Pope Francis describes ‘ideological Christians’ as a ‘serious illness’

[ChienAboyeur]

Did it happen or did it not happen?
It can be examined through science. No mixing in that. There is no matter of soul or whatever in that.

 

[Pladio]

No, there is no evidence for a soul as defined by most Christian communities.

 

[FretRider]

"There is no scientific evidence for the existence of this, therefore it doesn't exist."

This is what atheists actually believe. Welcome to the wonderful world of materialistic reduction. The natural conclusion, off course, is that there is no beauty, there is no truth and there is no good and evil. Such things exist outside of "science", therefore they either don't exist or are "relative". We don't have souls and there is no God. Modern world in a nutshell, along with its "modern art" and "modern society"(not art and not a society, ironically).

No wonder most atheists are nihilistic immoral degenerates or irrational sjws.

 

[Toff]

"
No wonder most atheists are nihilistic immoral degenerates or irrational sjws.

Oh please. I'm an atheist and I am easily more moral than the vast majority of the religious people I am surrounded with. In my experience, the more religious a person is the more intolerant and hateful they are. You provide a great and sadly common example.

 

[FretRider]

Oh please. I'm an atheist and I am easily more moral than the vast majority of the religious people I am surrounded with. In my experience, the more religious a person is the more intolerant and hateful they are. You provide a great and sadly common example.

"I am a moral and good person"

"you are evil and intolerant"

"I am more moral than you".

Sure bro, you convinced me right off the bat.

 

[Thrasher]

A lot of time, the most evil and hateful turn to organized religion to try to make up for failings.

 

[FretRider]

If you read any good book on the history of the 20th century and its wars and tyrannies, or just bother to look around at this sad 21th century startup, you will see that your claim does not apply.

Unless we are talking about muslins or some crazy backlands Calvinists such as the Westboro baptists, off course, and even then their wickedness does not compare in the slightest to what atheist marxists and feminists have done and will do in the future if they have their way.

 

[Corwin]

Fret, let me quote you something from a Catholic website.

http://www.kolbecenter.org/the-traditional-catholic-doctrine-of-creation/

Our Lord took pains to emphasize that any evangelization accompanied by the fullness of his power must include ALL the Truths that He entrusted to the Apostles. One of those Truths is the doctrine of creation and the Fall which underlies the Church’s teaching on Redemption and Sanctification. In recent decades faith in the original doctrine of creation has been shaken by the claims of evolutionary theory, but twenty-first century natural science has now answered and invalidated those claims. This paper will summarize the traditional authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church on creation, evaluate the claim that recent Popes have officially endorsed theistic evolution, and show why Catholics are fully justified in holding fast to the traditional doctrine of creation.

Magisterial Teaching on Creation

Both the Council of Trent and Vatican Council I taught that no one is permitted to interpret Sacred Scripture “contrary to the unanimous agreement of the Fathers.” In the words of Fr. Victor Warkulwiz:

The Fathers and Doctors of the Church unanimously agreed that Genesis 1-11 is an inerrant literal historical account of the beginning of the world and the human species as related by the prophet Moses under divine inspiration. This does not mean that they agreed on every point in its interpretation, but their differences were accidental and not essential. Pope Leo XIII, following St. Augustine, affirmed the Catholic rule for interpreting Sacred Scripture, “not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires.”

For the first five centuries of the Church, all of the Fathers believed and proclaimed:

that God created the different kinds of living things instantly and immediately

That Adam was created from the dust of the earth and Eve from his side

that God ceased to create new kinds of creatures after the creation of Adam

that the Original Sin of Adam shattered the perfect harmony of the first-created world and brought human death, deformity, and disease into the world.

 

[FretRider]

Fret, let me quote you something from a Catholic website.

http://www.kolbecenter.org/the-traditional-catholic-doctrine-of-creation/

The website you link really has no authority on the subject, and to illustrate where it errs, let me quote something from what you quoted:

The Fathers and Doctors of the Church unanimously agreed that Genesis 1-11 is an inerrant literal historical account of the beginning of the world and the human species as related by the prophet Moses under divine inspiration. This does not mean that they agreed on every point in its interpretation, but their differences were accidental and not essential. Pope Leo XIII, following St. Augustine, affirmed the Catholic rule for interpreting Sacred Scripture, “not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires.”

Now let me quote something from Augustine's opus which is not mentioned in that website:

"In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search for truth justly undermines our position, we too fall with it."

