(Click here for readings)
Jesus said to his disciples: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.”
So what exactly was missing from the law or from the prophets? The essential ingredient to everything that is good, right and holy: love.
Now the unfortunate misuse of the word “love” by the secular world has caused many people, especially religious people, to shy away from using it, especially in reference to God. How sad! How ironic!
Our love is drained of all its strength, value, purpose and meaning when God is strained from it! We, as Christians, have a moral obligation to reconstitute God back into our love. We must do this! This is how "they" will know we belong to Him. We must be witnesses to God's love for “God is love”, not “Love is God.”
Yesterday, while I was on the Internet looking up an article, I came across a photograph of Mahatmas Gandhi. One thing led to another, and I began to read one of his brief writings. He apparently wrote the following statement: “God is truth. The way to truth lies in non-violence.” This statement summarized his beliefs. It is a beautiful creed. Unfortunately, it was a Christian concept that did not go well with most Hindus. Later in his life, Gandhi apparently changed his statement slightly (but significantly) to “Truth is God.”
Now “God is Truth” is not the same as “Truth is God”, for God is a person (three persons) not a thing. He is an author, not a virtue. Hence, God does not subsist in the Truth. He is the Truth! In fact, He is “the way, the truth and the life.” And because of Jesus, we know that God is not only personable but down to earth as well. In fact, He is ready and willing to share The Truth with His Love.
Hence Truth without Love is just as dangerous and/or useless as Love without Truth.
God is not just "the way, the truth and the life”. He is, by his own admission, Love. “God is love”, not “Love is God.”
Hence Truth without Love is just as dangerous and/or useless as Love without Truth.
God is not just "the way, the truth and the life”. He is, by his own admission, Love. “God is love”, not “Love is God.”
As you can easily see, even the best of us have a tendency to drain God from all that He is!
The Lord reminded his disciples: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill." The Law and the Prophets without God (without Love)would be worthless and meaningless at best, and dictatorial and totalitarian at worst.
The Lord reminded his disciples: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill." The Law and the Prophets without God (without Love)would be worthless and meaningless at best, and dictatorial and totalitarian at worst.
In everything we say and do, we should always say it and do it with God in mind, in heart and in body. Let us never drain or strain or separate God from Love and Truth, Truth from Love, and God from man. Let us never drain or strain or separate Jesus from The Father (“Oh yeah, Jesus was a great philosopher!”), or Jesus from humanity (“Jesus really never suffered like I suffer!”).
Let us never drain or separate the Catholic Church from God.
In the past few days I have read over and over again that the Catholic Church is just one giant corporation with Cardinals as managers. Give me a break! And that the Cardinals are currently “politicking” for their candidate. What about the Holy Spirit? What about Christ’s promises? How ridiculous can you get! Imagine trying to describe the human person only in biological terms. Well, that’s exactly what the media does when it tries to describe the Catholic Church in only business terms. They miss the mark (Actually, the "Four Marks")! How ridiculous!
In the past few days I have read over and over again that the Catholic Church is just one giant corporation with Cardinals as managers. Give me a break! And that the Cardinals are currently “politicking” for their candidate. What about the Holy Spirit? What about Christ’s promises? How ridiculous can you get! Imagine trying to describe the human person only in biological terms. Well, that’s exactly what the media does when it tries to describe the Catholic Church in only business terms. They miss the mark (Actually, the "Four Marks")! How ridiculous!
The Catholic Church is holy and divine, and very human. She is made up of Saints and sinners. If there is anything we need to drain (or separate) ourselves from, it is our sins. Our Lord, the great doctor, taught us how to do that without killing the patient.
Resolution: In everything I do and say, I will do it with Love. In other words, in everything I do and say, I will do it with God. I will show great mercy, forgiveness and compassion to all I meet.
I was listening to Joseph Campbell’s “The Power of Myth” several years ago. When he was asked to talk about love, he began to talk about the Troubadour idea of love, where romantic love began. He had many great points but one thing that he said that never settled with me: If God is Love then Love is God. I wrestled with this for a long while, not able to figure it out. He spoke of how everything in life reflects God and God’s creation: nature, suffering, pleasures, pain. It took me a while to understand that what he was trying to explain was God’s creation, not the essence of God. After many years of pondering over this, I came up with only one definition of God: nothingness (which is Love).
ReplyDeleteI can’t remember which Catholic theologian said this (paraphrased): We can become like Jesus when we are nothing. Because He loved the Father so much, He became nothing (sin, opposite of someone, worm of the earth, etc) which simultaneously made Him everything. He was “being” only because He was “non-being”. In this way, we can also become Jesus if we are nothing, non-being; thus we will “be”. This is why only love will remain in heaven. We continue to live our lives in heaven as we have loved on earth.
I have been told that India has 81 different words for the various meaning of the English word ‘love’. Can you imagine how we would be able to communicate in America if we had this luxury? This very example explains my frustration with words! Wasn’t this the whole message in the Tower of Babel? The LORD said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, “then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them”. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”
There is a sweet, little sign in a very, very small town in the poorest side of town, written by a very old lady: “Our unity will determine our destiny.” Genesis 11:6 I think she is right.
