More Religion Means More Peace

DAVID tells us: I do believe it is upon recieving the Spirit that we have been forgiven of our sins. This is why I disagree with infant baptism.

ANN O. replies: The RCC also believes that Baptism forgives sins. So how to account for infant Baptism? I am not troubled by the teaching that ORiginal Sin is an inclination towards sin that is built into human nature, and Baptism dis-inclines that (because it is grace). So to Baptize a child also dis-inclines the child from temptations to sin. In other words, it has an effect on his/her very soul. I find no problem with that. In other words, as I see it, Baptism does more than one thing.

But I disagree with the notion that once we make the decision to accept the Lord that that's that. In my experience it seems very, very clear that we can reverse our pledge all too easily. Many people on the list point to various people who were Baptized yet turned into monsters. That insight is, I think, theologically sound.

DAVID:

it doesn't take a specially trained scholar to understand what God wants. His word was meant for all intellectual beings.

ANN: I have to disagree again. (And don't worry about that. As I see it, it isn't impolite to disagree -- it is only impolite to call names!

Having the good intention to read the Bible and find the meaning God intended and then actually finding His meaning are not the same thing. Someone who is wicked can read the Bible and find the meaning, e.g., murder is wrong. Again, this is the difference between an intention and a complete actualization of that intention. When you started reading the Bible, surely just becaues you intended to find truth you didn't understand all parts correctly the first time you read the texts, did you? In other words, some of your initial readings, your initial interpretations were probably wrong.

So, here's the problem: how do you know that further study won't make you change your mind about some things again? The problem is not that *God's understanding of what He meant* can change. The problem is that *OUR understanding of what he meant" can change. Or do you find some explicit text in the Bible that says: sincere readers will never make mistaken interpretations of Scripture.

Yes, I do think that we seem to have the same beliefs about the historical Jesus -- that He was (amazingly!) God and that God is Love and will redeem us. By the way there is a wonderful sermon on the Christianity Today site by one of the editors. (CT is a highly respected evangelical journal, for those who don't know.) It's about the Virginia Tech murders and how God suffers with us, but will in the end redeem us, saints and sinners, and the whole world. It's at:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/june/14.55.html

No, I don't agree with everything at CT, but ISTM that Yancey has gotten at what all Christians in the classic sense agree on.

Ann O,

Thanks for the great response. I do hope to remain polite in this discussion, so if I happen to disagree on certain points I would hope that you take no offense to them.

First off, I have to disagree with a range of sins being greater than others. Your right when you say sin actually translates to "miss the mark". So whether you commit murder or say a bad word, you "miss the mark". I do believe the Bible teaches us that we all miss the mark (sin) and the only redemption for those sins are the acceptance of Jesus' death and resurrection.

Concerning baptism, I do agree that it is an important act of faith to make your faith publicly known. I do however disagree as baptism being a requirement for salvation. Once again, when you read about all the accounts of baptism in the NT (post resurrection) you will see that this act of faith is done AFTER being saved, not before. John the Baptist said he comes to baptize with water, but another One greater than him comes to baptize with the Spirit. I do believe it is upon recieving the Spirit that we have been forgiven of our sins. This is why I disagree with infant baptism. This is a "work" that is declared a saving grace by the RCC. This can be referred to Paul's anger at the Galatians for adding physical circumsicion as a way to recieve salvation. This is not what Christ intended for us. His work on the cross was more than sufficient for us as we are to come to Him with our hearts, not our works.

I have to give you a little info about myself. I found Christ through reading His Word alone. I was able to determine the meaning through a consistent study of scripture backing up scripture. I do not believe in contradictions in the Bible and have yet to find one. At first glance, some can appear that way, but with further studies it is quite simple to understand God's true meaning. In other words, it doesn't take a specially trained scholar to understand what God wants. His word was meant for all intellectual beings.

You say the RCC changes it's decisions on matters of doctrine and dogma every once in awhile. I read in the Bible that God is never changing. If RCC are what they claim to be "the only true church", then why are they contradictory to what God is? Also, is it true that the pope is considered "infallible"?

So, a major question I have as well is that does the RCC consider itself the "only true church"? If this is the case, then we have some Bible study to do. And one last one as well. I have heard that the RCC says it's members aren't allowed to read the Bible. I'm not sure if this is true or not, but the mother of a close friend of mine who is catholic told me her priest said she cannot read the Bible on her own or she might come up with a false translation. This was quite some time ago, so maybe the RCC has changed their view on this, however, I am curious if this was ever a point in their historical doctrines.

Thanks for your time and I appreciate this discussion. And no matter what doctrinal disputes come between us, I know that our faith lies in Jesus together and that's what's most important. And more importantly, I see us believing in the same Jesus as portrayed in the Bible, unlike Mormons or Jehovah W's. I think that is the most important aspect of our beliefs...to believe in the RIGHT Jesus.

God bless you

SPEED123:

The only reason I brought up Hitler's Catholicism is in response to your atheist bashing. You were the one who brought up Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.

They may have been atheists, however, more so they were Communists. It wasn't that atheism created Communism, it's the other way around. So you need to blame the communist Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. for thei evil deeds, not the atheist Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.

DAVID replies to Ann O.: I get a sense of doctrinal dispute between catholicism and Biblical Christianity. The claim that works is a requirement for salvation is anti-Biblical. The Bible clearly teaches otherwise.

Hi again, David,

I wouldn't say that Catholicism is not part of biblical Christianity. A great deal of the scholarly effort of the RCC has gone into trying to discover just what God means by those texts. But unlike fundamentalist Protestantism, the RCC (and many Jewish scholars and many other Protestant scholarss) do not think that God meant everything in the Holy Scripture to be interpreted literally.

I suppose the main reason they think so is because there are too many contradictions in the Bible. Furthermore, Jesus says some things that He plainly doesn't mean literally, e.g., "If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out". The modern scholars, by studying other texts of the same historical period, have discovered that it was quite common for Jews to use language rhetorically even to the extent of gross over-statment. So that statement of Jesus Himself must be *interpreted* in the light of the other things He says. The problem is: just what does He mean in any given passage? Enter Biblical scholarship.

So, as to good works not being required for salvation, it's true there is at least one text in Scripture which seems to mean that we are saved by faith alone. However, you can find other texts which say that good works are necessary. For instance, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdome of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven." Since it is the will of the Father that we do good works, it seems clear that if we don't do good works we cannot go to Heaven.

DAVID: I am curious. If I do not partake in these catholic sacraments, does the catholic church say that I will not recieve salvation? This is something that I have yet to find out.

ANN: The RC Church teaches that at least Baptism is required, but that since many people have not even heard of Jesus, it would be unjust of God to condemn people to Hell who could not know Him, for whatever reason. So the Church thinks that the desire to do what is the will of God or the Absolute or whatever you want to call Him, in effect baptizes the person. And this applies to other non-Catholic Christians and non-Christians as well -- if they follow their consciences, they will be saved.

This is called "baptism of desire". Yes, this is an inference from other things said in the Bible, e.g., that God is just. But the RC relies on inferences to try to discover God's meanings. The Second Vatican Council, held in the 1960's was very clear about this. But, if I'm not mistaken, the RCC earlier did teach that the unbaptized went to Hell.

As to when forgiveness of those who confess actually "takes", I don't really know. I suspect it happens as soon as God sees that the person is sincerely repentant. But only God knows who is sincere.

I think your questions are quite logical, and I'm happy to try to answer them. Just remember, I'm not a theologian, though I do know some of Aquinas' theology. Also remember that there is and has always been a lot of theological argument in the RCC. So you'll even find different popes saying different things if you wait long enough :-) If you'd like a generally accurate account of Catholicism, I'd recommend you take a look at Richard McBrien's "Catholicism". He's quite clear and contemporary

DAVID: What constitutes for a "less serious sin"? Jesus said that if we break the least of any commandment, we break them all and therefore are lawbreakers. Sin seperates us from God, no matter if it's murder, or just an impure thought.

ANN: The RCC teaches that there are different degrees of sinfulness. Both the Hebrew and the Greek word for "sin" had a core meaning of "missing the mark". But you can go more or less wide of the mark. The worst sins according to the Church, called "mortal sin", is a clear choice that turns us away from God completely. The lesser sins, called "venial sincs", do not turn us completely away. They range from, say, stealing a dime or making a nasty little remark to someone who doesn't deserve it on up to the hateful ones like murder and adultery.

Murder, being a mortal sin, would require more serious penance. But that is for the confessors to decide based on his knowledge of the murderer and how much the murderer has changes.

I should also add that though sins are *objective* ,e.g., murder actually ends an objective life, the subjective part of sin -- our internal, private choices -- can make them less evil. For instance, if a man is tempted to commit adultery by a gorgeous woman who has been chasing him for months and he falls, that isn't as bad -- perhaps -- as a man who makes a clear, very deliberate choice to be unfaithful to his wife. Or if someone goads another into doing something wrong, that also can lessen the culpability of the act.

If you'd like a more authoritative explanation of these things, you might like Richard McBrien's "Catholicism". He's very clear and knows the contemporary developments. And, yes, Catholic theology does develop, and even reverses itself sometimes. But it generally takes a good long while. Sigh.

Andrew Greeley, the popular columnist and writer of detective novels, also has a book on basic Catholic teachings out. I would imagine he explains better than I ever could.

Thanks for listening, David, and especially for responding so politely :-)

David, I think you're confusing the mechanics of how we practice our belief with what we believe. I'm sure you would agree that once you accept grace in your heart it makes you able to behave better. As a group we catholics like to codify things, so that we have motions to go through during periods of personal doubt. These motions help us to keep our heads above water, but they are aids to faith, not substitutes for it.
As for the Aves and Paters used as penance for children, it's probably a recognition that some sins are easier to correct than others. I joined the church as an adult, and I usually get a penance that is meant to address the bad habit behind the sin. I'm no murderer, but I've never been assigned to recite prayers as penance. Murderers in the middle ages used to have to do things like walk hundreds of miles on their knees. I'm sure the contemporary remedy, while less public, is more difficult than reciting a few prayers.
Finally, do you go to church? Does it make you feel closer to Christ when you go?

So, I get a sense of doctrinal dispute between catholicism and Biblical Christianity. The claim that works is a requirement for salvation is anti-Biblical. The Bible clearly teaches otherwise. I see the difference in how we portray salvation. I say I am ALREADY saved (because the early apostles said the same thing), catholics say that salvation is based upon a meritous accumulation of good works and church sacraments.

I am curious. If I do not partake in these catholic sacraments, does the catholic church say that I will not recieve salvation? This is something that I have yet to find out.

I also was curious about the hail marys and our Fathers? When you go to confession and the priest says to do a certain number of these, is it after this act that you recieve forgiveness? What if you didn't do them? Are you forgiven of these confessed sins if you skip the hail marys and our Fathers? And who decides this? I hope these are logical questions. I do not intend to be offensive at all, but have been curious about the catholic church's stand on how sins are forgiven. To my understanding Christ died so that we can be forgiven through grace which is by faith.

Also, Ann O. What constitutes for a "less serious sin"? Jesus said that if we break the least of any commandment, we break them all and therefore are lawbreakers. Sin seperates us from God, no matter if it's murder, or just an impure thought. So, do you have to do more hail marys and our Fathers if you commit murder? I hope these are legitamate questions. Thanks

God bless

Gaby,

"Hitler was a Catholic"

What of it? Other than an attempt to defame this religious group.

Just because he was baptized does not mean - and he was never - a practicing Catholic in the church.

