I have been fairly critical of the Roman Catholic Church — and every prediction I made about the selection of a new Pope has come 
to pass. Here is what I wrote in a recent column about the conclave:
As the College of Cardinals slinks into Rome to elect a new Pope, the usual chorus of eternal optimists and media lapdogs follow close behind. The secular press is ecstatic because they can pose as pious while lifting sagging newspaper sales and static cable ratings. Beaten down progressive Catholics will do their predictable dupe dance, hoping against all odds that an almost modern pontiff will be elevated to the throne.
Of course, we already know the outcome, given that the last two Popes stocked the pool of bishops and cardinals with ideological clones, ensuring conservative continuity. If this weren’t bad enough, the former Pope will be looking over the new boss’ shoulder and has even installed his live-in “personal assistant,” to serve the Pope-elect, guaranteeing he has eyes and ears inside the Vatican.
Like clockwork, the old men in the pretty building selected a conservative clone, Argentinian Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who despises homosexuals, looks down upon women, and shows no inclination to change outdated and oppressive rules that attract pedophiles to serve the church. During his unsuccessful fight against Argentina’s “Equal Marriage Law” in 2010, Bergoglio said:
“Let’s not be naive,” he wrote of same-sex marriage. “This is not a simple political fight; it is a destructive proposal to God’s plan.”
What I find fascinating is the perverse excitement from obsequious media and hardcore Catholics over the fact that Bergoglio is from South America. What they do not seem to comprehend is that the Vatican does not have a geography problem, they have an ideology problem — primarily that they are negotiating the modern world with a medieval mindset. The Cardinals and faithful Catholics can rejoice in a favorable news cycle from selecting a man from another continent, however, what they really have done is recycle a value system that has landed Rome in a deep moral malaise that it is unlikely to emerge from. (And there are still questions about the Pope’s support for a brutal dictatorship in Argentina)
Polls show that most American Catholics strongly disagree with the Roman Catholic Church’s hierarchy on key issues, including the direction of the church. What has the selection of Francis I done to change this sour dynamic?
The new Pope will have a grace period, but unless he shows more grace that the last Pontiff, he will encounter the same problems that have bedeviled the church. And that’s fine with me. If the Vatican wants to continue a war with nature, modernity, and the future, guess who is going to win and who is going to lose?
What I find fascinating is why anyone would expect anything different from a new Pope.
Different Pope same sh*t.
I hope he has a much influence on world politics as he did on Argentinian politics and politicians — Zero!
Yeah, “Let’s not be naive….,” – let’s be ridiculous! I have a feeling this man will try to outshine his predecessor on the same path.
What I wrote on Facebook today: From the Latvian news weekly Ir, an interview with a Roman Catholic priest in which he says that he just hates it when people criticize his church without “really going into depth about its processes.” To wit: “When the forest grows, you do not see it, but when a rotted tree falls down, then everyone pays attention.” As one who is perfectly ready to criticize the Roman Catholic Church (which just could not get over its bad old self yesterday and chose yet another old, old, old guy to lead it in the 21st century), I thought about the rotted tree metaphor, and then, in another newspaper, I found this fact: Sum paid out by US Roman Catholic bishoprics to settle claims of sexual abuse so far: $1.2 billion (!!!) and counting. Dude, that is not a rotten tree. That is the whole bloody forest. Particularly if you think about all of the good which the church could have done with that money.
The sum has surpassed $3 billion now.
Wayne, I have to disagree at some level with your post above. In the spirit of disclosure I freely admit I am not a one issue person. I’m a Leftist (far more European than American in that phrasing) as is my partner. Gay issues have always been a significant part of my political decisions, but never, ever the sole, or even oversetting part. I have been out since my teens as has he.
This is a VERY different man from Benedict looked at from that perspective.
To start, this is a man who has showed that he can be reasoned with, Benedict could not.
This is a man who takes his vows of poverty seriously. He rode the bus to work in his former Archdiocese and refused to live in the Episcopal palace.
This is a man who is humble enough to wash the feet of 12 victims of HIV/AIDS at a hospice where they were housed years ago.
This is a man who, while not a liberation theologist has clearly condemned Capitalism for its exploitation of the weakest and most vulnerable and has said that good Christians would not follow the Capitalist model.
