The Foundation of New Atheism

[ChrisL]

True in my case at least. I was not yet a teenager when I thought why would one God allow so many religions to exist? They couldn't all be right since they were so different. I couldn't believe a loving God would allow someone to be sent to hell because they were born into the wrong religion and never learned about the 'right' one. The only logical conclusion, at least to me, was that they were ALL wrong. Since that day, I've never found a reason to change my mind. .

Catholic teaching is that God doesn't allow someone to be sent to hell because they were born into the wrong religion. Whoever is teaching differently is doing everyone a great disservice.

God is love, and this love reaches out to everyone, wherever they are. It is likely one religion is more right than others, which would put them approximately (comparatively speaking) one millimeter closer to God than the others. This is a distance God can easily bridge.

As long as they agree to switch over to follow the Catholic religion. If they do not, the church will not baptize their innocent baby to cleanse it of original sin (if you believe in that).

 

[alang1216]

he loved evil more.

I think if you had asked him if he was evil he'd say no, he was just doing what was good for the German people. Good and evil are relative, not absolute, concepts so how do we even know if we are doing one or the other?

 

[Meriweather]

As long as they agree to switch over to follow the Catholic religion. If they do not, the church will not baptize their innocent baby to cleanse it of original sin (if you believe in that).

Baptism is more than a cleansing of original sin. It is an initiation into the Catholic faith. So, no, the Catholic Church will not baptize a baby whose parents have no intention in following through with raising the child in the faith.

On the other hand, the Catholic Church believes in one baptism. So, if a person has already been properly baptized by another Christian denomination, that individual will not be re-baptized as they have already been baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

 

[alang1216]

Is this Catholic dogma? You sound more like a Unitarian Universalist.

I fail at being a Universalist because I believe people can choose to remain a part from God for eternity, whereas true Universalists are so optimistic they see everyone choosing to dwell with God.

My views are more based on Catholic dogma. The Catechism of the Catholic Church points out the Covenant God has with the Jews. Even so, Catholic dogma teaches that the Church has a responsibility to spread the Gospel, even among the Jews. It notes that the Church has no responsibility to condemn any other faith. The Church can promise to teach the Way of Eternal life, but it has NO authority to announce condemnation of other faiths. We proclaim what Christ taught and those who follow another way we leave to the love and mercy of God. That is Catholic dogma. The Church has its authority to spread the Good News, and God retains His power and authority to reach those whom the Church, for whatever reason, fails to reach.

Keep in mind that while the Catholic Church sees fellow Christians as brothers and sisters in Christ, the Church cannot absolutely assure non-Catholics of eternal life. But even more, we cannot/will not say they will not have eternal life. That is left to God, whom we believe to be loving and merciful.

Can the Church absolutely assure Catholics of eternal life?

 

[ChrisL]

Do you know anyone who is 100% evil or 100% good? Even Hitler loved his mother and his dog. What's the cutoff for hell, 90% good, 51% good? Since no one is perfect why shouldn't we all end up in heaven. A Christian would say that Jesus was sacrificed for our sins. What about those that are not Christian?

The New Testament comments on chaff being burnt, about gold being tested in fire. Apparently the experience is so intense there is a wailing and gnashing of teeth. Perhaps we can imagine Hitler going through this fire, with the only part left of him is that which loves his dog and his mother. We can also wonder whether the love he had for mother and dog was golden enough to withstand fire, or whether he loved evil more.

I really can't say that I "wish" for a lifetime of agony for anyone. I do feel some are better off being just gone and not allowed to do harm anymore (in the cases of people like Hitler). I don't really care for this revenge for eternity or punishment for eternity and causing people pain and agony thing, and this has always been very off putting to me when it comes to religious beliefs. It makes me feel, what would make a God who would allow this to happen to his own creation be any better than a Hitler type of person?

 

[Meriweather]

I think if you had asked him if he was evil he'd say no, he was just doing what was good for the German people. Good and evil are relative, not absolute, concepts so how do we even know if we are doing one or the other?