This is a simple and ignorant antiCatholic device and it is similar to saying that:

"Trotsky was a mass murdering communist and a Jew....so I therefore conclude that the Jewish faith and leadership are evil."

ELOIST,

I beg to differ. Hitler was never excommunicated. Especially not for serving as best man at a Lutheran wedding.

Italian dictator Benito Mussolini asked the Pope to excommunicate Adolf Hitler shortly before he went to Rome to seal their alliance in 1938, according to a Vatican document.

Details of Mussolini's secret request were found in the Vatican's recently opened secret archive which forms the basis of a book by Italian historian Emma Fattorini on the last days of Pius XI's papacy.

Ms Fattorini, a university professor in Rome, suggests the demand reflected the Italian leader's anger over Hitler's annexation of Austria in March 1938.

Although she also says Mussolini's actions may have been an attempt to set up the Church, in that if it did not act, he could accuse it of failing to listen to his warnings.

"Despite the many stop and go situations, we are in fact in the middle of full Italian-German accord - and it is this that makes the request for an excommunication so sensational," Ms Fattorini reportedly said.

She said the document - found in the archive opened in February - showed Mussolini was playing a "double game".

Despite being baptised a Catholic by his mother, in his adult life Hitler was not a practicing Catholic.

It is thought however he would have been aware of the significance of an excommunication and would have avoided the ruling at all costs.

The account of the meeting in April 1938 was taken by Holy See representative Pietro Tacchi Venturi.

Mussolini had urged the Vatican to adopt harsher measures against Hitler, according to Mr Venturi's own account of their talks.

"The head of the government told P. Tacchi Venturi in a private meeting that with Hitler it would be advisable to be more energetic, without half measures; not now, not immediately, but waiting for the best time to adopt these more energetic measures, for example excommunication," the record says.

In March 1938, Hitler annexed Austria and became a threat to Italian security - especially in Italy's German-speaking northern region.

However, Mussolini went on to sign a military alliance with Germany in 1939 and joined the war a year later.

It is not clear if the Church ever seriously considered excommunicating Hitler.

The Vatican archives relating to pre-war Germany were opened in a bid to counter charges that the Vatican did not do enough to prevent the Holocaust.

To Gaby:

Hitler was excommunicated as a Catholic when he served as best man at a Lutheran wedding. No matter what lies he told in order to appear as a compassionate conservative, he was barred from receiving the sacraments.

Signing the concordat may have given him prestige, but it also allowed the church to operate more freely, which helped save some 80,000 Jews from the gas chambers. He also instructed the Nazi commander in Rome to plan for the assassination of Pius XII.

I think Ann O. has given the answers you need.
All I would add is that we do believe (as you seem to) that good works are primarily a reflection of the grace that is in our hearts. Catholics are aware that we sometimes have more control over our behavior than we do over our feelings; sometimes by concentrating on good deeds we are better able to bring our relationship with Christ to the forefront.
I don't know if that's doctrine, but it has been my experience.

DAVID tells us: Thanks for your responses. I guess that my assumption (or heresay) led me to believe that it was the priests who forgave sins in replacement of God. I can see now that the confessional booths are mearly a place for spiritual advisory. I do wonder though why it is recommended to do a certain number of "hail mary's" and the such. Is this a requirement for those confessed sins to be forgiven? If so, I would have to believe that the Bible would say different. I should point out that faith alone in Jesus is what brings forgiveness in sins and not works. Paul made this very clear in part because the Galatians were adding works to their preachings, such as physical circumcision as a means of salvation.

ANN O. replies: Yes, the priest advises us in Confession, but it is the action of Jesus that forgives us that is essential to it. But we must choose to admit our sins and accept His forgiveness, etc. But Catholics don't agree with the notion that it is only Jesus who acts in our being saved -- we must act too, we must choose to accept the graces He offers. And, yes, good works are indeed necessary. There is nothing automatic about salvation in Catholic theology, as there seems to be in Protestant theology.

Hail Marys (prayers) aren't the only sort of penances given out, though they, together with Our Fathers are usual for children and for less serious sins. "Penance" is just punishment. Punishment isn't very popular these days, but it has its uses, I think. And even if the penance seems trivial it has much symbolic effect. It forces us to look at ourselves and say, hey, I did wrong and I must improve.

Hi, David,

The break between the RCC and the Protestants was, of course, bitter at best, and churh histories afterwards, at least until rather recently, apparently not been very objective on either side. But much more history is being done now on the subject by calmer, more objective historians. If you want a respected historian of the Catholic Church, try the works of Christopher Dawson of Oxford University.

Yes, there was corruption and misjudgment at different times and places. But "the Church" is not simply the popes and bishops or the Vatican. The Church is all the Catholics, sinners and saints alike, and to accuse the whole Church of the sins of some, especially the sins of the powerful, is not really fair, is it?

My mother used to say that one reason she continued to be a Catholic was because, given the corruption in high places at different times, the Holy Spirit must be within it helping it to recover. I think she had a point. Jesus never promised us perfection in this life. He only offers us the grace to do good. Some accept it, some don't.

If you think that the Church did only harm, do read what Seamus Heaney, the Nobel prize-winning poet and translator, has to say about the great epic, Beowulf. He says that in that poem we can see that some of the fighters were just starting to see that conquest and glory and gold were not the best that life can offer -- these were men who had only recently been introduced to Christianity. Do read the poem. If you look at some of the cultures Europeans come from (Goths, Visigoths, Vandals, etc.) I think you'll see that Christianity was the greatest boon that ever hit the European continent.

Ann O.

Gaby,

Thanks for the LOOOOOOOOONG post. :) I knew about the Vatican's involvement with Hitler but didn't want to bring it up. Since you did, I should note that the Concordant signed in 1933 between the Vatican and Nazi Germany in a way gave Hitler his power.

Here's an exerpt from wikipedia:

Most historians consider the Reichskonkordat an important step toward the international acceptance of Adolf Hitler's Nazi regime.[4] Guenter Lewy, political scientist and author of The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany, wrote:

"There is general agreement that the Concordat increased substantially the prestige of Hitler's regime around the world. As Cardinal Faulhaber put it in a sermon delivered in 1937: "At a time when the heads of the major nations in the world faced the new Germany with cool reserve and considerable suspicion, the Catholic Church, the greatest moral power on earth, through the Concordat expressed its confidence in the new German government. This was a deed of immeasurable significance for the reputation of the new government abroad."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichskonkordat

I do believe that the Roman Catholic Church used Christianity as a means of empowerment and money. I really don't know if that is still the case today. I'm still in the midst of studying catholic history and have yet to reach the current date and age of how the vatican is acting politically. Like I said before, my opinion is that their past is exactly that, past. I'm hoping what they do today can be righteous in God's eyes. I'm still unsure of that. For me, I would rather bring forth doctrinal arguments to establish if this church is Biblically correct. If I were catholic, I would find it important to know the history of this church to see if has shaped her into an organization of corruption (as history tells us) or an organization of repentenance and proper leadership. I think that is for the individual to find out for themselves. I do think however, that your post does add to the fact that stalin and mao can fit into the same category of the historical papalcy. I know that's hurtful to some, but please consider the evidence.

SPEED123:

Hitler was a Catholic. I normally hate long posts, but in view of your anti atheist posts I thought maybe you'd like to read a few quotes from Herr Hitler.

I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord's work. [Adolph Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936]

There is a road to freedom. Its milestones are Obedience, Endeavor, Honesty, Order, Cleanliness, Sobriety, Truthfulness, Sacrifice, and love of the Fatherland. [Message, signed Hitler, painted on walls of concentration camps; Life, August 21, 1939]

Woman's world is her husband, her family, her children and her home. We do not find it right when she presses into the world of men. [Adolph Hitler, quoted in Lucy Komisar, The New Feminism]

Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith . . . we need believing people. [Adolf Hitler, April 26, 1933, from a speech made during negotiations leading to the Nazi-Vatican Concordant of 1933]

I have followed [the Church] in giving our party program the character of unalterable finality, like the Creed. The Church has never allowed the Creed to be interfered with. It is fifteen hundred years since it was formulated, but every suggestion for its amendment, every logical criticism, or attack on it, has been rejected. The Church has realized that anything and everything can be built up on a document of that sort, no matter how contradictory or irreconcilable with it. The faithful will swallow it whole, so long as logical reasoning is never allowed to be brought to bear on it. [Adolf Hitler, from Rauschning, _The Voice of Destruction_, pp. 239-40]

My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery. When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exposed. [Adolf Hitler, speech on April 12, 1922, published in My New Order, quoted in Freethought Today April 1990]

I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. [Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp. 46]

What we have to fight for...is the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may be enabled to fulfill the mission assigned to it by the Creator. [Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp. 125]

This human world of ours would be inconceivable without the practical existence of a religious belief. [Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp.152]

And the founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of his estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary, He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God. [Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp.174]

Catholics and Protestants are fighting with one another... while the enemy of Aryan humanity and all Christendom is laughing up his sleeve. [Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp.309]

I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so [Adolph Hitler, to Gen. Gerhard Engel, 1941]

Any violence which does not spring from a spiritual base, will be wavering and uncertain. It lacks the stability which can only rest in a fanatical outlook. [Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 171]

I had excellent opportunity to intoxicate myself with the solemn splendor of the brilliant church festivals. As was only natural, the abbot seemed to me, as the village priest had once seemed to my father, the highest and most desirable ideal. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 1]

I was not in agreement with the sharp anti-Semitic tone, but from time to time I read arguments which gave me some food for thought. At all events, these occasions slowly made me acquainted with the man and the movement, which in those days guided Vienna's destinies: Dr. Karl Lueger and the Christian Social Party. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 2]

...the unprecedented rise of the Christian Social Party... was to assume the deepest significance for me as a classical object of study. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 3]

As long as leadership from above was not lacking, the people fulfilled their duty and obligation overwhelmingly. Whether Protestant pastor or Catholic priest, both together and particularly at the first flare, there really existed in both camps but a single holy German Reich, for whose existence and future each man turned to his own heaven. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 3]

Political parties has nothing to do with religious problems, as long as these are not alien to the nation, undermining the morals and ethics of the race; just as religion cannot be amalgamated with the scheming of political parties. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 3]

For the political leader the religious doctrines and institutions of his people must always remain inviolable; or else has no right to be in politics, but should become a reformer, if he has what it takes! [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 3]

In nearly all the matters in which the Pan-German movement was wanting, the attitude of the Christian Social Party was correct and well-planned. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 3]

It [Christian Social Party] recognized the value of large-scale propaganda and was a virtuoso in influencing the psychological instincts of the broad masses of its adherents. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 3]

The anti-Semitism of the new movement [Christian Social movement] was based on religious ideas instead of racial knowledge. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 3]

If Dr. Karl Lueger had lived in Germany, he would have been ranked among the great minds of our people. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 3, about the leader of the Christian Social movement]

Even today I am not ashamed to say that, overpowered by stormy enthusiasm, I fell down on my knees and thanked Heaven from an overflowing heart for granting me the good fortune of being permitted to live at this time. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 5]

I had so often sung 'Deutschland u:ber Alles' and shouted 'Heil' at the top of my lungs, that it seemed to me almost a belated act of grace to be allowed to stand as a witness in the divine court of the eternal judge and proclaim the sincerity of this conviction. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 5]

Only in the steady and constant application of force lies the very first prerequisite for success. This persistence, however, can always and only arise from a definite spiritual conviction. Any violence which does not spring from a firm, spiritual base, will be wavering and uncertain. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 5]

