boutitben

I used to be a Christian until probably about seven or eight months ago. The only real reason that I was one was because of family influences and because my parents go to church, pray, etc. I wasn't a very serious one, I never really enjoyed going to church and always hated Sunday mornings because of it. I never really fit in at any of the churches that we have gone to. I always kept praying and often I wondered what good the praying was doing since I never really felt any responses from god and never saw how his "work" affected my life.

Now you're probably wondering why I was still a Christian if I hated the services and never made any connection with god. Well, at the time I hadn't been exposed to any other different religions - or people who weren't religious, either. Most of my good friends are Christians (and my family, too) so I just never really to think they could all be wrong. Sort of the same situation where you don't want to believe anything else that happens to you that's bad - car wreck, bad grades - whatever it might be.

Another point to make about the church services (at least the ones that I have been to) mostly deal with stuff along the lines of "god is great" and about "how he sent his son to save us". So that means that many people who are Christians go there and hear stuff similar to that and think, "Why would I not want to be a Christian?", without really examining the situation about what could be wrong with it.

I was talking with one of my Christian friends the other day about problems with Christianity, and he admitted he didn't know any answers, or why that things were like that. He kept saying that "God must have a reason" - stuff similar to that. I consider to him to be a smart and logical person for the most part, but he's in the same situation that I was in where he's been raised a Christian and has been "molded" into one, except a much "stronger" one who is more a believer than I ever was.

(This is a really long post, no one will probably read it )

Anyway, about half a year ago I started reading religious discussions on various forums (someplacesomewhere.com being one of the main ones for anyone who has visited there). I started realizing how silly believing in something that I had never really experienced was. I became aware of more of the problems/fuzzier parts of the religion (how can god be omniscient, omnipotent, and always good at once) and how many intolerant people are part of the religion (ones that hate homosexuals, etc.) and decided I didn't want to be a part of it anymore. I didn't like the religion in the first place, why should I stay now that I don't agree with it? Presently, I consider myself an atheist.

Anyway, that is my story. You could say that I was a conversion of sorts, but I don't know how much it matters because I was never one of the hardcore believes in the first place.

Theli

There is something about "free will" that I wanted to ask you since you are a catholic. Why does god punish people for using the free will wich he created in the first place and then gave them?

boutitben

Also, how can we have free will if god is omnipotent and also controls everything?

Albert Cipriani

Dear Theli,
God does not punish us for using the free will he was responsible for giving us. Neither does a father punishes his son for driving the family car for which the father gave him the keys. Rather, God and fathers punish their progeny for the misuse of what they have given them, like wrapping the family car around a tree or trying to be what they are not by eating forbidden fruit. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Albert Cipriani

Dear Boutitben,
Free will is not something we have, like a nose or pockets in our jeans. (Rather it's like Mr. Jones having his "eyes in his pockets and his nose on the ground.") Free will is the capacity to participate in God's omnipotence.

It's more fun to freely participate than necessarily obey. The universe has rocks enough that necessarily obey God's laws. Only a blockhead would want to necessarily obey God like a rock.

Atheists who begrudge God's decision to have given us free will because He knew we'd use it poorly, are like overprotective mothers who won't let their children go outside for fear they'll fall. God let us fall. That's to His credit. As the Easter vigil Mass Litany proclaims, "O, happy fall!" -- Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

[ January 14, 2002: Message edited by: Albert Cipriani ]</p>

Theli

But would a father really have given he's child the keys, knowing that the risk is so high that the child would crash?
That looks more like the father wanted the child to crash.

BTW, if we followed all the "rules" handed down from religion all the time, and never even had an evil thought in our minds, wouldn't we be "robots"? And if we are not robots, then god punishes us...
Then why didn't he just make us as robots?

[ January 14, 2002: Message edited by: Theli ]</p>

Albert Cipriani

Dear Theli,
No good father puts his son's life in unnecessary danger. That is not the issue. The issue is whether or not some atoms are going to be alive or not. For free will is a byproduct of life, not the other way around. If some atoms are to be alive, then yes, they run the risk of death.

To argue that God the father should not have made some atoms alive for fear of the risk they would run of dying is just as logical as arguing that abortion solves all of a baby's potential problems.

Even Jesus had evil thoughts; they are called temptations. No harm in that.

Following the rules is not tantamount to being robots. It's tantamount to actualizing our full design potential. -- Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

sandlewood

I stopped posting to this thread because it drifted away from the original topic, and because I didn't think there was anything else to get out of it. But Albert, since you mentioned personal communication again in another thread, I guess I will just bring back a couple of points.