The American press, and sometimes the rest of us are focused like a laser on two issues: Women’s Rights and Gay Rights — those are important — but so are other things, very important, dare I say more important. Starving children come to mind. Grinding poverty that afflicts more than half of the populations of some countries comes to mind. Uneducated masses — and on and on..
Benedict never gave more than lip service to those problems, AND he hated us. Francis is not a clone of Benedict. Find me the place where Benedict condemned Capitalism. Find me the time that Benedict washed the feet of HIV/AIDS victims. Find me the quotation that Benedict ever gave wherein he said that he supported any even human rights for gay people. Francis has a long ways to go and he has said terrible things about gays and lesbians — but he is far, far, far better than the leading contenders — and if he actually takes on the Curia and cleans it out during his papacy — it is impossible to predict where that could lead. Further, I propose we have NO Idea what he actually believes regarding gays or women – until the moment that he ascended the papal throne, there was nothing he could say that didn’t match the orthodoxy, or he never would have ascended the papal throne, and we would have someone who is far worse.
Reyn, I guess my question would be, why do we have to settle for one or the other? Are their no competant priests who understand equality and the need to feed the starving at the same time? The point here, beyond the obvious need to get away from binary thinking, is that he was most certainly chosen to some extent because of his anti-equalility views.
It’s only a matter of time before we find out how many child-rapists this one protected.
I can not believe how ignorant people are. You are actually angry with a church that does not change it’s position on homosexuality and other issues. Let me just say, yes, there have been some very bad people who have made some very bad choices in the church. But those are individuals not the entire church and they do not represent the church as a whole. Let me also say that allowing priests to marry or allow homosexuality to be acceptable will not stop children from being molested by weak sinful people. It happens in protestant denominations where men can be married and where homosexuals can be pastors, etc. It also happens in synagogs, it isn’t the religious teachings it is the people who do not follow them that create the problem. On that note, if the church did in fact change it’s teaching on homosexuality, abortion, contraception and ordaining woman then it would not be holding up God’s teachings. We are so busy creating God in our own image and wanting our sin to be acceptable so that we don’t have to feel bad about what we are doing that we want our church to embrace our sin too! That is not how this works. The bible tells us what God expects of us. Weather or not you follow his law is up to you, and the same goes for those who are supposed to uphold his laws within the church. God didn’t teach a feel good message. Jesus didn’t condone the behavior of the sinners he hung around, but he did forgive them. He taught what God taught. When Jesus was asked about divorce, did he say, “yeah it’s okay, everyone else thinks so right? That’s the current public opinion..” No, first of all he emphasizes what marriage is when he defines it as being between a man and a women and states that they are no longer two once they are married and therefore should not be separated. They continue testing him saying “then why did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?” He said to them “It was because of your hardness of heart that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but at the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery.” (see Mt 19:3-9) In other words, it didn’t matter that someone who was supposed to represent God had told them it was okay, in God’s eyes it was not, and Jesus taught what was right in God’s eyes. Therefore why should the church teach any different than what is right in God’s eyes. The rules aren’t supposed to change because we think there are too many rules, we are supposed to change for God, not the other way around.
Can you name any other religion that engaged in worldwide conspiracy to protect the child-rapists in their ranks AND gave the person heading the conspiracy the organization’s highest position?
First of all, Benedict did not head the conspiracy. And second of all see this article of the Huntington post
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/valerie-tarico/the-protestant-clergy-sex_b_740853.html
Protestant churches don’t usually have as many people above the pastor so it is easy for the pastor to cover up what he is doing without involving anyone else. There is a link of 700 plus articles of sex abuse scandals across the world. I would like very much to have a smaller Catholic Church that follows what it teaches and someone to clean house of all the corrupt within it.
Yes Ratzinger did lead the conspiracy. The relocations and refusal to cooperate with civil law enforcement was done under his explicite orders. For decades.
Brittany, you do realize that most of the people who write for and follow this site are gay and support gay rights? Of course we’re goint to criticize a church for holding on to archaic, discriminatory and dangerous policies.