To become nothing immediately triggers the thought of some kind of nihilism. I think it's a tempting paradox, becoming nothing to become everything, but it detracts from the truth of love as Jesus shows it. Jesus did not participate in non-being; he became a man. Insofar as man is being, such was Christ. Granted, in comparison with the essence of being, God, man doesn't seem like much of a being, but he is a being all the same, much more so than an animal or some inanimate object. Jesus lived, he spoke, he acted, he suffered death, and rose again. If this is mere non-being in the abstract world of philosophy, I care little for these terms; they mean nothing (non-being) to me.
ReplyDeleteGod is love, this is said in the the first letter of St. John. To understand this, we must understand love. It's a far cry from troubadours, and light-years from what we call love today. Our love is entangled with contracts, obligations, and lingering uncertainties for responsibilities and labels that aren't declared. However, God is not a contract, nor is he a poem. God is the supreme force bringing souls to him, drawing the essence of men like the Samaritan woman drawing water from the well. This required an act of complete suffering because he jumps right into our existence living among us. Love is suffering. God, as Jesus, suffers. Thus, God first defined love through his act of creating. Then God fulfills this love by suffering and dying to save that creation. From the perspective of humankind, God originates love. Any act of creation, of suffering, of conversion, of commitment, of any kind of charity is a sharing in God's own Being. Love does not exist apart from God. He defines it.
If love is God, then we're defining God since we've defines love and then projected it onto our vision of Him. This is what the pagans did, and thus anthropomorphized their gods. Love, to them and to many of us, was the sensual act of procreation, so their gods were a fertile bunch who resembled and acted like perspicuous celebrities. Similarly, if we define truth ourselves, then our god, whom we equated to our vision of truth, will look like some equation we don't understand, or some abstract blob of natural energy, or some version of ourselves since we think we're the smartest people we'll ever meet. Ironically, we alienate ourselves from truth and love as soon as we try to separate them from God.
Bravo Scott! I have needed to argue with someone over this for quite a while now!
DeleteI understand your lack of liking the word nothing or non-being for God, even if it is in philosophical language. You know why I like it? Because it makes us think! It made you think, enough to write back. We have heard kzillions of times how God loves us and God is love, God is 3 persons in one God, etc. But like most things in life, we get use to the same words, the same routines, the same Mass language that we no longer pray the Mass, we just respond with memorized words. I know I do many times.
The mystical saints who had experiences of union with God try to describe their experience but admit that there are not adequate words to use. Emptiness, transparency, nothingness are some of the words that they use to describe what they need to become in order to reach this union. St Teresa of Avila, St Elizabeth of the Trinity, St John of the Cross, etc do not use straight talk language that everyone would be able to relate to because they can’t!! It would not mean the same thing; it would actually be distracting from the beauty of their experience. They use poetry, metaphors, art, words that usually have a different meaning than what we are use to. The words they use must be from a different language: love. It makes us stop and wonder: WHY did they use THOSE words? What are they really trying to tell us. God is not a poem as you said, but precisely because He cannot be explained, we USE poetry – it’s evasive; it helps us get out of our concrete definitions of God. (I think this is what you were trying say in your last two lines…. In a different way).
Love does not exist apart from God. He defines it. Great line Scott!
"If love is God, then we're defining God since we've defines love and then projected it onto our vision of Him." I didn’t say love is God. Maybe that was the point you thought I was making but you see what I mean about words? I can say something about anything which is not as important as what the receiver hears (based on what s/he thought they heard).
Perfect example of arguments.
If I am truly going to try to evangelize in this culture, I must try to really listen to what someone is saying. This is also my point about words. We have so many words, various definitions for those words, that we intermingle our thoughts by OUR definitions. The receiving end takes it a different way and we all begin to “Babel”.
OK. Going back to my original line: God is nothingness (Love). So in other words, the moment that defines Christ the best in His life was when He cried out My God, my God why have you forsaken me. He endured physical, emotional and mental pain in the agony in the garden, carrying the cross and being crucified, being abandoned by His friends and even giving His mother away. But the ultimate pain He FELT was when He “thought” His Father abandoned Him. He always called His Father Abba, but here He calls Him God. Jesus Himself did not feel like He was God. He did not feel this union with God. It was the greatest spiritual pain He could bear. This is the moment that Christ gave us His divinity. In this very act, which Catholic theologians have stated: “The Father had to give this final blow to Jesus. It was no longer the soldiers who did this.” With this premise, both the Father and Son had to do what they did for a different reason other than what pleased them. They could no longer think of themselves. They both only thought of us. (btw, the Father did not abandon Jesus; but Jesus went through the pain as if He did.) As you said, God is suffering, an act of love. I couldn’t agree with you more.
Magnificent analysis, Scott! Thank you for sharing your keen insights.
ReplyDelete"Our love is drained of all its strength, value, purpose and meaning when God is strained from it!"
ReplyDeleteFather, are you implying that those who don't believe in the same god that you do or no god at all are either incapable of love or that their love is less than yours?
Given the generic assertion, I would have to ask you to define what love is for those who believe in a god and for those who believe in no God.
ReplyDeleteI await your reply.
Which part is generic?