This is something for God to judge. Was Hitler's love for the German people so great it was his very love caused the exterminated others? I'm not sure even Hitler would believe that. I think it was more likely he decided what would make a better world, and that he was worthy of being the most powerful in this world. Greed for wealth and power does not qualify as love. (If, in fact, it was greed not love, that caused his actions.)

 

[Indeependent]

There is nothing new under the sun.
Every jerk who comes up with another twist on the, "There's no God", simply displays the fact that they haven't studied Scripture.

 

[ChrisL]

As long as they agree to switch over to follow the Catholic religion. If they do not, the church will not baptize their innocent baby to cleanse it of original sin (if you believe in that).

Baptism is more than a cleansing of original sin. It is an initiation into the Catholic faith. So, no, the Catholic Church will not baptize a baby whose parents have no intention in following through with raising the child in the faith.

On the other hand, the Catholic Church believes in one baptism. So, if a person has already been properly baptized by another Christian denomination, that individual will not be re-baptized as they have already been baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Well, I believe you and I may have had this discussion before, but it might have been somebody else. Anyways, when I was a baby, my mother took me to be baptized (she was a Catholic who went through her communions, went to Catholic school, church, etc.). They refused to baptize and turned me away because my parents had conceived me out of wedlock even though they had planned on marrying. My mother was SO pissed, she turned around and had me baptized Protestant and never looked back.

 

[Meriweather]

Can the Church absolutely assure Catholics of eternal life?

Catholic teaching is that God is the final judge of our hearts. Our love of God and following of Christ's teachings has to be sincere, not merely lip service. But other than this caveat, we absolutely trust that Christ taught correctly and that we can have the hope/expectation of eternal life when we follow in his footsteps.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Hitchens (RIP Hitch, you're missed), Dawkins & Harris have all read and studied the Bible and Koran (among other holy books) and have always offered rational, reasonable, intelligent arguments for why they detect no evidence of a god. Faith is fine, but faith is not the same as fact.

Hitchens: God is dead
God: Hitchens is dead.

 

[ChrisL]

As long as they agree to switch over to follow the Catholic religion. If they do not, the church will not baptize their innocent baby to cleanse it of original sin (if you believe in that).

Baptism is more than a cleansing of original sin. It is an initiation into the Catholic faith. So, no, the Catholic Church will not baptize a baby whose parents have no intention in following through with raising the child in the faith.

On the other hand, the Catholic Church believes in one baptism. So, if a person has already been properly baptized by another Christian denomination, that individual will not be re-baptized as they have already been baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Why would they not want to cleanse EVERY baby of original sin? Babies are innocent of any sin anyhow.

 

[Meriweather]

Well, I believe you and I may have had this discussion before, but it might have been somebody else. Anyways, when I was a baby, my mother took me to be baptized (she was a Catholic who went through her communions, went to Catholic school, church, etc.). They refused to baptize and turned me away because my parents had conceived me out of wedlock even though they had planned on marrying. My mother was SO pissed, she turned around and had me baptized Protestant and never looked back.

I have no reason to disbelieve your mother. Not every priest is all he could/should be. However, it has been my own experience (via a brother's family) that their baby was indeed baptized as it was going to be raised Catholic and the sins of the parents are NOT even considered in the baptism of their baby. I am sorry your mother was hurt in this way, surely at a time where she both had regrets yet great reason to celebrate.

 

[ChrisL]

Well, I believe you and I may have had this discussion before, but it might have been somebody else. Anyways, when I was a baby, my mother took me to be baptized (she was a Catholic who went through her communions, went to Catholic school, church, etc.). They refused to baptize and turned me away because my parents had conceived me out of wedlock even though they had planned on marrying. My mother was SO pissed, she turned around and had me baptized Protestant and never looked back.