Also, no one said allowing gays to serve openly and priests to marry would stop abuse by priests–but it might attract a better class of people to serve, people who would handle these issues in a responsible way rather than trying to cover up. The church is a hypocritical organization condemning people who strive to live their lives openly and honestly while hiding the criminal actions of it’s own representatives.
If God is behind what the church is doing he is not a God worthy of following.
Daniel,
Yes I realize that people who follow this site are supporting of gay rights. I appreciate your opinion. I want you to realize that I am not saying that God could, or would, ever agree with covering up such horrible acts. But again, as I mentioned before, the church and what it actually teaches is what God is behind, not the actions of the corrupt individuals within that church. The church is not the hypocrite, it is those within it that do not practice what they profess to believe. All, those of us who believe, can do is follow God. I believe the teachings of the church because they fall in line with morality and what God’s word says. All humans, because we are fallible, have at one time or another told someone to do something that was right, though we may not have been doing it ourselves. But what we were teaching in our words was still truth. Like when we tell our children “It’s not okay to tell a lie for any reason.” That is the truth, and it isn’t easy. But the truth is we have all lied about something. Well, the church teaches us the truth, but the teachers in the church, who by the way are not the church, don’t always do the right thing and don’t always do what they should do. It doesn’t excuse their actions at all! But everyone is a sinner, God loves us all, and that is why he sent his son to die for us. We have to make those choices to follow him or not. We can’t choose wrong because our role models have done so. It’s like blaming your mom for your drug use when the truth is you made the choice. We can’t blame God because individuals sinned in the church and did something wrong to us.
I have to say that I disagree with “allowing gays to serve openly and priests to marry would stop abuse by priests–but it might attract a better class of people to serve, people who would handle these issues in a responsible way rather than trying to cover up.” People in general have been known to partake in plenty of low class activities while portraying themselves to be upstanding citizens, whether gay or straight. The church doesn’t hold a monopoly on these tragic crimes. In fact plenty of human beings are guilty of things you would never think them capable of and act disgusted with the idea that someone could do what they in fact have done themselves. And yes I believe they would cover it up to protect themselves, because it is their basic flawed humanity and weak flesh that helps make them feel better if it would all just go away. It’s called panic and bad judgement.
Brittany,
When you tell me what God “could or would” agree with I just think you are talking about things that are imaginary. Assuming there is a God you cannot say what he-she-it would agree with and since this God is not here saying to us all what he-she-it wants and I’m not going to follow some Bronze Age book what you say God agrees with means nothing. If he doesn’t agree with child abuse he could have stopped it.
And, if priests weren’t expected to live half lives of lovelessness you would get better people because as it is now, most of the people who become priests do so because they are panicked by their own sexuality. Also, the idea that Catholics are expected to take advice in their personal lives from men who don’t have any experience in relationships is just crazy.
So I guess what your saying is that God would have to interfere with the free will he gave everyone of us to choose to follow him. Bad things happen because of people turning their backs on God. To stop them from happening he would have to take away free will. In that case you have a God who makes you love and obey him rather than allowing you to choose for yourself. I don’t know about you but I couldn’t love someone because they forced me to. And God did come down to earth whether your accept that or not Jesus came, that is God in the flesh. Jesus said “you believe because you see, but blessed are those who believe and have not seen.” The rules were given to us by him and passed on and so yes we do know what he thinks of it all.
Brittany, why give us “free will” if he doesn’t want us to use it?