ReplyDeleteI can't give a specific definition of love and I'm not going to bother to look it up because I'm sure whatever definition I give will not satisfy you. Regardless, whatever definition you choose will work, as it is the same for both. So, do you believe that the love a parent has for a child, a child for a pet, a person for their spouse, family among itself, etc. is different because one believes in Vishnu, one believes in Allah, one believes in God, or one does not believe?
What part is generic? Everything.
ReplyDelete1. How a muslim is taught to treat and love his wife (or wives) is very different from how a Christian is taught to treat and love his wife. What you believe affects relationships. What you believe affects what you love and the way you love.
2. How a hindu treats and loves a cow is very different from how a Christian treats and loves a cow. With regards to pets, muslims are not allowed to have dogs for they are considered to be filthy animals. In fact, in Iran, they have recently begun to crack down on this "western" influence. So as you can see, the love we have for pets is different from that of other religions.
3. How an atheist loves their children and pets is very different from how a Christian is TAUGHT to love their children and pets. An athiest can treat a pet as if it were their child and discard their child as if it were a virus.
Are you trying to say to me that what you believe does not influence the way you live or love? Hmmmm....
How a Christian treats and loves a sinner is very different than how a muslim or atheist treats and loves a sinner. How a Christian is taught to treat their child who has dishonored their family is very different than how a muslim or hindu treats and loves their child who dishonored them.
How a Christian is taught to treat someone who is gay is very different from other religions.
Should I go on???
If you want to learn more, then I suggest taking some classes in world religions, but make sure they are taught by clerics, not by lay people. Get the real scoop, not the political correct stuff.
You can't teach someone how to feel love, what you can teach is how to act upon and express that love. If your argument is that different faiths teach how to express love differently, I won't really disagree with that. You do, at least in my mind, make it seem as if there is a vast qualitative difference between how they do it. That I will disagree with. Different does not necessarily equal wrong.
ReplyDeleteI am not an emotional person, I do not express feelings well. I also do not particularly care for children. When my children were born, I cried from the overwhelming feelings of love that overcame me. Are you telling me that my feelings would be completely and totally different if my faith was different than what it is?
"How a hindu treats and loves a cow is very different from how a Christian treats and loves a cow. With regards to pets, muslims are not allowed to have dogs for they are considered to be filthy animals."
Obviously cows are sacred to Hindus, they would not keep one as a pet. Muslims see dogs as filthy (I did not know that), they would not keep one as a pet. Let's compare apples to apples now. A Christian child and a Sikh child each have a pet. Both are arbitrary animals which are considered by their respective religions as acceptable pets. Does one child love their pet with "strength, value, purpose and meaning" while the other doesn't? Now how about family. Does an Anamist mother love her child without "strength, value, purpose and meaning" while the Christian mother does, regardless of how that love is expressed?
"How an atheist loves their children and pets is very different from how a Christian is TAUGHT to love their children and pets."
So a christian needs to be taught how to love?
"An athiest can treat a pet as if it were their child and discard their child as if it were a virus"
Anybody can do what you have described. This is either a deliberate misrepresentation or complete ignorance on your part. You know full well that atheism is nothing more than the lack of belief in a god. Anything beyond that is up to the individual. I know pro life atheists as well as pro choice christians.
"How a Christian is taught to treat someone who is gay is very different from other religions"
Which Christians? The Presbyterians who have ordained a gay minister? Most others who deny them the right to marry? Most others who are taught to scorn them and to tell them they are going to hell?
"Anybody can do what you have described." You are right. Just like a muslim could worship Jesus and a Jew could venerate Mohammad. Right? Anything is possible, but not everything is probable, and not everyone makes sense.
ReplyDelete"Are you telling me that my feelings would be completely and totally different if my faith was different than what it is?"
Yes. I am. Faith has shaped the behavior of millions, just as a lack of faith has shaped the behavior of millions. To deny this is to deny a great part of modern history.
"Anybody can do what you have described. This is either a deliberate misrepresentation or complete ignorance on your part. You know full well that atheism is nothing more than the lack of belief in a god. Anything beyond that is up to the individual. I know pro life atheists as well as pro choice christians."
I know a lot of people who are walking contradictions. Don't you? To say that atheism is just a lack of belief in god is the most reductionist statement I have heard in a long time. To say that being an athiest does not have an effect on the way you think of the world, of people, of creatures, of life itself, of the existence of morals is truly, as you would say, "complete ignorance on your part". I would say it is somewhat naive.
"Which Christians? The Presbyterians who have ordained a gay minister? Most others who deny them the right to marry? Most others who are taught to scorn them and to tell them they are going to hell?"
Are you contradicting yourself? Are you now saying that one group can love another "better" or more correctly than another?
(Attempt #2 at posting. Also, I will apologize to Father, I mistakenly attributed the first reply to me on 3/9/13 9:08 to him. I left the post mostly as it was to show this error, but will acknowledge that the first portion of the last paragraph is to someone else, the rest is to Fr.)
Delete"Anything is possible, but not everything is probable, and not everyone makes sense"
Is this an allusion to your post a while back about "god either exists or he doesn't, so there's a 50% probability he does"? That certainly makes no sense. Worst. Logic. Ever.