I soon realized that the correct use of propaganda is a true art which has remained practically unknown to the bourgeois parties. Only the Christian- Social movement, especially in Lueger's time achieved a certain virtuosity on this instrument, to which it owed many of its success. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 6]

Once again the songs of the fatherland roared to the heavens along the endless marching columns, and for the last time the Lord's grace smiled on His ungrateful children. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 7, reflecting on World War I]

The more abstractly correct and hence powerful this idea will be, the more impossible remains its complete fulfillment as long as it continues to depend on human beings... If this were not so, the founders of religion could not be counted among the greatest men of this earth... In its workings, even the religion of love is only the weak reflection of the will of its exalted founder; its significance, however, lies in the direction which it attempted to give to a universal human development of culture, ethics, and morality. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 8]

To them belong, not only the truly great statesmen, but all other great reformers as well. Beside Frederick the Great stands Martin Luther as well as Richard Wagner. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 8]

The fight against syphilis demands a fight against prostitution, against prejudices, old habits, against previous conceptions, general views among them not least the false prudery of certain circles. The first prerequisite for even the moral right to combat these things is the facilitation of earlier marriage for the coming generation. In late marriage alone lies the compulsion to retain an institution which, twist and turn as you like, is and remains a disgrace to humanity, an institution which is damned ill-suited to a being who with his usual modesty likes to regard himself as the 'image' of God. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 10]

Parallel to the training of the body a struggle against the poisoning of the soul must begin. Our whole public life today is like a hothouse for sexual ideas and simulations. Just look at the bill of fare served up in our movies, vaudeville and theaters, and you will hardly be able to deny that this is not the right kind of food, particularly for the youth...Theater, art, literature, cinema, press, posters, and window displays must be cleansed of all manifestations of our rotting world and placed in the service of a moral, political, and cultural idea. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 10, echoing the Cultural Warfare rhetoric of the Religious Right]

But if out of smugness, or even cowardice, this battle is not fought to its end, then take a look at the peoples five hundred years from now. I think you will find but few images of God, unless you want to profane the Almighty. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 10]

While both denominations maintain missions in Asia and Africa in order to win new followers for their doctrine-- an activity which can boast but very modest success compared to the advance of the Mohammedan faith in particular-- right here in Europe they lose millions and millions of inward adherents who either are alien to all religious life or simply go their own ways. The consequences, particularly from a moral point of view, are not favorable. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 10]

The great masses of people do not consist of philosophers; precisely for the masses, faith is often the sole foundation of a moral attitude. The various substitutes have not proved so successful from the standpoint of results that they could be regarded as a useful replacement for previous religious creeds. But if religious doctrine and faith are really to embrace the broad masses, the unconditional authority of the content of this faith is the foundation of all efficacy. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 10]

Due to his own original special nature, the Jew cannot possess a religious institution, if for no other reason because he lacks idealism in any form, and hence belief in a hereafter is absolutely foreign to him. And a religion in the Aryan sense cannot be imagined which lacks the conviction of survival after death in some form. Indeed, the Talmud is not a book to prepare a man for the hereafter, but only for a practical and profitable life in this world. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 11]

The best characterization is provided by the product of this religious education, the Jew himself. His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present-day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties-- and this against their own nation. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 11]

....the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 11, precisely echoing Martin Luther's teachings]

Faith is harder to shake than knowledge, love succumbs less to change than respect, hate is more enduring than aversion, and the impetus to the mightiest upheavals on this earth has at all times consisted less in a scientific knowledge dominating the masses than in a fanaticism which inspired them and sometimes in a hysteria which drove them forward. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 1 Chapter 12]

The greatness of every mighty organization embodying an idea in this world lies in the religious fanaticism and intolerance with which, fanatically convinced of its own right, it intolerantly imposes its will against all others. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 1 Chapter 12]

The greatness of Christianity did not lie in attempted negotiations for compromise with any similar philosophical opinions in the ancient world, but in its inexorable fanaticism in preaching and fighting for its own doctrine. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 1 Chapter 12]

All in all, this whole period of winter 1919-20 was a single struggle to strengthen confidence in the victorious might of the young movement and raise it to that fanaticism of faith which can move mountains. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 1 Chapter 12]

Thus inwardly armed with confidence in God and the unshakable stupidity of the voting citizenry, the politicians can begin the fight for the 'remaking' of the Reich as they call it. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 1]

Of course, even the general designation 'religious' includes various basic ideas or convictions, for example, the indestructibility of the soul, the eternity of its existence, the existence of a higher being, etc. But all these ideas, regardless of how convincing they may be for the individual, are submitted to the critical examination of this individual and hence to a fluctuating affirmation or negation until emotional divination or knowledge assumes the binding force of apodictic faith. This, above all, is the fighting factor which makes a breach and opens the way for the recognition of basic religious views. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 1]

Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 1]

A folkish state must therefore begin by raising marriage from the level of a continuous defilement of the race, and give it the consecration of an institution which is called upon to produce images of the Lord and not monstrosities halfway between man and ape. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 2]

It would be more in keeping with the intention of the noblest man in this world if our two Christian churches, instead of annoying Negroes with missions which they neither desire nor understand, would kindly, but in all seriousness, teach our European humanity that where parents are not healthy it is a deed pleasing to God to take pity on a poor little healthy orphan child and give him father and mother, than themselves to give birth to a sick child who will only bring unhappiness and suffering on himself and the rest of the world. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 2]

That this is possible may not be denied in a world where hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people voluntarily submit to celibacy, obligated and bound by nothing except the injunction of the Church. Should the same renunciation not be possible if this injunction is replaced by the admonition finally to put an end to the constant and continuous original sin of racial poisoning, and to give the Almighty Creator beings such as He Himself created? [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 2]

For the greatest revolutionary changes on this earth would not have been thinkable if their motive force, instead of fanatical, yes, hysterical passion, had been merely the bourgeois virtues of law and order. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 2]

It doesn't dawn on this depraved bourgeois world that this is positively a sin against all reason; that it is criminal lunacy to keep on drilling a born half-ape until people think they have made a lawyer out of him, while millions of members of the highest culture-race must remain in entirely unworthy positions; that it is a sin against the will of the Eternal Creator if His most gifted beings by the hundreds and hundreds of thousands are allowed to degenerate in the present proletarian morass, while Hottentots and Zulu Kaffirs are trained for intellectual professions. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 2]

It may be that today gold has become the exclusive ruler of life, but the time will come when man will again bow down before a higher god. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 2]

Christianity could not content itself with building up its own altar; it was absolutely forced to undertake the destruction of the heathen altars. Only from this fanatical intolerance could its apodictic faith take form; this intolerance is, in fact, its absolute presupposition. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 5]

For how shall we fill people with blind faith in the correctness of a doctrine, if we ourselves spread uncertainty and doubt by constant changes in its outward structure? ...Here, too, we can learn by the example of the Catholic Church. Though its doctrinal edifice, and in part quite superfluously, comes into collision with exact science and research, it is none the less unwilling to sacrifice so much as one little syllable of its dogmas... it is only such dogmas which lend to the whole body the character of a faith. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 5]

The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 10]

In the ranks of the movement [National Socialist movement], the most devout Protestant could sit beside the most devout Catholic, without coming into the slightest conflict with his religious convictions. The mighty common struggle which both carried on against the destroyer of Aryan humanity had, on the contrary, taught them mutually to respect and esteem one another. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 10]

For this, to be sure, from the child's primer down to the last newspaper, every theater and every movie house, every advertising pillar and every billboard, must be pressed into the service of this one great mission, until the timorous prayer of our present parlor patriots: 'Lord, make us free!' is transformed in the brain of the smallest boy into the burning plea: 'Almighty God, bless our arms when the time comes; be just as thou hast always been; judge now whether we be deserving of freedom; Lord, bless our battle!' [Adolf Hitler's prayer, Mein Kampf, Vol. 2 Chapter 13]

The Government, being resolved to undertake the political and moral purification of our public life, are creating and securing the conditions necessary for a really profound revival of religious life [Adolph Hitler, in a speech to the Reichstag on March 23, 1933]

I go the way that Providence dictates with the assurance of a sleepwalker. [Adolf Hitler, Speech, 15 March 1936, Munich, Germany.]

Today Christians ... stand at the head of [this country]... I pledge that I never will tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity .. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit ... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theater, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the *poison of immorality* which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of *liberal excess* during the past ... (few) years. [The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872]

Hello everyone,

Thanks for your responses. I guess that my assumption (or heresay) led me to believe that it was the priests who forgave sins in replacement of God. I can see now that the confessional booths are mearly a place for spiritual advisory. I do wonder though why it is recommended to do a certain number of "hail mary's" and the such. Is this a requirement for those confessed sins to be forgiven? If so, I would have to believe that the Bible would say different. I should point out that faith alone in Jesus is what brings forgiveness in sins and not works. Paul made this very clear in part because the Galatians were adding works to their preachings, such as physical circumcision as a means of salvation.

I did point out the historical atrocities commited by the catholic church, but I should clarify that these historical shortcomings in no way affect my decision to not become a member of this church. I know that that is the past and that the future could be more promising for the catholic church. I would rather leave out the historical aspects of the catholic church because I do believe that has nothing to do with doctrine. The crusades, inquisitions, and witch trials DID occur, but they are not occuring today and in my opinion should not be held against the catholic church as a consideration of a true Christian church.

I do however see a few docrinal errors that are inconsistent with scripture. I would hope that you can enlighten me on these if I have made any assumptions, otherwise I would like to enlighten you as well as to what the Bible says about these things.

First the question above about the "hail marys"? Is that needed for forgiveness of sins? And one more to keep it simple. The sacraments. Are these requirements for salvation as well? As you can tell, I firmly believe in salvation by grace alone. Eph 2:8-10. Tit:3:5. I see works as not of my own but of Christ's working through me. I do see salvation as a "free" gift from God obtained by faith alone. And I see myself as already saved as compared to a meritous accumulation of works that might find favor for me upon judgement day. I'm not sure if we agree upon these things or not, but as far as I know, from my studies of the catholic church, these things are not in agreement. I would appreciate if you all could help me verify these teachings, hopefully Biblically as well. Thanks a lot.

God bless you all

RELIGION* A FORCE FOR GOOD OR EVIL?: The “Inquisition” Argument

*In this case Catholicism

David,

Your argument is an old one, used by Protestants since the Reformation right up until about the middle of the 20th c.. American evangelicals such as Rev. Falwell preached such an interpretation of Church history, although to give Falwell his due he eschewed and disowned anti-Catholic bigotry from about 1970’s onward. The Rev. Dr Ian Paisley continued the dishonourable tradition—for a glimpse log into his website—although over the past five years or so he has also stopped spouting this prejudiced view by Protestant evangelical historian dating back to “Fox’s Book of Martrys” .

THE ARGUMENT: “Christians [or in your case Catholics] have done terrible things in the name of Christ. For example the crusades and the Inquisition killed thousands. In view of this history, it is unlikely that Christianity can be a force for good.”

It is not an invalid argument. The church is guided by the Holy Spirit, but it is composed of sinful individuals and is not impeccable. Sins by Christians, particularly when committed in the name of Christ, do reflect badly on the church and may discourage people from becoming Christians. Clearly it would be better is such sins were not committed.

However, the allegation of terrible atrocities is much too easily made. At the beginning of the twentieth century there were two major anti-Christian movements. One, Communism, was atheist and saw Christianity as part of a cultural structure that was designed to exploit the workers. The other, Nazism—the “pagan worship of the state” in Pius’s term—was less openly hostile but tried to subvert the church and make it support a program of state-worship of Germany, as personified by the Aryan race. *Far more people were killed by these two movements in thirty years (1918-1948) than were killed by Christians in the preceding two thousand.*

This does not excuse atrocities by Christians, but it puts them into some sort of perspective.
I know enough about the Inquisition, the outbreak of witch burning, as well as the Crusades to place them in their historical context. However, I believe this particular blog is drawing to a close, I won’t write them up just now and in any case am doubtful that adversarial debate elicits much insight.