I’m neither religious nor non-religious, but I was taught that if God did exist, then He gave free will so he could judge people’s true moral character. After all, real morality is not what you do when you know you are being watched (Ex: you slow down when a police car is by you, watching you. Doesn’t show that you truly care and respect the law, just that you didn’t want to get punished). God does want us to use free will. It’s the only way he can tell whether or not we are truly loving, or faking love in fear of punishment or gold-digging for cosmic bucks in heaven. Fake/forced love is not real love, which is what God wants, since he is the God of Agape. If you force yourself not to do things that you really want to do, like have sex with a hottie at a party in fear of burning in hell, it doesn’t show you truly love God. Just that you fear him. Only shows what you were forced to do. That’s not what God wants, for you to be a slave afraid of punishment, for you can’t judge people for something they were forced to do. So he gave us free will, and hid his presence, so that he could judge our true moral character. The only thing that matters is that you are loving, and that you treat others as you would want unto you (a second commandment ‘like’ the first, since not everyone is catholic, christian, etc.). Doesn’t matter what religion, sexual orientation, etc. You don’t even need to follow the Bible or any religious book, because you don’t actually know if those are God’s words. Just because it says it’s God’s book, doesn’t mean God says it. It could be the devil pretending to be God to get you to listen obediantly and respectfully. So really, you can’t even know if that’s really God’s word, the devil’s word, or some powerful creature pretending. Really, you don’t need to follow the Bible, or go to church, or anything to be in God’s graces. God doesn’t actually want you to follow the commandments, but to be free. Just wants to see who’s a loving person. That’s faith in love, so faith in God, since he is the God of true love. As long as you have faith in being loving, then you are fine. Exercise that loving free will!
Brittany said “God loves us all, and that is why he sent his son to die for us.”.
If that isn’t an act of insane injustice then nothing is.
Considering his son sacrificed himself willingly and in fact was God among us, meaning he wasn’t actually separate from God, it isn’t “insane injustice” Jesus could have said “Die?! What?! I don’t think so!” But he didn’t. Peter even said that they would not let it happen and Jesus said “get away from me Satan” implicating that the idea that he would stop him from sacrificing himself was wrong. In those days the penalty for sin was death. That is why animals were sacrificed, but Jesus came to be the ultimate sacrifice so that there didn’t have to be a blood sacrifice for sin anymore.
Brittany, the idea that he would “sacrifice his son” doesn’t speak well of him either. He’s God–why would he need his son to be tortured?
Also, I think the idea of the scape-goat is immoral. If I commit a crime I shouldn’t expect some guy I don’t know from down the street to pay for it. I should pay for it myself.
from http://www.ascensioncatholic.net/lectionary/CycleB/reflection/PalmSundayB2.html
In what sense was it not God’s will for Jesus to die on the cross?
Jesus was executed because he was a big threat to the Jewish establishment (Catechism of the Catholic Church 574). Some of the leadership wanted to get rid of Jesus and they manipulated Pilate into doing their dirty work. Needless to say, it would be a gross error to blame all Jewish people for the death of Jesus. So Jesus was executed because his enemies wanted to get rid of him. In this sense, his death was an evil act. It would be a contradiction to say that our all-good God would desire such an evil act. It would also be wrong to say that God wanted a human sacrifice as a price for the sins of humanity. We know from the incident with Abraham and his son, Isaac, that God is very much opposed to human sacrifice (Gen 22:1-19).
In what sense was Jesus’ death God’s will?
It was God’s will that Jesus be faithful to his mission even if it meant dying a cruel death. Jesus could easily have escaped death by not saying or doing things that threatened the religious leaders. He could have preached a safe gospel. But then he would not have been faithful to his mission. A true prophet says and does what he believes to be true even if it will cost him his life. We see this with the Old Testament prophets.
The example of Mahatma Gandhi, Dr. Martin Luther King and Archbishop Oscar Romero, will be helpful here. All three felt called by God to carry out a certain mission – to be liberators of their people, and to speak truth to power. All three were assassinated for their “crime” of speaking truth to power. All three knew that they, like Jesus, would most likely pay the ultimate price for their fidelity to their mission. They could easily have escaped death by preaching a safe message. But in doing so, they would be unfaithful to God and to their mission. So they continued to say and do things knowing it endangered their lives.
Did God will for them to die? “No” and “yes.” All three men died because their enemies wished to get rid of them. It certainly was not God’s will that evil people kill good men. God’s heart would be deeply grieved by such an event. But it was God’s will that all three be faithful to their mission even if it meant sacrificing their lives for the liberation of their people. In this sense, God willed the death of Gandhi, King and Romero. But we also know that God always turns the tables on such evil acts. The deaths of Gandhi, King and Romero brought about significant progress in the liberation of their people from oppression. Their sacrificial death gives us some glimpse into the significance of the death of Jesus.
It was God’s will that Jesus remain faithful to his mission even if it meant dying on a cross.