"Just like a muslim could worship Jesus and a Jew could venerate Mohammad"
Well, not really. By definition muslims do not worship Jesus, nor Jews Mohammad. Unless they are worshipping both, but then, you know, that whole monotheism thing.
(me)"Are you telling me that my feelings would be completely and totally different if my faith was different than what it is?" (you) "Yes. I am. (etc.)"
Really? And you know this how? Can we go back in time and do it over with different children or a different faith? Should I convert to something and try it again and compare? Can you quantitatively measure my experiences against someone in the exact same circumstances? Hey, maybe they would be different, but would my love be "without strength, value, purpose and meaning?"
"To say that atheism is just a lack of belief in god is the most reductionist statement I have heard in a long time"
OK, what is your definition of atheism then? What more is required to be an atheist?
"To say that being an athiest does not have an effect on the way you think of the world, of people, of creatures, of life itself, of the existence of morals is truly, as you would say, "complete ignorance on your part"."
Except that I never said it didn't. Can you point to where I did?
"Are you contradicting yourself? Are you now saying that one group can love another "better" or more correctly than another?"
Can you point to where I said people can or can't love "better?" I made no such statement. However, I certainly wouldn't say teaching people to hate gays or denying them marriage is showing them any love. Are those expressions of love to you? I said different does not NECESSARILY equal wrong, but it can be. Feel free to point out other christians treating gays like the regular people they are and I will group them with those who show them love. Theirs may be different, but probably not better or worse.
(To anonymous) You are quite adept at deliberately misleading people with your words. You talk about atheists treating children as viruses as if that is a requirement to be an atheist. You talk about how christians are taught to treat gays as if they (the christians) are moral paragons, while I point out fairly obvious examples of unloving behavior from christians. (To Fr.) You claim that "...love is drained of all its strength, value, purpose and meaning when God is strained from it" as if only christians can love properly. Except none of your [these] statements are true. The only reliably true thing you can say about atheists is that they don't believe in a god. The only reliably true thing you can say about a christian is that they profess to follow christ and/or his teachings. You can certainly make inferences, but it is quite possible they will be wrong. You cannot say that the love a mother has for her child is essentially meaningless simply because they do not believe the same thing you do.
“God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him” (1 Jn 4:16).
ReplyDelete"We love because He first loved us." (1Jn 4:19)
Anonymous: You are blaming Father when you should be blaming God. Good luck!
Oh, and by the way, atheism is not just a belief in no god but a way of life. I know, it influenced the way I loved.
@anonymous,
DeleteI don't think we ahould blame father, and especially God. If anything, we should blame ourselves that we have not enough love in our hearts. Therefore, we are not fully living. Yes, atheism is a way of life. Its adhering to Your own creed, Me, Myself, and I. It is not however, The Way, The truth, and The LiFE!
Katie Giangiulio
Anonymous at 12:54 PM, where am I blaming Fr. and for what am I blaming him?
DeleteAnonymous at 4:08, Those who know me would say that I absolutely never live my life for Me, Myself, or I. It is not my "creed".
Both Anonymouses,
Do you consider your lack of belief in (and I am assuming here) leprechauns, Osirus, bigfoot, Zeus, unicorns, fairies, etc. to be your way of life? I certainly wouldn't, but maybe that is just me. Do I define my way of life as not believing in god? No. Does my lack of belief affect how I live? Of course, how could it not. Get a million atheists together, and what will you know? Only that none of them believe in god. Can you definitively say anything else about them? No, there will be all kinds of people with widely varying beliefs (in matters other than belief in god) and lifestyles. If Atheism is more than the lack of belief in god, what are the requirements to being an atheist?
@anonymous 1:05 am
DeleteI was not talking about you. I don't even know you! You needed some clarification and a deeper perspective on the whole picture. So I broke it down for you! Peace! mysterious and wondrous person.
Katie Giangiulio
Dear Anonymous: I will avoid expanding our conversation to other issues. All of them I have addressed in various posts. And to be honest, I do not wish to repeat myself, especially if I have posted comments in the past that answer these questions (such as what does it mean to be an atheist, etc...).
ReplyDeleteAlso, I will hold back on your assertion of my WORST LOGIC EVER!!! (When it comes to 50:50 chance of God existing). But of course atheists find this hard to believe since they do not want to acknowledge the fact that qualitative arguments for God exist along with qualitative arguments against God. Anyone wishing to read my blog ("THEY FOLLOWED JESUS") regarding this can find it on January 4th. I invite all to read it. :)
Back to the argument at hand. Here are my responses:
*By definition muslims do not worship Jesus, nor Jews Mohammad. Unless they are worshipping both, but then, you know, that whole monotheism thing.
Well, by definition a Christian also respects life, considering it does not belong to them but to God. Therefore, a PRO-CHOICE Christian is just as much of a contradiction as a Jew worshipping Jesus. Of course they do exist (Messianic Jews).
* "To say that being an athiest does not have an effect on the way you think of the world, of people, of creatures, of life itself, of the existence of morals is truly, as you would say, "complete ignorance on your part"."
(YOU) Except that I never said it didn't. Can you point to where I did?