It reminds me of this portion of one of my favorite books ever, "A Canticle for Leibowitz". This is the second part of the book: centuries after a nuclear war destroyed the earth, most scientific knowledge has been lost and is being slowly discovered again and built upon by monks dedicated to the task(the author draws a parallel with the low medieval period). In this part an arrogant scholar furtively mentions the subject of the origins of men while listing the greatest current advances in scientific research, only to receive a surprising(and scientifically correct) reply from a humble fellow monk versed in the works of Augustine:

"In addition to these studies, Thon Maho Mahh is heading a project which
seeks further information about the origin of the human species. Since this is
primarily an archaeological task, he asked me to search your library for any
suggestive material on the subject, after I complete my own study here. However,
perhaps I'd better not dwell on this at any length, since it's tending to cause
controversy with the theologians. But if there are any questions—"
A young monk who was studying for the priesthood stood up and was
recognized by the thon.
"Sir, I was wondering if you were acquainted with the suggestions of Saint
Augustine on the subject?"
"I am not."
"A fourth century bishop and philosopher. He suggested that in the
beginning, God created all things in their germinal causes, including the
physiology of man, and that the germinal causes inseminate, as it were, the
formless matter—which then gradually evolved into the more complex shapes, and
eventually Man. Has this hypothesis been considered?"
The thon's smile was condescending, although he did not openly brand the
proposal childish. "I'm afraid it has not, but I shall look it up," he said, in
a tone that indicated he would not.
"Thank you," said the monk, and sat down meekly.

The irony of the young monk's correct suggestion based on Augustine's theological works(and its arrogant dismissal by the scientist) is not lost on those who know the work of Saint Augustine. I suggest you read this text:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/may/22.39.html

Yes, the Church fathers accepted that God created the universe, the world and men. I have never denied that myself. They accepted the ultimate truth of the Biblical text, and I have always accepted that. They were not 'creationists" however, and the infallibility they ascribed to the Bible applies only when the holy book is interpreted in the light of tradition and our God given faculties of reason and intelligence.

To accept some biblical content as allegorical(and theologians in the 3rd and 4th centuries already accepted this, because it is obvious) in no way denies its truth. It is only the feeble minded derivations of Christianity that feel threatened by science, or feel the need to deny it. Specially because science and other material pursuits have never really threatened the truth of Christianity or the truth of scripture.

 

[Roq]

"There is no scientific evidence for the existence of this, therefore it doesn't exist."

This is what atheists actually believe. Welcome to the wonderful world of materialistic reduction. The natural conclusion, off course, is that there is no beauty, there is no truth and there is no good and evil. Such things exist outside of "science", therefore they either don't exist or are "relative". We don't have souls and there is no God. Modern world in a nutshell, along with its "modern art" and "modern society"(not art and not a society, ironically).

No wonder most atheists are nihilistic immoral degenerates or irrational sjws.

No, how science works is if there is no evidence for the existence of something then you can't say whether it exists or not. If you are blind, deaf, dumb and paralyzed that doesn't imply that nothing exists outside of yourself, but what it does imply is that you can't know what it is, since you have no way of telling. And the problem with your position is, like the blind man, you just dictate the faith based beliefs you learned in the cot, as if they should be self evident to everyone, without any means of checking them.

Further, you are also confused about the nature of things that can be addressed by science: science can't determine whether things are beautiful, because beauty is not an inherent property of things that can be recorded, it is a projection on things that differs from person to person, hence you can't measure it directly. No doubt, your response to this will be your usual one of just dictating what you find beautiful and claiming that is what beautiful means.

And again you dictate that we have "souls", whatever that might mean, without providing any reason why such things should exist - except of course it fits in with your blind faith based beliefs.

If you imagine that your beliefs can be reconciled with science in any way, then you are fooling yourself. But presumably you have just redefined science to mean whatever you happen to believe. One has to give you credit, though, for the arrogant chutzpah of the scheme. And as an exercise in self deception, it takes some beating.

 

[FretRider]

No, how science works is if there is no evidence for the existence of something then you can't say whether it exists or not. If you are blind, deaf, dumb and paralyzed that doesn't imply that nothing exists outside of yourself, but what it does imply is that you can't know what it is, since you have no way of telling. And the problem with your position is, like the blind man, you just dictate the faith based beliefs you learned in the cot, as if they should be self evident to everyone, without any means of checking them.

I see. First you said that the only truth is material truth demonstrated by the scientific method. Now you say that the only truth is what is acessible to our senses.

You have a very limited and ignorant view of what "truth" is.