Because Jesus was God in human form, his death was infinitely more valuable for all of humanity. Looking at the death of Jesus in this way does not make God a bloodthirsty God. Rather, it makes him someone who wants us to be faithful to the truth we know. Looking at Jesus’ death in this way helps us to see that we are saved by an act of sacrificial love. God took what was intended as an evil act and used it to save the world. In one of his poems, Irish poet, William Butler Yeats, uses the phrase “Terrible Beauty” to speak about the death of Christ. It is terrible in the sense that it symbolizes what evil people will do to stop goodness from moving forward. The cross is beautiful in that it symbolizes what Jesus was willing to do to show his love for sinful humanity.
The meaning of the cross for us
Never again need we look upon sacrificial love as useless. Sacrificial love always bears fruit whether we live to see it or not. The world is always better because of sacrificial love.
The cross might scare us from speaking truth to power. But it should also inspire us to do so.
Brittany, it’s a book that says slaves shouldn’t try to be free and that women should keep silent. The idea that this crazy iron age book is still taken seriously as a moral guide is sad.
So I’m done now. That was my response. I just wanted to weigh in a difference of opinion, and I did so, God bless you all whether you believe in him or not. “Oh my Jesus forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell. Lead all souls to heaven, especially those in most need of thy mercy.”
This has nothing to do with whether we believe in God. That is just your attempt to deflect from the real issue so you can pretend that the catholic church is somehow the victim because people are not giving them a free pass on their crimes, their bigotry, or their hypocrisy. You and the catholic church are not the victims. No amount of lies or sophistry will change that.
My comment about whether or not you believe in him was because Daniel expressed that he did not, it wasn’t a deflection in anyway. I in no way defended the people who committed the crimes, in fact I believe they should be cleaned out. And the words “The Church” means the body of believers or the body of Christ as we call ourselves. No lies were told here and when has anyone claimed to be the victim? You can’t even have a conversation about something without putting words in someones mouth or claiming they are making themselves a victim about something.
Yes you are defending the people who commited the crime, you lied about Ratzinger’s involvement in the cover up, and you tried to portray the church as a victim because they’re not getting a free pass on being bigoted, hypocritical, criminals. Then you tried to make this about our belief in God even though that has nothing to do with the issue at hand, though I’m disappointed in how many people played along with it. The Catholic Church deserves the criticism it’s getting, and your attempts to portray it as the victim will not change that.
Well your done now, Brittany. You’ve come on this site expounding ideological fantasies that have no verifiable, replicable evidence to back them up: only personal anecdotes and the assumptions of an iron-age book written by semitic, war-god worshiping goatherds emerging from the shadows around 3000 years ago. A book treats as fact talking snakes, 900 year old men, giants impregnating humans, walking upon water, zombies running around and the sun standing still in the sky for 24 hours because old Joshua had some more killing to do. And because your particular cult (with the help of the master politicking of one Constantine) happened to hitch its wagon to the Roman Empire and become its world-dominant scheming, imperialistic, Machiavellian spawn, you think you can come and preach your buybul-assumed nonsensical morality to the rest of us. Its all in your head Brittany, there is no evidence for any of it. None. Zero, zilch, nada. You make scores of unreliable and unprovable assertions and assumptions in your theological assumptions. This is why you have no credibility with me and many others on this site. You are full of buybull sh*t.
Brittany said “Bad things happen because of people turning their backs on God. To stop them from happening he would have to take away free will.”.
Nonsense. Your free will has never been absolute, you can’t levitate yourself or teleport yourself through walls or across the universe. It’d be no different if you didn’t have the ability to do bad things, you’d still have the free will to eat what you chose, love who you want, work in whatever career you chose. Just bercause your free will isn’t absolute and unconditional doesn’t mean you don’t have free will.
That doesn’t make any sense Brittany. Killing animals or Jesus for a person’s wrondoings doesn’t absolve any person of guilt. If god wanted to absolve people of sin as an all powerful being he never needed a sacrifice, human or animal to do so, any sacrifice was just pointless and unjustifiably cruel.
The idea that god had to sacrifice himself to appease himself so that he wouldn’t kill humans is just absurd.
And Jesus didn’t sacrifice himself willingly. On the cross as he was dying he lamented “My god, my god, why have you forsaken me?”.