Well, I never said anything regarding a mother's love, or a child's love towards a pet!!! But you immediately applied my draining and straining of God from love to them! Well, read again my blog meditation. I never even implied that. For my argument is directed towards Christians ("We Christians"), and religious, "religious people". Not only that, but it is also directed towards showing love towards one's enemies (hence the story of Gandhi and the non-violence movement). Do you have a double standard: one for you and another for everyone else when it comes to interpreting statements and placing them out of context?
*I will say one thing though...Actually, I will let C.S. Lewis say a few things regarding some of your assertions: He wrote in his book, "Mere Christianity" that love goes beyond instinct. Is a mother's love truly love? Is a pet's love for its offspring truly love? Is cuddling and nourishing and sheltering your child, love? Or is it a duty and responsibility. You know that if a mother does not take care of her child, then she goes to jail. But will she go to jail if she doesn't nourish, shelter and cuddle someone else's child? No. Why? Because it's not her duty. I don't have to give money to the poor. why? Because it's not my duty and responsibility. But love goes beyond duty and responsibility. And Christian love goes well beyond logical. For to turn the other cheek when struck in the face is not logical. But I prefer it to logic. And to forgive seven times seventy seven times is not logical, but I accept it because it is what will change the world. And to love your enemies is definitely not logical! But I accept it for Christ taught it.
ReplyDeleteYou mentioned that an atheist is someone who does not believe in God, but when you defined a Christian, you said that he follows AND/OR ACCEPTS the teachings of Christ. Well, to be an authentic Christian means you follow and accept. But you reserved the right to claim that atheists are people who only do not believe in gods. You will not accept that that disbelief has consequences that go along with it.
"You asked if Atheism is more than the lack of belief in god, what are the requirements?" I would say, that they at least be honest. But then again, why be honest, if it is in our very nature to lie and maybe it is a natural defense mechanism in order for us to survive.
Finally, Love for a Christian is not simply kindness. As C.S. Lewis wrote: "Kindness cares not whether its object becomes good or bad, provided only that it escapes suffering, while LOVE would rather see the loved ones suffer much than be happy in contemptible and estranging modes."
Oh, and by the way...people can read. If you think that I am taking your points out of context or that I am manipulating your arguments, don't worry. People can read your train of thought and mine as well. You immediately jumped on me for something not attributed to me. So I avoided publishing your first comment because I didn't want you to look foolish. You see, I'm trying to love someone who disagrees with me. :)
ReplyDeleteOh father,
DeleteSpeaking of atheism, i met this girl in my history class in the beginning of this semester in college. We hung out a few times out of school. She was very on guard with me at first about being an atheist, and knowing that I was a Catholic. She told me that her family instilled in her the wrath of God when she was a child and thats all she knows about Him and his followers: judgement. So when talking with me, she began to open up and ask me questions about my faith. She told me that she enjoys lots of sex and , drugs (pot) way too much to be a christian. She is very smart and talented and its so sad to see this young woman so full of life yet with so much sadness inside. She is a big believer in science and believes that we were made from apes. I gave her the crash course on Catholic doctrine and teachings of Our faith and was able to defend many hot topics without "loosing the soul". To be honest father, sometimes I am jealous pf her! I have the greatest faith in the world. Namely the Catholic faith, and so mich freedom that comes along with it, and yet I watch her and then think to myself, "why must I always be good?" The world, the flesh and the evil one tempts me often with these thoughts of seduction. I am sure God put this poor soul in my life for a reason, but its so hard to be that one fish that swins so hard against the current of the world, when it just feels like I am standing still against all the other "fish". Its so hard to be good ALL the time. Sometimes I get this crazy idea pr thought, that yes, life would be so much easier if I wasn't a Catholic. But I know that because it is, eternity will be that much more greater and beautiful and blissful because of my struggles in teying to constantly love Him.
Katie Giangiulio
"But of course atheists find this hard to believe since they do not want to acknowledge the fact that qualitative arguments for God exist along with qualitative arguments against God."
ReplyDeleteI do not deny arguments exist both for and against god. There were arguments for and against both the luminiferous aether and subatomic particles. Can you start PROVING any of your arguments? Now how do you feel about the fact that you can make the exact same claim for every other god that has been professed to exist? That being said, if I commented back in that post, would you continue that discussion there?
"Well, by definition a Christian also respects life...a PRO-CHOICE Christian is just as much of a contradiction as a Jew worshipping Jesus" and "You mentioned that an atheist is someone who does not believe in God, but when you defined a Christian, you said that he follows AND/OR ACCEPTS the teachings of Christ. Well, to be an authentic Christian means you follow and accept"
Actually my words were "profess to follow christ and/or his teachings." I don't know if you are just trying to state it differently or trying to change the meaning. Anyway, which teachings and whose interpretations? I don't remember all the specific denominations, but there are christians who believe: Jesus was purely divine, Jesus was just human, Jesus was both; Mary is perpetually a virgin, Mary had other children; Transubstantiation actually happens, Transubstantiation is merely symbolic; salvation by faith alone, salvation by works alone; the bible is the inerrant and literal word of god, the bible is merely inspired and full of metaphors and open to interpretation (!), and many, many more. There are some groups of christians who believe that other christians will go to heaven as long as they believe in god (alongside atheists and non christians who lead a good life), while some groups say theirs is the only one who is correct, all others will burn in hell. Wikipedia (to be taken with a grain of salt) mentions 41,000 different groups of christians. Many are extremely minor, but even so, out of the thousands of larger, more mainstream groups, which one (or ones), many of which have mutually exclusive and contradictory beliefs, are "authentic christians," and who decides?