As for "reconciling my faith with science", I never had any difficulty. The greatest scientific minds of our civilization were Christian, after all(Tesla, Newton, Pascal, Lavoisier, Descartes, to name a few). I find it sad that your atheistic creed makes you blind to that fact, I suppose you don't have any reverence for these people or simply ignore what they believed when you make these absurd claims about Christianity being "irrational" or "in conflict with science". You take away the scientific contributions made in monasteries, Catholic universities and by men educated in Jesuit schools, and you would have little to none "scientific progress" to see in the west.

 

[ChienAboyeur]

They were christian how?

People showing that, people believing that the miracle of the seven loaves and fish is scientifically disproven cant be christian.

Keeping to label christian people who spent time to debunk various sides in the bible has no ground.
If they were Christian, why did they act as they were not christian?

Some people state they are for freedom of speech. Yet they censor.
Other people can choose to believe that those who censor support freedom of speech.
Wont make them supporters of freedom of speech.
Why should censors keep telling those other people they do not support freedom when the censors openly show they do not support freedom of speech?
People witnessing one thing and choosing to believe another? They are going to be hard to convince. What options are censors left with? Censoring even much?

If all the people behind those names were christian, they would have worked to establish scientific theories to enable the events that happened in the bible. Or choose not to produce theories that debunk the bible.

When you are a christian, you cant believe in other things that contradict your christian beliefs. You believe in one or you believe in the other.

 

[Pladio]

"There is no scientific evidence for the existence of this, therefore it doesn't exist."

This is what atheists actually believe. Welcome to the wonderful world of materialistic reduction. The natural conclusion, off course, is that there is no beauty, there is no truth and there is no good and evil. Such things exist outside of "science", therefore they either don't exist or are "relative". We don't have souls and there is no God. Modern world in a nutshell, along with its "modern art" and "modern society"(not art and not a society, ironically).

No wonder most atheists are nihilistic immoral degenerates or irrational sjws.

Uhm, no again. It doesn't mean it does NOT exist. It means the likelihood of a soul existing is extremely low. In the same way it is very unlikely fairies or invisible pink elephants exist. It could, but most evidence suggest these do not exist.

Of course, maybe in a 100 years we will find an invisible pink elephant and a soul or evidence for their existence.

And yes, beauty is relative. This can be seen by how people think different things are beautiful. For example, I think most modern art is shitty and moronic, but many people find it amazing and utterly beautiful.

And so are morals, as can be seen by how some Muslims think killing people for having drawn a cartoon of their prophet is morally right, while most people in Western countries believe it's morally wrong.

Of course, you insulting and generalising an entire group of people is no better than what you accuse militant atheists of doing to religious people. Just to let you know.

 

[FretRider]

They were christian how?

You obviously know nothing about any of the historical people I mentioned. In the case of Pascal for instance, go read the "Penseés" and get back to me.

And yes, beauty is relative. This can be seen by how people think different things are beautiful. For example, I think most modern art is shitty and moronic, but many people find it amazing and utterly beautiful.

And so are morals, as can be seen by how some Muslims think killing people for having drawn a cartoon of their prophet is morally right, while most people in Western countries believe it's morally wrong.

Again, this is what atheists actually believe. No wonder the west is just offing itself out of existence, after all our "leaders" are people like you. It is specially sad how the absurdities of what you say are lost to your own self. Just sick people who live in a world of lies.

If what extremist muslims do isn't wrong and evil, just a matter of "relative opinion" and "belief", maybe you should just drop down on all fours and hope an ak-47 bayonet finds its way to your insides.

 

[Roq]

If what extremist muslims do isn't wrong and evil, just a matter of "relative opinion" and "belief", maybe you should just drop down on all fours and hope an ak-47 bayonet finds its way to your insides.

It is wrong and and evil, not because morality is written in the stars, but because those with compassion and empathy don't like to see others like themselves suffer and so we agree it is wrong and evil. Furthermore, we have the combined power to impose our view on society, imperfect as that imposition is. And compassion, fairness, empathy is a far better basis for doing good than being compelled by the strictures of some deity that you can never question. Morality, *should* be questioned, because we need to work out what is best for everyone. Do you really imagine that you would go on a murder spree or be cruel to animals if you suddenly were able to appreciate that your religion is false? That is hardly the basis for a morality one would like to contemplate.