The idea that if the penalty for sin is death you can justly kill someone or something in your place is insane.
That really depends on which version you’re reading.
Your first comment is so far off base from what free will is I hardly know how to respond so I will just say this…Free will is ONLY the freedom to chose right from wrong and to choose to love God or not to. Nothing more, nothing less. Furthermore, when Jesus says “My God My God why have you forsaken me..” He is quoting Psalm 22 which is in reference to human suffering and crying out to God. If you continue reading psalm 22 the very end says “Posterity will serve him; future generations will be told about the Lord, and proclaim his deliverance to a people yet unborn, saying that he has done it.” That is why he also says “It is finished” meaning the prophecy has been fulfilled.
Yes, well the multiple versions really adds to the credibility of the whole thing.
Brittany – The Bible also condones slavery and beating women, but we have made those things illegal in the US and the majority of enlightened countries. So if we are to adhere to the literal word of God, then you are the property of your father, husband, brother, son. You as a woman would have no rights, no choices, no defenses except those allowed by whatever man you belonged to. Women would not be able to own land, be able to be educated. Women whose husbands died with no heir male that is could have everything taken from them , home land, possessions. Are you really saying that we in order to follow God’s word need to return to those rules and laws.?
I can certainly say that the bible does not condone beating your wife. It says for wives to be subject to their husbands and for husbands to love their wives. Show me the words that say it is okay to beat her. She was made for him as man was made for God. Man submits to God and women submit to their husbands. Submission is not referring to being beaten.
Brittany, the Bible (the New Testament yet) says women should keep silent in the church. How enlightened.
I think the idea that women should be submissive (also in the New Testament) is degrading.
Chant it, sing it, say it: RELIGION IS BULLS***!!! Ask for testable, concrete proof of the existence of the magical weirdo in the sky. If it can’t be provided, tell the wackos to shove their myths where the sun don’t shine, and get ready for more and more troubles as they try to cling to the bronze age by installing a theocracy in America.
Ok I seriously am done here. I used to be just like you people when I was an adolescent. I said many of the same things and learned since then how much I thought I knew and really didn’t know about God and the bible. I hope some day no matter how old you currently are you reach a point where you are open to actually reading the bible with an open mind. You want people to have an open mind for you and yet you cannot have an open mind for anyone else. And that is just as much a hypocrite as you claim anyone else to be. You have to look at things in a non-bias until you actually know what it is about. You can’t take something you know nothing about and then look at it in the way you are. You have to read it, all the way through, in context. Lots of people even Christians take the bible way out of context and use scriptures to promote arguments that the scriptures have nothing to do with. Just remember that love is a choice not a feeling. And so you can chose who to love. I learned that a long time ago. And while that has nothing to do with what we have been talking about, it does have to do with your choices and your free will. Choose to love everyone, those who hate for any reason are not doing what is right. But remember there is a difference between hating and not condoning something. You can hate an act without hating a person. It doesn’t mean the person shouldn’t be brought to justice for a crime it just means that you have to be the bigger person and not hate them. If there is no God, if there is not reason to worry about what is wrong or right, then you can do what you want freely and fully. Go about breaking laws because even if you die, so what? What is the consequence after death. Nothing right? Well I am leaving and wont be commenting on here anymore because I see you are not open to different thoughts. So God be with you all and hope someday he changes your hearts for the better.
Brittany, on the off chance you return… I have a basic question for you. Do you, or do you not, or would you or would you not, vote for marriage equality?
If your answer is you would/do not, then this will NEVER be simply a discussion of differing opinions.
Those types of discussions are limited to only when neither side seeks to oppress the other. An even playing field is required.
As long as your opinions, beliefs, etc, include seeking to stop the person you are talking to, as in refusing to vote for marriage equality, you are trying to force your opinion on the other person.
I am anti-abortion but pro choice.
In other words, I could never make that choice for someone else, and believe I have no right to do so.
Therefore, I can agree to disagree and converse with pro choice folks but I can not with pro life folks who want to ban abortion.
Can you say the same here? If not, then no matter how you choose to spin it, you are still just the aggressor in these conversations. No more, no less.
Brittany, I love it when people say they’re “done” but keep coming back.