This is exactly my point about defining atheism as well. Beyond not believing in god, you can't say anything else about that person from that simple statement. Same with christianity. So yes, there are pro choice christians and their beliefs are just as valid as yours.
"You will not accept that that disbelief has consequences that go along with it."
Such as...?
Yes, I can prove my arguments. Can you disprove them? No. You can’t. That’s the remarkable thing. You cannot disprove that God exists. You cannot disprove that Christ (God) did not exist! Or that Christ was not God. That he worked miracles that defy a scientific explanation and that these miracles continue even today when people pray to Him and to the Saints and receive unexplainable blessings.
ReplyDeleteOther religions do not claim that God ever became a man. Other religions claim unexplainable blessings, but we, as Christians, assume they are from the same God. After all, we are all God's children.
That this Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead and that no bones of his have ever been found. Hard to believe that since the Romans crucified Him and the Jewish leaders feared him and we can find the bones of almost every single world leader of every single date and time, but not His.
When you speak of religion, you speak as if all the religions had someone who claimed to be God. They didn't. What makes Christianity unique is that God became man. He walked with us, talked to us, lived with us, and suffered and died for us.
That His Church would stand the test of time, wars, eras and empires is impressive. What's even more impressive is that atheists claim that it is always wrong, which is just as miraculous as it claiming that it is always right.
There's so much more. But the point I would like to make is that the only way you can "disprove" this is to claim that Jesus Christ was either a liar or a lunatic. That He is Lord is out of the question.
You chose not to believe. I chose to believe. I chose to believe not only what he said and did, but as a lifestyle for myself. I love it and it has shaped the person that I am today. For atheists to claim that Christians are anti-intellectual is historically inaccurate. To claim that they are stupid, is historically untrue. To claim that they are uneducated is again, a simpleton's fantasy.
Atheism has brought an incredible amount of death into the world. You may say that Christianity did as well. I disagree and again, historically, I would be right. But what is interesting is that atheism has brought death and destruction AFTER the so-called "enlightment" began, that is their revolution to bring people out of the darkness of religion and into their wonderful light of reason. And what did this reason bring: Nazism, Fascism, Communism. Well, the enlighted ones were great at inventing the guillotine and of course, the atomic bomb.
ReplyDeleteThey were great at using them and indiscriminately.
The Communists (atheists) of the USSR, Bulgaria, China, Albania, East Germany, etc... (there are many many more. Can you name them all?) massacred people and destroyed churches as if they were forests. You know that. You should know that.
Now, I deleted the second part of your comment. Sorry. It happened by accident. Please resend it so that I can reply to it. Try not to respond just yet to this one. Otherwise, it kind of breaks up the routine of "you respond", "I reply".
With regards to the 41,000 Christian groups. Did you just discover this? If so, then the number of churches does not reflect the differences in opinion. The vast majority of these churches agree on the essentials of the faith. Most agree with the Creed that is said universally throughtout Christianity. There are only a few differences. But one can easily say that they were deeply inspired by the Catholic Church, the mother of them all.
As I just finished stating on one of your other comments, Atheists have a tendency to comment-bomb Christian websites. They love to expand the discussion so as to do some free propaganda and advertising (you mention Dawkins book the “Selfish Gene”). Believe me when I tell you: many atheists have become Christians by reading such books. They begin to see the profound ignorance of the Christian faith by such authors and the manipulation and ideological inserts into science.
Now, once beat, I have noticed that you often move from one issue to another, as you have tried to do in your recent comments, in order to keep the discussion alive. You cannot stick to the argument. That is apparently clear. For example, now you are mentioning the number of Christian faiths.
Why are atheists so deceptive? Why are they so rude? Why are they so manipulative and dishonest?
A writer for FOXNEWS just recently described this type of behavior. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/03/17/sorry-but-atheism-is-religion/?intcmp=trending
All your questions can be answered by going on Wikipedia, your apparent source of information. No need to ask me to explain.
Consider this as advice before writing a comment that may or may not get published. No one likes to be used by others.
Atheists using others is in their "selfish genes"!! :)
ReplyDelete(repost of second part of reply)
ReplyDelete"Well, I never said anything regarding a mother's love.... But you immediately applied my draining and straining of God from love to them"
Because all you said was a generic assertion of love. I was trying to apply it to a specific case to try to understand your statement.
"For my argument is directed towards Christians ("We Christians"), and religious....Do you have a double standard: one for you and another for everyone else when it comes to interpreting statements and placing them out of context?"
What is out of context? Here you say religious; I had asked if it applied to Hindus. They are religious, but their love is without your god. Perhaps it is with Shiva. Does that invalidate or weaken their love? What is particularly special about your god that allows his people to love, but people of other gods can not? Or is their love equal? If so, is there no difference between your two gods? Reading your post again, I see where you say christians need to put god back into your love, but do you not agree that the statement I am contending could easily be read as directed to those who do not believe in your god? I also did not see anywhere that says the statement should apply to one type of love, but not another.