Oops -- CORRECTION: " the sacrament of Reconciliation) is based on the Biblical text "Whose sins you are forgiven, whose sins you are retained". "
That should have been "Whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven, and whose sins you have retained, they are retained".

SPEED 123 tells us:

OK, David...perhaps you are so critical because you are longing to return?

In any case, confession is not to the priest but to God...the priest just happens to be there.

That is not a great explaination - but I havent figured it all out either.

ANN O. throws in her 2 cents: The way I understand it a priest is a "vicar" of Jesus Christ. That is, when "applying" the Sacraments he simply acts in Jesus' place here in the material world. Something like the way a Lieutenant Colonel can act in some matters for the Colonel if the Colonel isn't around himself. The sacrament of Confession (or as it's calle these days, the sacrament of Reconciliation) is based on the Biblical text "Whose sins you are forgiven, whose sins you are retained".

It's not just enough to confess our sins, simply to say "I have done or not done X, Y, or Z". There must be repentance and a determination to act differntly in the future. Also, if we owe someone something because of a sin we must make restitution.

People sometimes get the impression that we Catholics think we can sin and just go confess it. Not so. We have to mean what we say, and God knows if we are lying even if the priest doesn't. In fact, lying in Confession is itself considered a very serious sin.

If there is no priest around we can still confess our sins to God, intend repentance and reparation if necessary, and we will be forgiven. But if the sin is a very serious one later we must go and confess it again.

When I was young we were taught a lot of stuff about some sins being worse than they actually are -- sexual sins, e.g., "impure thoughts". I think that's because American Catholicism has been culturally conditioned to be too stringent about such matters. The Irish clergy were very much influenced by a Bishop Janssen who was obssesive on the subject, as were some of the French clergy in my own area. Plus the Eastern American Catholics seem to have had that re-inforced culturally by the Puritanism there. Current theologians don't view these little sexual peccadillos so seriously these days.

Sometimes I think they've gone too far in the opposite direction. But I do think the current emphasis on respect for others in teaching about sexual behavior instead of emphasizing "don't, don't, don't" is much, much more theologically sound.

VIEJA tells us: The phrase "I ask Blessed Mary...all the angels and saints, and you my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God..." states the basic Catholic position. We don't pray to Mary and the saints but we do ask for their help when we pray, the same way you'd ask someone with a stronger hand to help you hammer in a nail.

ANN O. replies: In my neck of the woods we use the word "pray" for our talking to the saints. All we mean by that is that we talk to them mentally and sometimes we actually talk out loud to them in communal prayer. Often we ask them to pray to God for us. But we do not worship anyone but God. That would be idolatry.

This is all based on the Catholic belief that there is life after death and that the dead continue to love us and can be in touch with us spiritually. In theology this community of the living and the dead is called "the Communion of Saints". Not that everyone is a saint in the full sense of the word, but if someone is pointed toward God, so to speak, that is enough to qualify as a "saint" with a little s.

No, we don't usually expect to actually hear any answers, though some Catholics do claim to have such visions we are not required to believe that other peoples visions are actually messages from beyond.

Ah, sorry about the confussion on my part; I guess it was because of your use of G-d that I made that assumption.

As for the explaination, well said!

David
Here is the best way I can think of to explain some Catholic practices that seem non-biblical to other Christians:
We do believe in history and tradition as forces almost equal to what is in the book, and tradition provides us with visible signs and symbols we can use to act on what the book teaches us. The pope is to the Bible sort of what the Supreme Court is to the US Constitution. The priest who hears my confession is there to help me focus on what I've done wrong and to formulate an appropriate atonement -- to keep me honest, if you will.
We are a community in Christ, and we value continuity and consistency more than most other Christians seem to. We also rely upon other members of the community in prayer, in worship and in daily life.
The phrase "I ask Blessed Mary...all the angels and saints, and you my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God..." states the basic Catholic position. We don't pray to Mary and the saints but we do ask for their help when we pray, the same way you'd ask someone with a stronger hand to help you hammer in a nail.

Speed123
Please feel free to correct me or add anything if I'm just muddying the waters....BTW I am Catholic by baptism, faith and confirmation, but culturally from a strong Old Testament background.

PS - the wise Viejita del Oeste is Jewish, I believe :)

OK, David...perhaps you are so critical because you are longing to return?

In any case, confession is not to the priest but to God...the priest just happens to be there.

That is not a great explaination - but I havent figured it all out either.

Check out this site, I think you will have a field day on similar questions on the forum:

http://forums.catholic.com/

Peace.

Viejita del Oeste,

I truly am sorry if I come off as offensive. I do not intend to be that way. Regarding the historical aspect of the catholic church, that is true history, just as George Washington was our first president, so was the history of the catholic church. We cannot deny that. One thing I must say that does not seperate us is our faith in Jesus Christ. We both agree to the Triunity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as One God. Because of this shared belief, we are together in the body of Christ as members and I look forward to one day worshiping God in Heaven along side you. We do have a few seperate beliefs though and this is where I would hope to hear from a catholic perspective on what they truly believe. I have studied catholicism and found inconsitencies that contradict the Bible. 2 Tim 3:16 tells me that Scripture can be used for "correction". This is what I am doing and I would hope you could do the same for me. You say that I speak as if "I gotcha". I don't want to be right. I want the Bible to be right and for you and I to know what true Christianity is. This is why I look at some of the beliefs of the catholic church and question them (ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE). My intentions aren't for you to leave the catholic church and come join me. NO WAY! Please stay there and worship God as you see fit. But shouldn't you know what the Bible says instead of taking it by blind faith through a fallible man such as the pope? Shouldn't we pray to God only and confess our sins to Him ONLY? I really don't see how a sinner can forgive a sinner? Is it wrong for me to question these? I just hope you take no offense to them. So please forgive me if I seemed to come off as trying to be "right" in my own. That is truly not my intention. Hope you have a blessed day Viejita. Ojala que podemos crecer en Cristo ajuntos! I figured you spoke spanish. :)

God bless

David,

I am not interested in your wacky protestant evangelical re-interpretations of the Bible.

I am interested in hearing you retract this slander:

"All these were Christians that were seperate from the catholic church because they believed in Jesus for salvation, and not the pope for salvation."

I do not care if you believe in the authority of the Catholic Church and its origins with Christ; however, I do care when you lie and slander in the name of proving a FALSE point.

Retract the statement and we can continue otherwise best of luck in convincing others that the Catholic Church and pope are the anti-Christ.

MR. MARK tells us: I think your point proves my point to some extent. It is often only through scholarly hindsight that we learn the true origins of things, including modern philosophical movements. The fact that -as you point out - Grosseteste scholars "are now speaking of him as also the founder of the English scientific tradition," shows that even scholars may take a while to determine such root causes.

ANN O. replies: I agree entirely. And anyone who has been in academe can tell you that there is nothing, nothing, nothing so rigid as an academic wedded to his/her own pet views :-)

Speaking of the AoE, I was happy to see that Pope Benedict is finally putting the seal of approval on the scientific merits of the Enlightenment. The Vatican, of course, has had more than it own share of rigid thinkers.

DANIEL tells ANN O.:

In reply to Ann O:

I did not say a single word about Fundamentalists being filled with hate. That is, somehow, something you read into my comments. I said that Fundamentalists conform their minds to a rigid and unbending dogma. I do not necessarily dislike individual Fundamentalist people whom I know personally. I, however, do not regard their Fundamentalist relgious belief with any degree of seriousness, and as far as religious discussion goes, I try an "humor" them.

ANN O.: I apologize for misinterpreting you, Daniel. I suppose I was reading my own estimation of some fundamentalists of all sorts into what you said. Some do seem to hate anyone who does not believe what they do -- I'm thinking of the ones who appear on this list occasionally and tell everybody else (especially the atheists)that they're going to Hell. But, as you say, others don't take that attitude.

David, your misconceptions are familiar and are common in those who do not understand or recognize Catholic teachings. That group also includes many Catholics who excel in ritual and obedience but have little understanding of what we claim to do and believe.
Historically members of the hierarchy have failed to trust the discernment of lay people, which led in many cases to a shallow sort of faith education. I don't know if Speed has the patience to answer your questions -- although I bet he knows the answers.
I would take a stab at it myself if I thought you were really interested. Your tone comes across as more "gotcha" than inquiry.

Speed123,

I'm not anti-catholic, I'm anti false-teachings. Let's expand on this "peter is the rock" thing. I do believe you are referring to Matthew 16:18-19.

The question to ask here is who is this "rock"? Jesus or Peter? We need to back up scripture with scripture to find out who Jesus was really referring to.

Psalms, Kings, Isaiah, New Testament: They will proclaim over and over God as my Rock, my refuge, my salvation...
(Ps.18:2,31, 19:14, 27:5, 28:1, 31:2, 61:2, 62:2, 71:3, 73:26, 89:26, 2S.22:2,32,47, Is.31:16, Mt.7:24, 16:18, Lk.6:48, 1Cor.10:4, 1P.2:8).

Now let's look at Peter:

Matthew 16:23 23 Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.”

Peter denies Christ three times in Mark 14:69-72.

Paul rebukes Peter in Galatians 2:14-21 for adding the law along with faith as a means of salvation.

So, Peter sure was not OUR "rock".

Now another question to ask is if Peter was the "first pope" to the only true church, then what was Paul talking about here?

Ep 1:22-23

And God placed all thing under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the Church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.

Col 1:18

And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.

You said Peter is the "cornerstone". Let's see what the Bible says.

1 Peter 2:4

As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him—

vv 7-8

7Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,
"The stone the builders rejected
has become the capstone,[b]"[c] 8and,
"A stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall."[

Peter himself actually proclaims Jesus to be the "rock" and the head of the church, not himself. If Jesus meant for Peter to be that rock, them wouldn't He say "You are Peter, and YOU are the rock"? Instead He said "on this rock". Looking at scripture, the "rock is obviously Jesus. Also, looking at scripture, the only true church is the body of Christ. Not an organization of men. And Christ Himself is the Head of that church, not some "vicar of Christ". Shouldn't catholics ask themselves these questions? Also, why does it say there is only ONE God in the Bible, but yet you pray to Mary? Isn't prayer a form of worship? And what does it mean to be excommunicated? Doesn't that mean that you can longer recieve salvation because you are no longer a part of this so-called "only true church"? I'm sorry if I offended you in any way Speed. It is my understanding that this is what the Bible teaches and the Biblical teachings conflict with what I understand to be Catholic teachings.

Nevertheless, history is history and what I spoke of were true historical accounts. It is hard to deny that no matter what one believes. Comparing the popes to stalin or mao is irrelevant. They all have their bad historical accounts and will face judgement. Who am I to say who is any worse? I am just a sinner as well as them! Let God be the Judge.

So, Speed, maybe you can give me an account of what catholics truly believe since you seem to think I really have no idea. I would like Biblical proof of your beliefs as well. I would love to speak to you about the Bible and I find a great joy in studying it. Maybe we can help each other out to increase in our knowledge of God. Once again, sorry for offense, but I'm not speaking any lies here, just historical truths.

God bless

Speed123:

I cant believe your on my team.