 

[Damian]

It is wrong and and evil, not because morality is written in the stars, but because those with compassion and empathy don't like to see others like themselves suffer and so we agree it is wrong and evil. Furthermore, we have the combined power to impose our view on society, imperfect as that imposition is. And compassion, fairness, empathy is a far better basis for doing good than being compelled by the strictures of some deity that you can never question. Morality, *should* be questioned, because we need to work out what is best for everyone. Do you really imagine that you would go on a murder spree or be cruel to animals if you suddenly were able to appreciate that your religion is false? That is hardly the basis for a morality one would like to contemplate.

Christianity isnt about doing what is right. It is about doing what is beyond right. For example forgiving others who dont deserve it and sacrificing yourself for others who wont appreciate it.

 

[ChienAboyeur]

In the case of Pascal for instance, go read the "Penseés" and get back to me.

Back. So what now? At last an answer to the previously asked question?

 

[FretRider]

Back. So what now? At last an answer to the previously asked question?

You have not read it. You have not even bothered to google. Pascal was a devout Catholic who converted after his niece was miraculously saved from death. He suffered a huge backlash of public opinion and made devotional writings to his death. It was said that he was "a scientist who died as a mystic and a monk". It is said that his fastings and devotions was one of the reasons he died of sickness at such young age.

Ignorance is not something I appreciate, don't test my patience. At least bother to know the subjects you are intent on discussing. You are not making any point.

 

[FretRider]

It is wrong and and evil, not because morality is written in the stars, but because those with compassion and empathy don't like to see others like themselves suffer and so we agree it is wrong and evil. Furthermore, we have the combined power to impose our view on society, imperfect as that imposition is. And compassion, fairness, empathy is a far better basis for doing good than being compelled by the strictures of some deity that you can never question. Morality, *should* be questioned, because we need to work out what is best for everyone. Do you really imagine that you would go on a murder spree or be cruel to animals if you suddenly were able to appreciate that your religion is false? That is hardly the basis for a morality one would like to contemplate.

Stop contradicting yourself. You had just said that good and evil are "relative" and that there is no right or wrong, only "belief and opinions". Now you are lecturing me about what is wrong and evil .

It is really pathetic when someone argues without even knowing what point he wants to make. It is the same stupidity dogs engage in when they chase their own tail. I guess you just got embarrassed after you admitted that the end game of your atheistic faith is nihilism and moral decay? A bit too late to try to save face now.

Here is your master giving the example. Being an immoral relativistic turd is so important to him that he has abdicated his role as a scientist:

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinio...tion-any-fetus-is-less-human-than-an-adult-pi

That so many people(you included) follow this idjit as some kind of prophet is beyond. He probably wasn't always such a fool, but it was long ago that he abandoned any worthwhile endeavour in order to become the militant talking face of nothing.

 

[Roq]

Stop contradicting yourself. You had just said that good and evil are "relative" and that there is no right or wrong, only "belief and opinions". Now you are lecturing me about what is wrong and evil .

It is really pathetic when someone argues without even knowing what point he wants to make. It is the same stupidity dogs engage in when they chase their own tail. I guess you just got embarrassed after you admitted that the end game of your atheistic faith is nihilism and moral decay? A bit too late to try to save face now.

Here is your master giving the example. Being an immoral relativistic turd is so important to him that he has abdicated his role as a scientist:

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinio...tion-any-fetus-is-less-human-than-an-adult-pi

That so many people(you included) follow this idjit as some kind of prophet is beyond. He probably wasn't always such a fool, but it was long ago that he abandoned any worthwhile endeavour in order to become the militant talking face of nothing.

Our urge to reduce suffering surely stems from our inbuilt love and care for others that are close to us. And some people are able to extend that even to people that they don't know, because they see them as fellows and wish them well. But, although most people, those who are not psychopaths or otherwise lacking, clearly do have a tendency towards care for others, those tendencies need to be nurtured particulary early on in life, because people have other tendencies too, one of which is towards holding irrational and comforting beliefs that they are somehow special, stand apart from the rest of humanity and have a special destiny, not accessible to others.

And irrational belief systems are very dangerous, because they leave children vulnerable to all kinds of indoctrination, such as is found in religions and other irrational ideologies (such as say marxism). And when people become filled with a righteous feeling of apartness and superiority, that then leaves them open to committing all kinds of atrocities in the name of their belief system. And that is something we see repeated throughout history.

So morality isn't just a question of belief or opinion, it stems from very real moral intuitions that most of us have. But it is relative, because there simply isn't any yardstick, outside ourselves, against which we can measure it. There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so, but rational thought, informed by science and based on compassion towards others who suffer like we do is infinitely better, in practice, for most of us, than any rigid faith based dogma.