"People can read your train of thought and mine as well. You immediately jumped on me for something not attributed to me."
And I apologized before you even posted it, and explicitly stated it was not you who wrote it. However my point remains, although directed to someone else. If I had made some derogatory statement about priests and altar boys and put it in the context of that being what the church teaches, would you (or the other) have "jumped on me" for being deliberately misleading or inflammatory or something similar? Maybe, maybe not, but would you have pointed out that my broad assertion was not wholly factual?
"You asked if Atheism is more than the lack of belief in god, what are the requirements? I would say, that they at least be honest."
Shouldn't honesty apply to everyone? Anything in particular you think they need to be honest about? Is there something you think I'm being dishonest about?
"But then again, why be honest, if it is in our very nature to lie and maybe it is a natural defense mechanism in order for us to survive."
Ever read Dawkins "The Selfish Gene"? There is an interesting section on co-operation and game theory, I don't recall if lying/honesty is directly addressed, but the same concepts may apply. If I remember correctly, co-operation (and possibly by extension, telling the truth) are mutually beneficial to both parties involved. But then again, if your statement is correct, why would god command us to do something that is contradictory to our nature to survive, if he indeed gave us our nature?
"Love for a Christian is not simply kindness. As C.S. Lewis wrote...LOVE would rather see the loved ones suffer much than be happy in contemptible and estranging modes."
I do not know if I totally agree with that statement, but as of yet I cannot say why. Still, does this apply to only christians? Can non-christians express the same sentiment?
“Yes, I can prove my arguments. Can you disprove them? No. You can’t. That’s the remarkable thing. You cannot disprove that God exists. You cannot disprove that Christ (God) did not exist! Or that Christ was not God.”
ReplyDeleteWhich arguments exactly can you prove? Can you prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that your god (and specifically your god, not any of the non abrahamic gods, not the god of the jews or muslims, not even any of the other christian versions) created the universe? Can you prove that anything out of the first 5 books of the bible has any factual basis? Can you prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that Jesus rose from the dead? That he even existed? Go ahead.
Can I disprove god? No. Can YOU disprove any of the other thousands of gods? No. Anything remarkable about that? Can you even disprove Russel’s teapot? No. Why? Because you cannot disprove the existence of something. The person who claims that a god exists is making a positive claim; the burden of proof is upon them. If you want me to believe in something as extraordinary as a god, I’m going to need some pretty compelling evidence. And before you tell me that mine is a positive claim, no it isn’t. It is the difference between “I believe god doesn’t exist” and “I do not believe god exists.” Subtle, but it is there.
Interestingly enough though, there are some things that can be disproven; logical contradictions. A perfect circle with 90 degree corners, by definition, cannot exist. An immovable object may exist; an irresistible force may exist; but not both simultaneously. And most famously, god cannot create a rock so big that he cannot lift it. But what is it that limits him? Could he create the rock but not lift it, or could such a rock not even exist? Either way something is logically impossible for god. Now, can god be omniscient and omnipotent? No, because then god could not even change his mind. Say he wanted to create the universe in 10 days. After a bit of planning, he’s about ready to start but decides to do it in 7. But being perfectly omniscient, he knew beforehand that he would do it in 7 days, not 10, so he was powerless (not omnipotent) to do otherwise and never would have been able to do it in 10. Or he wasn’t omniscient and didn’t know how long it would take.
“Other religions do not claim that God ever became a man” and “What makes Christianity unique is that God became man.”
So what? Unique does not equal true.
“That this Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead and that no bones of his have ever been found. “
And there certainly couldn’t be any other reason no bones have been found.
“That His Church would stand the test of time, wars, eras and empires is impressive.”
And no other religions from that time or earlier still survive? Which one is his church exactly anyway?
“the only way you can "disprove" this is to claim that Jesus Christ was either a liar or a lunatic. That He is Lord is out of the question”
The “liar, lunatic, or lord” trilemma? So what if he simply never existed and was completely made up? What if he did exist, did some good things, but the stories were greatly exaggerated? What if he was formed as some sort of composite of other gods and people? What if he were perfectly sane, but somehow believed that some ancient scriptures may pertain to him?
“You chose not to believe. I chose to believe. I chose to believe not only what he said and did, but as a lifestyle for myself. I love it and it has shaped the person that I am today.”
ReplyDeleteI have absolutely no problem with what you believe. I’m glad it brings you happiness. But when what you believe starts infringing on others beliefs, there is a problem. Now to the best of my knowledge, these may not all apply to you, but I am thinking along the lines of the Westboro Baptists (authentic christians!) who would probably love to have gays rounded up and executed, or the many fundamentalists (again authentic!) who would love to completely undermine our education standards by teaching “intelligent design,” or that while you may not agree with abortion, choice means if you don’t want one, don’t have one.
Not to be lost in there is the phrase “I chose to believe.” Do you actually ACTIVELY choose to believe, like it is something that can be turned on and off, or is it more of a subconscious thing that you really don’t have control over? For example, could you suddenly choose to believe in the Greek pantheon? Not just tell yourself and others that you believe, but really, actually, undoubtedly believe? Then switch back later?