PS - you are obviously a anti Catholic bigot so I will end this conversation; however, if you would like to quote the Bible - Peter, the apostle and first head of the Roman Church was given the "keys of heaven" by Jesus, who told him that he would be the cornerstone of His church in this world.

Your claim that the Church claims to be the salvation - as opposed to Christ - is wrong and it is slander.

PS - you state:

"All these were Christians that were seperate from the catholic church because they believed in Jesus for salvation, and not the pope for salvation."

This is an untrue and bigoted statement - no part of the Church or any individual Catholic sees the pope as the means of salvation.

Your statement is slander and should be retracted.

But does it really matter who killed more people whether it be a thousand or a million, these leaders of their time killed an amazing amount of people all for the sake of their beliefs.

Yes, David, it really does matter as it show the restraint or respect for the individual human - or lack their of - for respective ideologies.

No doubt Catholic power/teachings have been used for horrible political purposes and crackdowns of nonbelievers.

However, this is nothing compared to the excesses of extreme humanism/atheism and it justification of the 100 million killed in the name of the advancement of reason and a "higher man/society."

Numbers tell important facts about each respective movement and what they were capable of.

Humanism/atheist, when turned wrong, have no check to stop the machine and its quest progress and, therefore can justify starving and killing MILLIONS in name of the "new man" and the perfect society.

Speed123,

No I'm not kidding. Maybe you should do some historical research on the Inquisition. Death toll ranges from 600,000 to 9 million over a 250 year span. Or how about the Crusades? Or maybe the Witch Trials? All of these under the authority of these popes. Yes the comminist regimes did some serious damage as well. But does it really matter who killed more people whether it be a thousand or a million, these leaders of their time killed an amazing amount of people all for the sake of their beliefs. So if you ask me, putting the historical accounts of the popes compared to stalin or mao, yes they are all guilty of murder.

You should do some research on the Mennonites and the Hussites. All these were Christians that were seperate from the catholic church because they believed in Jesus for salvation, and not the pope for salvation. These are the Christian martyrs that were killed by order of the pope because they refused to believe in the false doctrines of the catholic church but believed in the Bible as their sole authority. Also research Pope Leo X in 1521 whos decree "Honestis" that ordered all who did not take part in the Inquisition (killing of Christians) to be tortured. Not only did they kill Christians, but Jews, gypsies and other people from different walks of faith. Basically, if you opposed the catholic churchs' beliefs, you die, most of the time burned alive at the stake. Also, check out Revelation 17. Woman on the beast. Let's put it this way, any church that claims to be "Christian" would follow what the Bible says. Bible says Jesus is the only way to salvation. Catholic church says they are the way to salvation. Bible says God forgives sins. Catholic church says their priests can forgive sins. Bible says we gain salvation by faith alone, not works. Catholics say you EARN salvation by their "sacraments" (works) and still you probably end up in this myth called "purgatory". Bible says, the body of Christ is the only true church. Catholics, their church is the only true church. Now tell me, how are these Christians? It's easy to see how they formed their own beliefs historically and used their false doctrines to justify their killings. BUT, they are no better or no worse than stalin or mao. They all used human suffering as a means of empowerment and mind control. Sorry if this offends you, but you need to know the truth.

God bless

"stalin, mao or any pope "

Are you kidding me, there David.

No head of the Catholic Church can even REMOTELY be put into the same category as these the killing machines of Satlin or Mao!

The misuse of religion by Monarchs of Europe was horrible...however, but nothing in the history of the world compares to the dehumanization of atheist communist regims or the body counts that they tallied in their effort to achieve their goals.

Including the pope with Stalin is the bias that I am pointing out...thanks for justifying my argument.

Do you have a sense of moral perspective?

Speed,

Sorry, my understanding of your post was that atheists in general were the cause of these atrocities. I'm glad you clarified that misunderstanding of mine and sorry if I offended you at all. But I do agree with what you said:

"No ideology is free of pathology; that is my point"

I totally agree with that statement. How about we just stop pointing fingers and say it was humanity that caused these great atrocities in history. I do believe that's agreeable and no matter what faith stalin, mao or any pope had, it never justified the killings of massive amounts of people. They were all extremist idiots.

God bless

Daniel, I take back the idiot comment; however, making assumptions on non-existent arguments and then accusing bigotry is not the way to go about defending a particular ideology.

To Speed123

Maybe I am an idiot, but I don't think you express your thoughts very well. So, how am I to understand you? I am sorry.

I am sorry for you.

Maybe if Christians wouldn't be so mean to atheists, then atheists wouldn't be so mean to Christians. Did you ever think of that?

I do not think it helps the Christian cause for you to involve yourself in pissing matches with atheists, then call me an idiot.

I do not feel as threatened by atheism as you do; let us just say that.

Oh well, I guess I am an idiot, and not as smart as you.

Just because you do not believe in God does NOT mean that you are immune from dogma and ideology of extreme humanism and totalitarianism.

Do you call Stalin or Trotsky or Pol Pot or Che harmless atheists.

I think not.

Daniel, I am sorry, but you are an idiot.

I am not basing my faith on "hatred" for atheists as a group or any other external force.

What I am doing is pointing out the historical fact that this ideology has had a hand in the worst human attrocities that the world has yet to see.

This a counter balance to atheists on this board who attack religion as the source of all evil and feel that their particular ideology is the paragon of reason and innocent of involvement in the plagues of history.

No ideology is free of pathology; that is my point.

To Speed123

Mass murder on a collossal scale was justified by conformity of the mind to a rigid dogma, which is the definition of Fundamentalism. This is the same conformity of the mind which produced the suicide bombers on 9/11. In this Fumdamentalist conformity to an unbending dogma, the point of commonality is "conformity of the mind;" the dogma is incidental.

Most atheists do not believe in God, because they doubt the religious explanations of God. This is a far cry from Fundamentalism. They are all actually pretty harmless. I think you should be ashamed of yourself for the way that you regard your fellow men, who may be atheists, and all at the same time, claiming to be a Christian, a Christian, who in my opinion, has lost your way.

"You equated mass murder with belief in God. Your subsequent credibility is suspect. You blame all the problems and difficulites of religion on belief in God. It is fashionable to hate believers in God, to scapegoat and to blame every bad thing in the world on belief in God, when in fact, belief in God is nothing more than doubt."

There it is. So? What's your point? It doesn't make much sense.

You feel that, you, as a Christian, are being persecuted? But that just is not true. Christians don't get persecuted; they persecute. It has been that way for a very long time. You feel entitled to a position of superiority, and when that entitlement is challenged, you misinterpret it as persecution.

As a Christian, I do not see myself set in opposition to atheists. If your whole Christian identity is derived from opposition to atheism, then you need to reflect a little on your true motivations. I do not feel that people of doubt are a threat to my belief. I do not see doubt as a fault or faiing, or as a deliberate willful act of wickedness. But instead, doubt happens.

Hello David,

Good post; I agree with you on all points except, as I mention above, the idea that I am blaming atheism in general.

Mine is a critique of specific governments/personality cults of Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot etc. that have produced the worst slaughter the world has seen ever....and only in 100 years.

Does unchecked does a particular form of humanism/atheism have a hand it this phenomenon? How was mass murder on that scale justified?

While each of these governments were atheist, I am not able to answer that; however it is a very important question as there will be future Stalins and future mass murder in the name of progress if we are not careful.

PS - I was pointing out specific atrocities - that pale any religious war in comparison - commited by SPECIFIC historical secular, atheist governments.

100 million killed by these two governments in the name of secular, atheist, scientific human progress.

You expanded this critique to include all atheists and, therefore, are trying to put words in my mouth.

Straw men seem to the the logical bedfellow of atheists such as yourself.

(and by that I do not mean all atheists, in case you were wondering)

Daniel States:

"You equated mass murder with atheism. This is a false equation. Your subsequent credibility is suspect. You blame all the problems and difficulties of relgion on atheism. It is fashionable to hate atheism, to scapegoat atheists and to blame every bad thing in the world on atheists, when in fact, atheism is nothing more than doubt."

Replace "atheism" for belief in God in that little diddy you wrote and see how it reads.

You (collectively) do the same with religion that you claim I do to atheism.

PS - it is MUCH more fashionable these day to be an atheist than a believer.

Speed123,

Historically I do believe religion is the cause of many wars and many deaths, but I do believe they were caused by man as a means of empowerment, hence the catholic church's history. Anyone can do anything in the "name of God" but does it come from God? I think your analysis of atheists being the cause of wars is pretty far fetched. Knowing what the Bible says, we as humans are all equivolent. We have all "fallen short of the glory of God". We shouldn't place blame on any particular group of peoples, but instead blame people. So, as a Christian, I must disagree with you because true Christians don't kill people "in the name of God". And I do believe atheists can be just as morally sound as Christians if not more. Any true understanding of Christianity would know not to judge people regardless of beliefs because we are all sinners. It isn't our acts (or works) that bring us our salvation, but our faith. If you think Christians are any better than atheists, then you really need to study the Bible a little better.

To finalize my point is that it is man that causes wars. Sure the argument could be that God ordered the Israelites to take over land in the OT, but that's a different argument. Jesus came and let us know to love one another. "We are not of this world". "To love this world means we do not love God". How can anyone who believes in Jesus claim a war in His name? I can see the frustration from the atheist side in that Christians are too involved with political affairs and use our beliefs to justify our reasoning. Just so you know, Jesus wouldn't have it that way. But remember Speed123, we are all sinners and will always be, all of us! So who's to blame on for these wars, God or us? I do mean us as Christian, atheists, muslims, etc...humanity. Just like I do not want atheists to make the mistake of blaming world affairs on the whole of Christianity, I would not blame the whole of atheists for their historical shortcomings as well. Have a great day.

God bless

Dear Ann O -

Thanks for your response to my longish post wherein I mention the AoE.

Of course, eblightenment didn't begin there. Even the Romans had a republic and democracy itself wasn't a concept that leapt fully formed from the head of Athena in the 1700s. I was speaking of the AoE in the context of a set of ideas finally taking a firm hold and not letting go. A codification, if you will.

As you wrote:

"Grosseteste has been greatly underappreciated. Current Grosseteste scholars are now speaking of him as also the founder of the English scientific tradition."

I think your point proves my point to some extent. It is often only through scholarly hindsight that we learn the true origins of things, including modern philosophical movements. The fact that -as you point out - Grosseteste scholars "are now speaking of him as also the founder of the English scientific tradition," shows that even scholars may take a while to determine such root causes. It's no wonder that we non-scholars bubble along happily in the glow of received opinion, be it about Groseteste or the foundations of democracy.

Viejita del oeste and Speed123:

Every once and a while I try to defend our ancient faith, although "On Faith" actually is a platform for atheist 'preaching'.

Maybe not as well as others, nor even as well as I should I spent a lot more time...but

"Here I stand. I can do no more."

(Oh wait! That was Martin Luther.)

Hi Ann O:

Did you ever manage to find Edward Norman's "Roman Catholic Church: an Illustrated History". I loved it but it's pretty pricey and Norman, as a convert--a high profile convert but still a recent convert--isn't on the Catholic "Holy Book" circuit yet, yet.

Anyway, I'm reading an earlier work of his, an expanded pamphlet really, called Seculatisation: Sacred Values in a Godless World.

http://snipurl.com/1mzfp

It discusses the 'isms' we see so manifestly displayed here ( Actually "On Faith" is a hangout for atheist zealots!)humanism, materialism, secularism all intertwined with atheism in a vapid, unsatisfying & ungodly mix.