It doesn’t mean the person shouldn’t be brought to justice for a crime it just means that you have to be the bigger person and not hate them. If there is no God, if there is not reason to worry about what is wrong or right, then you can do what you want freely and fully. Go about breaking laws because even if you die, so what?
The idea Britanny that there is no morality without eternal torture, and there is no reason to not kill someone without a deity in the Heavens shows to me one thing.
Your “Church” has LITERALLY defined amorality as absolutism
Perioc.
Max, why do you need God to worry about what is right and wrong? You don’t have to be in fear of eternal damnation to do the right thing.
If there is no God you can still go to jail in this life, as the child abusing priests should have.
Having God didn’t stop the priests from molesting and didn’t stop the church from covering up.
(Former convert, Roman Catholic apologist, and Seminarian for aspiration to the priesthood by the way)
Daniel, I think Max’s first paragraph was quoting Brittany, probably tried to use a block quote to show it, but the blockquote doesn’t display on this blog.
Thanks Priya, I found the comment confusing.
Yes lol, thats what happened.
Although I’m not sure what “defining amorality as absolutism” is supposed to mean.
Natasha Smith, don’t say you’re not religious and then spout religion. It just blows your whole premise. Just admit you’re religious then we’ll all know where you’re coming from.
We are meant to have joy, not to writhe in fear of ourselves. Sexuality should be celebrated, not shamed. Having sex with someone at a party is neither good nor bad–depending on your reasons for doing it and the way you handle it. But that has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with being an authentic human being.
I see no proof that God gave us free will. I see no proof that God did anything at all. Live your life as you see fit in a way that makes you proud of yourself–not because you fear that God will cast you into a river of fire.
Natasha Smith, the only way God can tell if you’re a good person is to watch what you do when no one is watching? I though God was supposed to know everything and knows what’s in your heart.
And besides, the “free will” and safety of the victims of abuse doesn’t seem to matter much when God weighs it against the “free will” of the abusers.
God seems a little inconsistent.
Natasha said “After all, real morality is not what you do when you know you are being watched (Ex: you slow down when a police car is by you, watching you. Doesn’t show that you truly care and respect the law, just that you didn’t want to get punished). God does want us to use free will. It’s the only way he can tell whether or not we are truly loving, or faking love in fear of punishment or gold-digging for cosmic bucks in heaven. Fake/forced love is not real love, which is what God wants, since he is the God of Agape. If you force yourself not to do things that you really want to do, like have sex with a hottie at a party in fear of burning in hell, it doesn’t show you truly love God. Just that you fear him. Only shows what you were forced to do.”.
Natasha god is allknowing and allpowerful. He knew every move we’d make when he created us. Your god is a monster for punishing people for behaving exactly as he knew they would when he created them. Regardless of whether the bible was written by your god or the devil, it exists and most christians believe it to be the word of god and so they feel they are always being watched, the police car is always there, and so the vast majority of christians do things not because they are moral but because they fear punishment or are gold-digging for cosmic bucks in heaven. If your god didn’t want people to behave out of fear of punishment or desire of reward he would never have allowed the bible to be written and convince the vast majority of christians he is always watching in order to reward or punish. You can’t blame it on the devil, you’re god created everything including the devil. Your god is all powerful and all knowing, if he didn’t want the devil to exist he wouldn’t. The world and all its evil ways is exactly as your god knew it would be when he created it therefore the evil in the world exists because your god wants it there.
The “free will” argument to justify the existence of evil does not work. Free will has never been absolute, you can’t will yourself across the universe, levitate above the ground or walk through a wall which means you have a finite amount of free will. If your god made people so they wouldn’t behave evily they’d still have the free will to love as they chose, pick a career, or decide what to eat on Sunday. Restrictions on free will doesn’t mean there is no free will, just that free will is not absolute. Your god does not now and has never needed to allow evil in order to give people free will. Your god does not need to allow evil in order to judge people’s morality, he knew exactly how they would behave every day of their lives at the time he created them. He has never needed to allow a murderer to kill in order to know he had a murderous heart.
Your god is ultimately responsible for all the evil in the world, only his non-existence could excuse him for the condition of the world we now have.