“For atheists to claim that Christians are anti-intellectual is historically inaccurate. To claim that they are stupid, is historically untrue. To claim that they are uneducated is again, a simpleton's fantasy.”
Be that as it may, I have never claimed that, and I hope that by your statement here you do not intend to imply that I ever have. I don’t even see where that notion could have even come from in this conversation, so I see no reason for you to have brought it up.
“Atheism has brought an incredible amount of death into the world. You may say that Christianity did as well. I disagree and again, historically, I would be right.”
No, atheism has not. Can you point to specific cases where someone says “I will kill you because you believe and I do not” without some other underlying motive? Maybe it does happen, but not on the scale you are imagining. Atheists can be jerks, not because they are atheist, but because they are jerks who happen to be atheists. Sometimes people will kill people no matter what their beliefs. They certainly do it enough in the name of their gods. Now do you honestly think christianity or other religions hasn’t brought death into the world? Crusades? Thuggee cults? Inquisition? Witch trials? Taiping Rebellion? Most of the wars in Europe in the middle ages? Historically, are you still right?
“And what did this reason bring: Nazism, Fascism, Communism.”
Political beliefs, not religious. Can you conclusively say these beliefs came about solely because of a lack of belief in god?
“Well, the enlighted ones were great at inventing the guillotine and of course, the atomic bomb.”
Do you actually think the inventers of the atomic bomb did so because they didn’t believe in god? That they sat around laughing to themselves saying “This will show those christians!?” And science hasn’t brought about anything positive? Nor religion anything bad? I hear of some pretty good torture techniques during the inquisition.
“They were great at using them and indiscriminately.”
Who has used the atomic bomb indiscriminately? If I recall, Harry Truman ordered them to be used only twice and I’m pretty sure he was a Christian.
“With regards to the 41,000 Christian groups. Did you just discover this? If so, then the number of churches does not reflect the differences in opinion. The vast majority of these churches agree on the essentials of the faith.”
No, I brought this up to ask about your claim of “authentic christians." I looked it up to try to get a reasonably accurate number of denominations only to find it was much higher than I thought. And do you mean essentials of faith like whether or not the trinity exists, whether Jesus was actually god, or transubstantiation actually takes place? Maybe it is just me, but those sound like fairly big differences.
“Atheists have a tendency to comment-bomb Christian websites. They love to expand the discussion so as to do some free propaganda and advertising (you mention Dawkins book the “Selfish Gene”). “
ReplyDeleteAnd I brought up Dawkins in a non religious sense. You brought up honesty as not being in our nature, I replied with what I thought was relevant. Really, I could care less about what Dawkins says about religion, it isn’t his field. He does have some really good books on evolutionary biology, which I can read and interpret as not exactly fitting in with the christian faith. Of course his books do have the advantage of being backed up by a substantial amount of corroborating evidence.
“Believe me when I tell you: many atheists have become Christians by reading such books. They begin to see the profound ignorance of the Christian faith by such authors and the manipulation and ideological inserts into science.”
And I became an atheist partially because I read the bible a few times and listened to a few too many people claim evolution contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Much profound ignorance of reality there.
“Now, once beat, (me: HA!) I have noticed that you often move from one issue to another, as you have tried to do in your recent comments, in order to keep the discussion alive. You cannot stick to the argument. That is apparently clear. For example, now you are mentioning the number of Christian faiths. “
And where have you beat me? Again, it was you who brought up the notion of authentic Christians. I looked and found some number and asked you which ones of these were authentic christians, and who decides? After all, could someone who does not believe Jesus isn’t god (Jehova’s witnesses for example) truly be a Christian? Or the Westboro Baptists who pray that god will kill our soldiers because the US allows homosexuality, how about them? How is that not sticking to the argument?
This is obviously not a formal debate, new topics are introduced, thoughts wander, that is kind of the nature of these things. To the best of my knowledge, I am trying to respond to what you are writing. Now what about you? You cannot answer questions. That is apparently clear. There have been many questions that I have directly asked that you have not answered. For example,
1) Can non-christians love equally well as christians?
2) How do you know my love would be different if I had faith?
3) Who is a Christian, who isn’t, and who decides?
4) What are my consequences for not believing?
“Why are atheists so deceptive? Why are they so rude? Why are they so manipulative and dishonest?”
“They” are not. I do not know if you are not understanding what I am saying, but the simple term “atheist” does not imply in any way that a person is also deceptive, rude, dishonest, etc. It simply means they do not believe in god. One can be a polite atheist or a rude atheist. Just as one can be a polite or rude christian (gee, never met any of those, and no, not you).
“Consider this as advice before writing a comment that may or may not get published. No one likes to be used by others.”
I’m not sure I understand this comment. Do you think I have some sort of agenda and am trying to use you to get my word out? Or I’m a shill trying to get a few more bucks in royalties for Dawkins?
“All your questions can be answered by going on Wikipedia, your apparent source of information. No need to ask me to explain.”
Again, I don’t understand the purpose of this comment. So I used Wiki once to look up a number (which I said to take with a grain of salt) and it becomes my source of information?