But I would say that, wouldn't I?

more on Fundamentalism

I disagree that Fundamentalism is a poor person's disorder. Since it is a psychological state, it can happen to anyone, to wealthy people and to well educated people, even to scientists, even to physicists. And since it is a psycological state, there is no arguing people out of it.

Although this state of mind might meet a common characteration of relgion, I do not seriously regard Fundamentalism as having any religious validity at all, but is the individual's attempt to make sense out of a confusing world. I sometimes even wonder, if this might be a sort of "built-in" coping mechanism which human beings fall back on in times of a perceived threat. Anyway, that is what I think about alot of what passes for religion.

A Fundamentalist Christian has much in common with a Fundamentalist Jew or a Fundamentalist Moslem, but such a Fundamentalist Christian is not really recognizable, in my eyes, as a Christian.

In reply to Ann O:

I did not say a single word about Fundamentalists being filled with hate. That is, somehow, something you read into my comments. I said that Fundamentalists conform their minds to a rigid and unbending dogma. I do not necessarily dislike individual Fundamentalist people whom I know personally. I, however, do not regard their Fundamentalist relgious belief with any degree of seriousness, and as far as religious discussion goes, I try an "humor" them.

I was just trying to let that arrogant Speedo123 know that not all Christians hate atheists, and that blaming all the troubles of the world on the scapegoat-du-jour is not a Christian way to act or think.

DANIEL tells us: Fundamentalism is a manifestation of a psychological state, in which you have but one decision to make, the decision to surrender your free will and conform your mind, thenceforth, to a rigid and unbending dogma. Fear drives people to this desperate state.

ANN O. replies: Yes, I think that what you say here is unfortunately true in many cases. However, I have known some very sincere fundamentalists who have not been filled with hate. Freud tells us that we sometimes transfer our fears of one thing on to another. I suspect that this is what has happened with many fundamentalists. So many fundamentalists and their families started life out as very poor people (at least this is true in the South), and poverty breeds terrible fears, fears of many sorts. It is no wonder that a rigid belief system that promises final relief is so attractive to the poor. There are fundamentalists in all sorts of religions, and they tend to be poor or formerly poor, I think.

Always the great reformers, including both Jesus and Muhammed, show great concern for the poor. No doubt they saw that poverty can harm our spirits as much as our bodies. So ISTM that we must work on getting rid of poverty, as both Jesus and Muhammed required of us. Say what you want about Farwell, he did help the poor.

Complexity, complexity.

JIM tells us: These men are not following the Koran, much less any legitimate religious creed. They are warping a credo much like our zealots in so-called evangelical churchs -- look up some of the evil things that Falwell and Roberts have said about people they don't like.

ANN O. replies: Thanks for a fine post, Jim. Wasn't it always thus? It is so easy to blame others when at least some of the fault lies in us.

To wobbly and unloving Christians

If you have a secure and strong faith and belief in Christ, then why should the doubt that atheists express be troubling to you? It should not. Let people be as they are. If you are really troubled by the message of atheism, then the trouble is inside of you; please think about that.

Speed123

Fundamentalism is a manifestation of a psychological state, in which you have but one decision to make, the decision to surrender your free will and conform your mind, thenceforth, to a rigid and unbending dogma. Fear drives people to this desperate state.

Fundamentalism is usually thought of as a religious phenomena, but it is not necessarily so. Commumism, for example, was as example of Fundamentalism. So, there may be people who have surrendered their free will to a dogma that has nothing to do with a belief in God. However, that does not mean that atheists, in general, are Fundamentalists. In fact, most atheists are not.

You equated mass murder with atheism. This is a false equation. Your subsequent credibility is suspect. You blame all the problems and difficulties of relgion on atheism. It is fashionable to hate atheism, to scapegoat atheists and to blame every bad thing in the world on atheists, when in fact, atheism is nothing more than doubt.

Maybe it is not the atheists that you hate so much. Maybe it is the doubt that you feel in your own heart. Maybe you should reflect a little more upon your own beliefs, and this pointless bitterness against your imaginary enemy, "the atheists."

Frank Collins, What is your damage? Your crusader level hatred of Islam is horrid and unsubstantiated. Many Islamic organizations try to aid their brethren and non-Muslims. The Koran calls for the respect of the "peoples of the Book" -- Jews and Christians. The track record of Muslims in the Holy Land respecting minority religions is much better than the Christian invaders from Europe. The crusaders slaughtered all non-Catholic Christians in Jerusalem when they took it -- Muslims, Jews, and Orthodox Christians. Sulallidin actually sought reconciliation with the Christians after retaking Jerusalem. Yes, this is history, but the roots of current Muslim extremism have much more to do with politics and tribalism than religious doctrine (the same was true for the Crusaders). The Muslim extremists are reacting against American incursions into their lands and the US's univocal support of Isreal and spurning of Palestine. The poor in the middle east are desperate and men from wealthy, educated backgrounds are exploiting their desperation in the name of a religion to further their political goals. Their goals are power, which Eygpt and Saudi Arabia deny most all their inhabitants. Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri are Western educated, intelligent (an abused intelligence), and dedicated men. Unfortunately, they use their intelligence, dedication, and education for throughly horrendous ends. These men are not following the Koran, much less any legitimate religious creed. They are warping a credo much like our zealots in so-called evangelical churchs -- look up some of the evil things that Falwell and Roberts have said about people they don't like.

Mr. MARk tells us that the notion of human rights is a product of the Enlightenment. This is a common misconception.

There is a common misconception that the notion of human rights was original to the Enlightenment. However, the concept was alive and well as early among the theologian-philosophers of the first half of 13t Europe. Later medieval thinkers, like Aquinas, Scotus and others included the concept rights in their natural law theories of ethics.

Robert Grosseteste (13th century English Bishop of Lincoln) was so strong a defender of human political rights that he was of the opinion that not only do people have a *right* to overthrow a tyrant, they have an *obligation* to do so. I might add that the medievals' theorists of rights also had correlative ideas of obligations, which one does not always find in the Enlightenment philosophers. The U.S. Constitution, for instance, which ultimately derives its notions of rights from the medieval tradition by way of John Locke, is heavy on rights but says relatively little about basic duties.

Grosseteste has been greatly underappreciated. Current Grosseteste scholars are now speaking of him as also the founder of the English scientific tradition. He championed both experimentation and math, which is still typical of both English theorists of science and practitioners. An Aristotelian, he understood that the making generalization on the basis of empirical knowledge allows scientists to then make predictions on the basis of those generalization. But jis interests were not only scientific, he wrote a lot of theology on pastoral care, for instance. If I am not mistaken, Roger Bacon was his student.

For Mary, again.

These boards drive me a bit nutty and it is pretty much 10-1 so I come on every once and a while...to give them hell and then take off...gorilla warfare ;-)

It helps to keep my blood pressure down and not waste my day at work - and remember that you are not going to change minds on here.

60 million in the secular, scientific, atheist Russia

30 million in China

And millions in Cambodia.

I guess these millions of souls needed to be collected and killed for the common and rational advancement of man kind.

No religious war, or any war for that matter, can match the sickening dehumanization and justified mass killing of these atheist and socialist movements.

The major killings of this century were committed, not it the name of God, but in the name of rational, atheist human progress.

Extreme humanism and its striving for the "new man" had no second thoughts about starving, shooting, burning and slaughtering 100 million people in the last 100 years.

All in the name of secular progress! Just like the fire of secular "progress" that we have lit in the middle east.

I love when atheists and "rational" people lecture religious about the dangerous nature of their dogma...the hypocricy and hubris is amazing from these self proclaimed intellectuals!

Not sure if you are still on today Mary, but thanks for the lead on that writer - found a great peice on the "NeoJacobins" (ie Bush and the neocons) and I also would like to compliment your posts on here - keep up the good work.

Hitler and the catholic church....so old topics by the same old BIGOTS.

Hitler hated the CC, Germany was a PROTESTANT majority country, the CC is not a monolithic organization despite what you think, the Chief Rabbi of Rome converted to Catholicsm after WWII as a result of seeing the acts of compassion of the church toward Roman jews.

You people suck and are the new antisemites - ANTI CATHOLICS.

Eloist,
Hitler was into Norse symbolism, not into Paganism itself. Big Difference.He used the Norse Heathan symbols for the furthering of nationalism. He sat in church as the ashes of the jews, Gypsies and insane left the chimneys.
The Pope, Pius X11, helped Hitler...he was not going to kill him. Hitler was evil and his insanity had nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with economy and nationalism.

The Jews were an easy mark...they were different, not like everyone else...that was cause of fear.They also were wealthy and educated... And for bigots who fear either a different religion, color, gays or anything else out of their norm., that is something to be afraid of..all we have to do is see whats going on here in this country.

Right here on this forum...hate Muslims, atheists...and atheists belittleing those of faith...you can not go on Starhawks page without some dufi belittling her and our religion.

There is no respect between people...not unless you are all the same. That is where Hitler gained his power...

When I think about the causes of WW 2 I think about the exorbitant reparations from the Germans in the Treaty of Versailles and Lebensraum.

I think wars are ultimatly fought over resources.

What? Elohist, your comment doesn't make sense. Christians need to get their arguments together, or just keep their mouths shut. It is just making us look worse and worse.

To Henry James and Roy:

Hitler was excommunicated by the Catholic Church and was into paganism and spiritism in a big way. He plotted to kill the pope, so this idea that he was aided by the Catholic Church is out of your lower extremity.

Mr. HJ needs now to list all the places in the world that have more than one religion and DON'T have a war. If those that are at war -- about a dozen? are fewer than the 189 countries in the world, then he has helped Arroyo prove that more religion means less war. You see, HJ,if you really were a philosopher who studied the rule of logic you would realize how feeble are your arguments.

Hmmm. Where to begin.

There are those who only want to look at democracy. The problem there is that our actions are greatly determined by our beliefs and the environment around us. So people can vote ‘incorrectly’ for something that will help or hinder peace. To influence the vote we need to understand the beliefs. In order to garner the ‘proper’ result you need to affect belief. Right now the influence of the people in the American democracy is dwindling to politicians, corporations and lobbyists who look at self interest and not the common good. That is why democracy in and of itself does not guarantee peace.

We need spiritual evolution to overcome this issue. That would mean more of what is effective about religion and of what is not effective about religion. I include atheism since similar they are effective portions of it and parts that can be ineffective. So we are all in this together.

I will use my favorite analogy to summarize this spiritual evolution. It is based on, martial artist, Bruce Lee’s Tao of Jeet Kun Do. This was where Lee took all that was good for each form of martial art and incorporated into something better, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. He got rid of what was too rigid and tweaked what was effective.

Lee proved that there was not a one and only way. Similarly there is not a one and only way in religion. Taking the best of all would give us the whole that is better than the sun of its parts. The whole is spirituality and our understanding of it. For the atheist replace spirituality with belief.

Linda Lee says at the end of her introduction to the book, which is that after one reads through the Tao, the book should be discarded. I guess Bruce Lee stuck fast to his idea that even his ideas should not be regarded as gospel truth and that one must always be in a continuously absorbent state of mind-- keep learning and be like water.

If one simply observes what works and what does not work then what we are doing today does not work. In terms of wanting peace what we are doing in religion, definition of God and definition of each other is not working. Since these things make up our beliefs then our beliefs need to evolve. That does not mean throw everything out, it means evolve beliefs, make them better.

Let me know if you want suggestions :)

World War II: "Christian" Hitler's hatred of the Jewish religion aided by the Catholic Church.

Korean War: "Christians" threatened by the godless communists.

Vietnam War: "Christians" threatened by the godless communists.

Gulf War I: "Islam" sects against "Isalm" sects, "Christians" defending Jewish Isreal.