So I'm not sure whether you think that God communicates to you through events or not. In one paragraph you describe a case in which you believe an event was a form of communication to you, but in the next you say that it is only likely that God communicates this way. Hmmm. Do you know what you think? I was hoping you would answer this, but you seem to only address some questions and skip over the hard ones. Now this is starting to sound rather senseless and made-up. I'm not sure I even understand the logic in it. In any case, if God cannot meet us halfway, then how could he come all the way? How could he communicate with us at all if he can't even come halfway? And if he can't, then how can he expect us to communicate with him on his terms? (Whatever that means. I'd better stop this line of reasoning now because it's just silly)

So the question remains. Is there any communication going on or not? What form is it in? If the communication is in the form of events, what method do we use to distinguish between a "communication event" from a "non-communication event"?


The topic of infallibility was getting off-topic with respect to this thread. But since I'm here now, I'll visit it one more time.

At first, you didn't say infallible only in the case of faith and morals. You just said infallible. You should be specific. Now being infallible in only faith and morals is not claiming much. Everyone has their own morality; everyone is infallible with regard to their own morality. I'm sure you believe that morality is absolute, not relative. But that is just an assertion. The Catholic "infallibility" is just something that is defined in. It was not found to be infallible, it was just defined to be. The "proof" comes from the bible. So the infallibility of the teaching rests on whether you believe the Bible is true. It is not in addition to the Bible. The "proof" is also based on tradition. But that's just saying that you always considered the teaching infallible in the past, so it still is. Not much of a reason. There is also the objection that our deductions that the teachings are infallible come from human reasoning, and human reasoning can be in error. So how can we claim that the Catholic teachings are in fact infallible? It's fun to read the hand waving that the Catholic Encyclopedia does <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm" target="_blank">here</a> when they say:
I didn't mention Salem witch burnings. How about Europe? Are you saying that the Catholic Church had nothing to do with the treatment of alleged witches in European history? Is it Catholic policy that witches exist? Should witches not be suffered to live?

The dealings with Galileo were even considered a mistake by the Catholic Church, or at least they considered what the pope did a mistake. Now you can claim that the Catholic Church is infallible and that it is only the people in the church that make mistakes. But I don't see how any action by the church, any teaching, could be accomplished any other way than through people. So no matter what goes wrong, you can claim that it was just a bad apple in the church and not the Church as a whole.

Regarding Copernicus, are you claiming that the Catholic Church never supported the Earth-centered theory? Isn't it true that Copernicus' book On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres was banned by the Catholic Church by Paul V in 1616 and remained banned until 1835? No, the church did not agree with Copernicus, but being a clergyman helped him to escape persecution. The church was more inclined to overlook him. If the church was so high on "their man" Copernicus, then why did they bother to threaten and house-arrest Galileo for supporting Copernicus' theory?

[ January 17, 2002: Message edited by: sandlewood ]</p>

Albert Cipriani

Dear Sandlewood,
You ask,


Yes, God causes every event. That's the short answer.

Catholic theology distinguishes between material cause and formal cause. Just as in our criminal justice system today, certain Arabs are being held in custody as material witnesses, tho they are not yet being formally charged with a crime.

One way to describe how God is the material cause of all events is to say that He is all material. For example, God is the atoms of lead that comprise the bullet that rips through Himself in the form of the victim's brain. This is my theological premise. It's neither held nor not held by the Church.

Living creatures exercising their free will are the formal causes of all events that they cause. For example, the murderer is the formal cause of putting a bullet through the victim's head, while God is the material cause of putting a bullet through the victim’s head.

There, that wasn't so hard now was it?

You ask,


Yes. All the time. Mostly undetected. Like a mother talking to her newborn baby, like water running off a duck's back.


You know, the usual suspects: Bible, Magisterial Church teachings, providential events, dreams, beauty, science, and miracles.



Subjectivism. Just as with dreams, interpretation and analysis of God's personal communications with us is solely a personal matter. Only the person holds the personal keys to unlock the symbolism and meaning of such events. This subjective technique must be employed only insofar as the results provide no contradiction of the objective Truths revealed to and by the Catholic Church.

You've correctly identified the three pillars of infallibility: oral tradition, written tradition (a.k.a., the Bible) and Magisterial reason. Give that man a cigar!

You ask,


You might as well ask why did they excommunicate St. Joan of Arc and have her burned at the stake as a witch? Why have they as recently as 1980 sully French soil once again by excommunicating the Traditional Bishop Maurice Lafebvere? Because these men in the Church who represent the Church (but are not the Church) are at least apostates and most likely evil. Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

[ January 18, 2002: Message edited by: Albert Cipriani ]</p>

Synaesthesia

Albert,

Bad news (from <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11447b.htm):" target="_blank">http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11447b.htm):</a>
"The Church has repeatedly condemned the errors of pantheism."

Sorry chap.