagating while simultaneously saving the life of someone else whose DNA is technically going to compete with your future offspring.

I'm not sure I understand. You're saying that it's tougher for an atheist to make that sacrifice, because he doesn't have a hereafter to look forward to? I guess there is merit to the idea. It would make the atheist's self-sacrifice an actual sacrifice, though, wouldn't it? Dying in the flesh with the knowledge that you're going to heaven, where you'll spend eternity with all of the good people who ever existed, sounds like a pretty big upgrade. Where's the sacrifice?

Then again, that is also the Christian example, isn't it? Jesus took a fleshly body for a time period that for him was barely the blink of an eye, then sacrificed it and returned to heaven. He gave up something that he never needed. Where was the sacrifice? That's like deciding that for Lent, you're going to stop setting your hand on fire.

My point would be that the atheist could not do it because they would not think/hope there was going to be an afterlife.

Even if the theist DOES go to heaven they have STILL sacrificed their earthly/secular life while the atheist is still alive.

[Ryantology]

My point would be that the atheist could not do it because they would not think/hope there was going to be an afterlife.

Just because you need promises of reward and the threat of hell to not be a selfish psychopath doesn't mean everybody's like you.

[Tonus]

My point would be that the atheist could not do it because they would not think/hope there was going to be an afterlife.

Even if the theist DOES go to heaven they have STILL sacrificed their earthly/secular life while the atheist is still alive.

But the theist 'knows' that he has another existence to fall back on. You sacrifice one consciousness for another, better one. The atheist is pondering an actual sacrifice, as opposed to a momentary inconvenience. To offer up the only existence you'll ever have is a real sacrifice. To give up the remaining years in a lifetime that will be a microsecond compared to the eternity you'll spend in an afterlife is no sacrifice at all. It's as if the theist has had the nobility forcibly stripped from him.