Iraq War: "Muslims" attacking "Infidel Christians" "Christian" revenge, protection of "Jewish" Isreal

More Religion = More War

FRANK:

I know where you are going, I read your entries.

We will have to agree to disagree.

My hope for you is peace and happiness.

World War II: "Christian" Hitler's hatred of the Jewish religion aided by the Catholic Church.

Korean War: "Christians" threatened by the godless communists.

Vietnam War: "Christians" threatened by the godless communists.

Gulf War I: "Islam" sects against "Isalm" sects, "Christians" defending Jewish Isreal.

Iraq War: "Muslims" attacking "Infidel Christians" "Christian" revenge, protection of "Jewish" Isreal

More Religion = More War

World War II: "Christian" Hitler's hatred of the Jewish religion aided by the Catholic Church.

Korean War: "Christians" threatened by the godless communists.

Vietnam War: "Christians" threatened by the godless communists.

Gulf War I: "Islam" sects against "Isalm" sects, "Christians" defending Jewish Isreal.

Iraq War: "Muslims" attacking "Infidel Christians" "Christian" revenge, protection of "Jewish" Isreal

More Religion = More War

Arroyo says:

"...but recognizing the power of reform that is always latent in profound faith conviction..."

I do not recognize this at all.
(wishful thinking at best)

In fact,
I find the opposite to be quite obvious.

Maybe I am being shallow. Maybe he means LATENT like the iron core of the earth. It COULD just jump out and present itself someday.

(like, during a supernova)

AMEN Brother!!!

I get so sick of hearing national "religious" leaders like Fellwell (RIH*), Robertson, et al. praise this stupid Iraq war. Christianity is ABOUT PEACE, NOT WAR.

What's worse is that Bush has developed some kind of a Messiah complex, and he thinks he truly is doing the work of God. Reality shows that he's doing the work of that other deity -- the one down south who Falwell is currently hanging with.

I look forward to the day when a REAL Christian once again presides over the country. The guy in the Oval Office now is nothing more than a lying, evil fraud of a human being.

* = Rot in H*LL. Burn, Baby Burn Herr Falwell!

Arroyo,

What a crock of s...

crap.

DANIEL:

The feeling of superiority is perhaps the number one selling point of religion. If the people who didn't feel superior left church the only ones left would be those that are keeping up appearances. Would you trust your teeth to an atheist dentist, or your body to a doctor that didn't have faith? How about a man running for president that wouldn't kneel before a dead pope's casket?

BTY: Pope is not a man, and especially a woman. It's an office. Does the same rule apply to God? Try thinking of God as an office and then read the Bible. Samuel spoke to God. Was that a man holding an office or a supernatural being?

"Religious people need to stop hating."

Hate isn't a religious feeling, it's a human feeling.

People hate regardless of ethnic, national, or belief system.

How can we stop being the hating beasts that we are?

There are many aspects of religion. There is a spiritual aspect, in which one speculates on the perceived order in the world. And then, there is the operational aspect of relgion, in which people assume paid positions, engage in political agenda, and seek to contol events, sometimes, even up to the point of forcing "right" belief and excising "wrong" belief.

I defintitely do not think the world needs more religion. Rather, religious people need to be more thoughtful and respectful, and they need to let go of the feeling of superiority and entitlement that goes along with most religions. Religious people need to stop hating. This is an especially urgent goal for Christians, who make love the centerpiece of their whole relgious experience, yet often seem emotionally crippled. Christians are very good at discussing love, but they are not very good at practicing love. Just look at the all comments on these many "faith" threads at all the cynicsm, bitterness, sarcasm, and blame that issues forth from these people who call themselves Christians.

I do agree with BGONE that drugs and religion are similar in some ways...they both do help with relating to the transcendant reality...to help shake off that materialistic, mechanical, clock-watching modern life.

Soma...Soma...Soma

Religion is an addictive agent just like alcohol and drugs. The first step is to recognize that. Then it becomes a matter for the individua, standing up and saying, "hi, my name is Mud, I'm a religionolic."

Religion has another thing in common with addictive agents. Those who deal in them make big money.

http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul for the big bucks go to those who lead the multitudes to hell. Drug peddlers are themselves drug free. Is the same true for religion peddlers? Does the pope really believe his own words? How about Bill Graham? Can we tell if they're lying, only in it for the wealth involved, (more than simple money, power etc).

If a Christian is confident in his Christian belief, then how could someone else's atheistic belief be any kind of threat, to be stamped out? To hate atheists or consider atheism a threat is just plain absurd. This whole notion about blame everything on the atheists, and stamp out the atheists just proves everybody's point about the malevolent influence of religion on mankind and history. If a person has doubt in his own Christian belief, don't blame atheists, just suck it up, and work it out.

I think wars are ultimatly fought over resources.

Since every culure has a belief system, this can be used to justify the war.

People are both good and evil and this is refelected in our belief systems and literature.

How can our species make the leap from being victory-lusting beasts to being benevolent gods?

Well, Henry James, it's perfectly clear, God is on somebody's side. Maybe the problem is identifying the being behind wars. God and Devil have a lot in common, faith based.

Could war be the product of "a little larceny" in the hearts of "reality-based" plunderers? The holy vessels they use to hold their God's body and blood are the product of plunder.

God wills it of course but God's will needs men else God's will, will not be done. Is that the same God that created the universe in 6 days or is that the God of the 6 day war? The Devil may care but those who do God's will don't. They don't do God's will for it is Devil they serve.

The Catholic Church is no better than any other multinational corporation -- but certainly no worse. Henry, your list just proves my point (and Stevens-Arroyo's) that religion is one part of the divisive practice of group identification.
I am guilty of it myself if I think that my efforts and contributions are better used by charities with a Catholic or Christian stamp.
The Boston Globe did a series a while back about how Bush's faith-based initiative was giving money to programs with explicit religious bias. For instance, our federal government was (probably still is) helping to fund a micro-loan program in Africa which gave money to Christian businesses while refusing those whose owners were Muslims.
Mary
I applaud your valiant defense of our church, but don't fall into the sectarian trap they are setting. Atheists have the luxury of not being "card-carrying" so they can disavow anything that doesn't fit their arguments.
BTW Henry, I haven't researched the entire list, but at the time Chechnya became an issue the Russians still considered themselves atheists.

Recent Religious Wars – Last 15 Years
To look at a broader base of evidence
• Palestine (Jews vs. Muslims)

• The Balkans (Orthodox Serbians vs. Catholic Christians)

• Northern Ireland (Catholics vs. Protestants)

• Kashmir (Muslims vs. Hindus)

• Sudan (Muslims vs. Christians and animists)

• Nigeria (Muslims vs. Christians)

• Ethiopia and Eritrea (Muslims vs. Christians)

• Ivory Coast (Muslims vs. Christians)

• Lebanon (Muslims vs. Jews)

• Sri Lanka (Sinhalese Buddhists vs. Tamil Hindus)

• The Caucasus (Orthodox Russians vs. Chechan Muslims)

• September 11 Attacks (Muslims vs. Infidels)

What World Does Rev Arroyo Live In?

The evidence from THIS world indicates clearly that

More Religion leads to More War.

It is not even ambiguous.

But I forgot, Faith based people don't need evidence.

Evidence is only necessary if one wants to live in, as the Bush Admin calls it, "the reality-based" world.

Once upon a time all of Europe was Roman Catholic yet wars were commonplace. The Vatican was one of the greatest of war makers at the time.

9-11-2001 we were attacked by a God named Allah, (literally translated Allah means God). The attacker must be shot, pronto, else the attacks continue.

http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul has a Roman Catholic certified, (as taught to the children) picture of supernatural beings armed and with shields. That leads to the obvious question: If angels can't be shot then why do they have shields. And, in turn, if angels can be shot then why not Gods?

God said, "let there be light" and there was light. Why did God need to use trickery and murder to get His chosen people out of Egypt? That tells us that all worship is Devil worship, that it's Devil and not God behind religion and wars.

The blood stains of native Americans is still on the gold chalices that hold the body and blood of Jesus. The Devil, not God is behind religion, all except evangelical atheism of course. Atheists don't even believe there is a Devil.

Funny, but all I see here is someone recasting the 'religious war' thing to blame the 'non-religious' for wars, while of course the religious should continue pushing the blame away from themselves and find an 'enemy.' While, of course, not really changing anything.

Certainly, the Christian churches ought to take some responsibility for helping the neocons take and maintain such control by effectively teaching that it was more important for the government and the populace to be more concerned with piety and what goes on in others' bedrooms and bodies than with good policies:

Yes, the Church may have spoken against this war, but they also helped the guys who brought us to it come to power, and helped bring *about* the political climate that's led people to want to associate government with 'unquestionable and poor, oppressed by nonbelievers, religion.'

That's certainly one place where 'More of the same' is *not* what anyone needs.

If Mary Cunningham is trying to prove the benefits of relgion on the human spirit, and upon the world, then her bitter and sarcastic argument is falling pretty flat. The Catholic Church has alot to answer for; her rude attitude as its defender is just one example of what is wrong with religion.

In the same way that people who are bigotted against gays have an insecurity and confusion in their own sexual orientation, religious people who hate atheists are actually reacting to their own doubts and insecurities. Anti-atheist people like Mary Cunningham should look into their own hearts and try to figure out what is wrong with thier own belief systems.

All of this religous paranoia about "evangelical atheism" just gives Christianity a bad name.

Oh Ho! I knew we'd hear from Candide! But why yet another name? I know! I know! A neat way of manufacturing support for your prejudiced position. Good Stuff.

But I am going to have to leave you folks. And I know you need me, otherwise you'll just keep agreeing with and congratulating each other, and how much fun is that? Maybe Speed123 will come in but once or twice is fun, but all the time--talking to evangelical atheists? Not very wonderful.

But there aren't too many believers in these columns anymore, (still think Ms. Quinn should change the name to "Among the Evangelical Atheists") so you'll just have to get along without any adversaries.

But wait, given Candide penchant for creating new and newer pseudonyms you can just make a few more up, pretend these hold religious beliefs--y'know like Bishop Spong--and then debate yourself! At least that way you'll know you'll win.

All the best

Well, anon.--what's wrong with using your name?--you have to come up with some new charges..These are pretty shopworn. No, I stand by my view that this latest outbreak of anti-Catholicism dates from 2002 and was instigated by neoconservative propagandists in responce to the late Pope;s antiwar stance.

And anyway, I don't believe any of them! Not a word.

I've already proved the ahem "barbaric" stance on birth control is almost universally flouted, and regarding the "horrific" (do athiest evangelicals have a nifty set of adjectives at the ready just for Catholics--I know! You get them from Ian Paisley's website?) treatment of paedophile priests has been proven by Prof. Stevens-Arroyo to be fewer in the Catholic Church than in Protestant, Jewish or secular organizations,

That leaves sentenced to death in Africa?

Another joke, straight from Dennett who hasn't bothered--OK he's been sick--(but you seem healthy anon although a little lazy & unable to retype your name) to look up the incidence of the AIDS pandemic--and BTW anon. neither have you! Condoms are plentiful everywhere in Africa, education about infidelity amongst married couples and the spread of AIDS less so. Compare the incidence of AIDS in Uganda with that in Botwana. Compare both with the incidence in Muslim North Africa and draw a few *intelligent* conclusions.

C'mon anon. don't be just a lazy atheist with a penchant for adversarial debate. More reading and less ranting! Stretch that brain--it's a muscle y'know.

While a more sincere commitment to the humanistic ethical and moral ideals, for example in religion, may help, history suggests another pattern that needs to be addressed.

The unfortunate trend of human behavior through history is that individuals will make up any semi-plausible rationalization for truly immoral acts. Slavery, genocide, wars of aggression, military mass killing, racism, colonization, economic exploitation, etc... these have all been justified by pseudo-logic, duplicitous ideological rationalizations, and the political version of shouting down & attacking those who question such status-quo policies.

The human ego can be evolve into a beautiful mind or it can be an infantile, selfish trickster that perverts reason into stubborn self-delusion and self-serving ideology.

Human beings in every country and every society need to learn self-awareness in order to guard against how ego & its negative emotions can twist and pervert one's own reasoning and fair judgement.

Better clarity with reasoning, a more mature sense of emotional self-awareness, and more openness to truth, logic, and alternative arguments, will make human beings more resistant to demagoguery and the ideologies which are crafted to perpetuate corrupt & immoral policies.

Halogen, I despair, I really do. Talk about cafeteria atheism. Your stuff reeks of early adolescence. You really must learn about something about the economics of development. Do some work, for God's sake. (Oh well, another faux pas--shouldn't say God to an atheist.)

How about:

Catholic Ireland with atheist Burma?
Catholic Mexico with Protestant Nigeria?
Catholic Brazil with Muslim Chad?
Catholic Costa Rica with atheist Cuba?
Hindu India with Muslim Pakistan?

Did you catch that last one? Do you see any pattern? Poverty doesn't have too much to do with religion I'm afraid, and a lot to do with geography and good governance.

Mary Cunningham wrote: "What you can answer, however, is why this upsurge of anti-Catholic bigotry?"

Good question. Maybe it has something to do with the RCC's long history of being far from god like. Maybe it has something to do with the typically mush-headed ramblings of Stevens-Arroyo. Maybe it has something to do with the RCC's horrific handling of abusive priests. Maybe it has something to do with the number of people that are sentenced to death in Africa as a result of the RCC's dangerous and barbaric stance on birth control.

Who knows what moves the hearts of men?

Read!Improve your mind.Yes,lets read;

All who are underthe yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect.1 Timothy 6.1
Is it 'the immutable laws of God'?

Lets read Galileo.
'The world is firmly established,it can not be moved' Psalm 96.10
Catholic church required to recant his heliocentric ideas.Yes,world is flat.

Secularism is the base of contemporary values,human rights and Democracy.
One who doesnt perceive 'secularism' cant improve her/his mind.'Dogma' and 'infallible man',ex-nazi cover her mind.

Argentina(catholic),population 40 million,GDP(nominal) 213 billion dollars(bankrupted country such as some other catholic ones)
Norway(protestant),pop.4.7 millon,GDP nominal 262 billion.Prosperous such as all protestant ones.
Who improved her/his mind??

Thanks, Yo-Yo

Mary,
why don't you try reading something from this century.
Dawkins, Harris, Dennet.

I believe your god is a myth. That is all.

Aren't you an atheist concerning all those other gods?
How is that different?

Please don't try to draw us back into the dark ages.

More on evangelical atheism:

Atheism is a belief system just like any other:

some strains:

Materialism (and E Fav. you should open a dialogue with--not dismiss--Rudiger.)

Here is a start:

http://www.kheper.net/topics/worldviews/materialism.htm

And if you do your own research you can come up with more:

scientific materialism

or secularism

or secular atheism.

Here is a wonderful book about 20th c. philosophy through the spectrum of the life of Martin Heidegger:

Rudiger Safranski: "Martin Heidegger, Between Good and Evil."

Here is a history of how religion coped with the terrible twentieth century:

Michael Burleigh: "Sacred Causes: Religion and Politics from the European Dictators to Al Qaeda".

Read more history and philosophy; less polemics. You will then compose less dumb posts..some will get through. (Nobody's perfect.)

Read! Improve your mind.

Halozel,

Y'know, this is just more of the same of your' normal' anti-Catholic bigotry. Where is Candide? I expect him to appear soon. And Dan Brown!

The Pope was 12 years old--still a child-- when he joined in 1939. *All* young Germans were *required* to do so.

The wealth of the Church: Hah! Most of the cash raised in the developed world goes to fund the missions in Africa and the other poor parts of the world. In America the Church had to sell property and close parishes to meet the claims of abused in the paedophile scandal. No hidden cash there. If your mean the Vatican--it has assets it can't sell and has to maintain. How much for the Giottos at Assisi?

*Mit Brennender Sorge*--your complete witlessness shows. Do you even know what you're talking about? Do you know the Nazi reaction to the encyclical?

Jumping backwards in time to Mary Tudor (atheists really jump around historically speaking, don't they): It always makes me laugh that the atheist amen chorus 'bleeds' sympathy for the 273 Protestants executed by Mary and blissfully 'forgets' the thousands of Catholics summary dispatched by her father and sister. Henry killed about 3,000 Northern rebels of the Pilgrimage of Grace and Elizabeth ("Gloriana")continued his formal executions at Tyburn--the Church counts about 600--which gives us a ratio of Tudor deaths of about 10 Catholics for every 1 Protestant. The Stuarts and Cromwell went further in Ireland: we are talking here of genocidal numbers. About 300,000 Irish Catholics murdered, starved, ethnically cleansed.

All in all, a terrible record of Catholic suffering in these isles but you don't care about that, do you?

There was killing on both sides, that is what a religious war is about,and what I wrote earlier: religion allied with nationalism is a fatal nexus and produces terrible conflict.

What you can answer, however, is why this upsurge of anti-Catholic bigotry? Maybe you've always felt this way, however, I date this latest outbreak of bias from about 2002 when John Paul II spoke out forcefully against the coming American invasion of Iraq; the worst of the rants appeared amongst evangelical atheists and neoconservatives (often one and the same) and are with us still.

Along with a tendency for adversarial debate in which they forget nothing and learn nothing.

To h*ll with them. Go home, Halozel! Take Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris with you. Don't forget Osama bin Laden and Jerry Falwell. Oh wait, Falwell's already there.

Cause for celebration;

St.Bartholomew's Day massacre,catholic mob violence and terror.

Bloody Mary Tudor,she had hundreds religious dissenters executed.

Ratzinger,ex-member of catholic Hitler Youth and present representetive(vicar) of Prince of Peace(I have come to bring fire on the earth,Book of God written by human Luke 12.49)

Mit Brennender Sorge(With deep anxiety),third class Demagogism.

Vatican,the most richest organization in the world.Nobody knows how much money they have.
Pope,the owner of Keys of Heaven,has pure gold staff,many precious tunic and lives at palace.
Book of God written by human Matthew says 'Do not take along any gold belts,extra tunic or a staff'10.9-10

Most conflict between groups is a result of dividing ourselves into groups in the first place. We fear and distrust those who are not like us, although we tend to make exceptions for those we know personally.
Religion is just one of the ways we define our own group as having the right to oppress members of other groups. Nationalism is another. In both cases we use myths and abstractions to prove our own rightness (and the other side's theoretical wrongness).
It isn't strong faith that makes religion vulnerable to this kind of justification, it is insecurity.

hello....your arguments are 200 years out of date. Even in Northern Ireland, the (very few) deaths there are between "catholic atheists and protestant atheists" to use a phrase by Jimmy Breslan.

Most of the 100 million war deaths in the twentieth century had nothing to do with "religion" but with "areligion": mainly communism, but also fascism.

Or just because a few "trendier than thou" clergy back "liberation", do you blame the church for the massacres of the Shining Path and FARC?

And, of course, the really bad wars of today are tribal Africa, which can not be blamed on religion at all, unless you want to blame the WCC for funding Mugabe's rise to power, and all the atrocities he has committed and continues to commit...

Mr Stevens-Arroyo again misses the point.

Modern wars are fought for different reasons than were ancient wars, especially when one separates a just war from an unjust war.

Why is that?

It's simple - in the past, wars were fought for kingdoms, and kingdoms on earth were based on heavenly models. Like god, a king had power of life and death over his lowly subjects. They could be sent off as so much chattle to be slaughtered for HIS personal glory, wealth and kingdom. None of that wealth and glory filtered down to the unwashed masses.

Todays wars and secterian conflicts are fought for the rights of man, or groups of people. The "just" war is now a war that fights for and protects human rights, not the enrichment of a potentate or a state. Wars initiated for totalitarian purposes - like WWII - are seen for what they are - unjust. Only the most-feeble-minded would aver that Hitler started WWII for the good of the common German. In like measure, more and more Americans are coming to see bush's war as just that - bush's war, ie: a war meant to enrich bush and his buddies, not a war to advance democracy or to protect the country.

At the root is the concept of the rights of man, a concept that was a product of the Age of Enlightenment. The rights of man - especially as practiced in a democracy - are in direct conflict with the concept of kingdoms, and religions all preach the values of kingdoms.

Democracy is an invention of man, not religion. In fact, democracy is in conflict WITH religion. There is no democracy in the heaven of any religion, only eternal servitude and eternal worship of a "king" who has "dominion" over his people. God, in fact, is a totalitarian dictator. Those consigned to eternal servitude and praise actually share much in common with the friends and family condemned to eternal hellfire - same dictator made the decision, same lack of democracy fed the process.

It is a medieval concept, at best.

Which is why Mr Stevens-Arroyo's suggestion of "more religion" being a counter to war is actually back-asswards. Religion promotes an eternal caste system that needs to die, while democracy presents the best hope for mankind to be responsible for himself and to have the greatest human freedoms possible.

Calling for more religion to end war is like calling for more slavery to end slavery.

The idea that we as human beings would fight and die in just wars to bring the tenets of democracy and the rights of man to as many as possible, only to die and spend an eternity in some non-democratic heavenly kingdom is ludicrous on its face.

As all that religion ultimately has to offer is eternal servitude, then I would humbly submit that we be spared the non-democratic kingdoms of the world's religions, if not for eternity, then at least for the brief stay that we enjoy as we pass through history on this planet.

Is that too much to ask?

EFavorite

Right on the money!
An excellent couple of paragraphs.
Yes...it is a movement long overdue.
And never more necessary.
But I'm learning that we're not alone.
There are millions of us.
And we all have to keep speaking up.
Our church is right here.

A good post by Dr. Arroyo. The problem isn't so much that religion causes war as that religion is used to justify war and to strengthen support for warlike policies. It's the problem of faith in politics generally; if a policy can be said to be "God's will" dissent becomes an act of evil.

Atheism is a religion in the same way that bald is a hair colour.

... and I know all about bald...:-(

Regarding evangelical atheism - where's the closest church? where are the clergy, the hymns, the rites and rituals, the dogma? Where's the collection basket and, most importantly, where do we sign up for tax-exempt status?

I imagine it's threatening for believers to be challenged by outspoken atheists, especially after such a deadening silence. But don't worry - it's not a religion - it's a movement, like civil rights, women's rights, anti-smoking and anti-slavery. Once it's successful, people will know better than to compare it to religion.

Dear Professor,

It is the fatal nexus of religion *and* nationalism that produce the worst wars--the Thirty Years War in Europe after the Reformation, the persecution of the Catholic Irish by the Protestant English, French militant atheism (I consider evangelical atheism--of the kind you see in this forum--a religion) allied with a burgeoning French nationalism during Robespierre's terror, the "pagan worship of the state" (Pius's description of National Socialism in his 1938 encyclical *Mit Brennender Sorge*) of the Third Reich.

If Catholicism today offers solace it is because it is finally a truly global religion, a purer, more universal Christianity unallied with any nation-state. To me that is a cause for celebration.