I have no reason to disbelieve your mother. Not every priest is all he could/should be. However, it has been my own experience (via a brother's family) that their baby was indeed baptized as it was going to be raised Catholic and the sins of the parents are NOT even considered in the baptism of their baby. I am sorry your mother was hurt in this way, surely at a time where she both had regrets yet great reason to celebrate.

Thanks. Well, I guess not all the churches are as accepting of what they consider to be sinful behavior. My mother was angry, not about the fact that they condemned her or her sin, but that they condemned ME because of her alleged sin.

 

[alang1216]

There is nothing new under the sun.
Every jerk who comes up with another twist on the, "There's no God", simply displays the fact that they haven't studied Scripture.

Of course you mean they haven't studied your Scripture. Have you studied all the others?

 

[Meriweather]

Why would they not want to cleanse EVERY baby of original sin? Babies are innocent of any sin anyhow.

Remember, the definition of sin is, "Missing the mark." Original sin is that humans are born with a propensity to follow the ways of the world in which they are born--not the ways of God. Ways of God must be learned. One must be committed to God's ways.

Here is an analogy that may help. Picture a group of vegetarians who baptize their children and practitioners in vegetarianism as a sign they do not eat meat. They are approached by a parent who wants to baptize a child into vegetarianism, but also says, "I really don't see anything wrong with eating meat, so I'll also be teaching my child it is okay to sometimes eat meat."

Baptizing a child into vegetarianism isn't going to make that child a vegetarian. In the same way, baptizing a child into a faith that teaches following God's ways, not the current world's ways is not going to do a thing if a parent says, "I want my child to be baptized, but I also think he should be able to follow the ways of the world over God's ways."

Baptism is a sign that the family and the child are committed to the ways of God over what the world says is good enough. God's ways and ideals are generally higher than the ways of Congress, peers, etc. One has a commitment to keep.

 

[Meriweather]

Thanks. Well, I guess not all the churches are as accepting of what they consider to be sinful behavior. My mother was angry, not about the fact that they condemned her or her sin, but that they condemned ME because of her alleged sin.

Never should have happened. To anyone.

 

[ChrisL]

I haven't read ALL the scriptures. Who has besides someone with no life or a religious scholar of some kind? Anyhow, I don't need to read all the scriptures because it is the entire concept that I don't believe, not the particulars.

I am not saying that there are not some good things contained within these scriptures and some good advice and lessons. I just don't buy into the concept of a god is all.

 

[ChrisL]

Why would they not want to cleanse EVERY baby of original sin? Babies are innocent of any sin anyhow.

Remember, the definition of sin is, "Missing the mark." Original sin is that humans are born with a propensity to follow the ways of the world in which they are born--not the ways of God. Ways of God must be learned. One must be committed to God's ways.

Here is an analogy that may help. Picture a group of vegetarians who baptize their children and practitioners in vegetarianism as a sign they do not eat meat. They are approached by a parent who wants to baptize a child into vegetarianism, but also says, "I really don't see anything wrong with eating meat, so I'll also be teaching my child it is okay to sometimes eat meat."

Baptizing a child into vegetarianism isn't going to make that child a vegetarian. In the same way, baptizing a child into a faith that teaches following God's ways, not the current world's ways is not going to do a thing if a parent says, "I want my child to be baptized, but I also think he should be able to follow the ways of the world over God's ways."

Baptism is a sign that the family and the child are committed to the ways of God over what the world says is good enough. God's ways and ideals are generally higher than the ways of Congress, peers, etc. One has a commitment to keep.

That shouldn't matter since you cannot predict anything about how one will turn out, religious or non-religious. All children should have an opportunity to be cleansed of the original sin if there was one. They are not guilty of anything. Does this also mean that a stillborn fetus is not going to heaven because they are cursed with a sin because Eve ate a damn apple off the tree of knowledge and evil (let's note how they put knowledge and evil together- that's no accident). What about a young newborn who hasn't been baptized yet? I suppose there are some exceptions to the rules?

 

[Indeependent]

There is nothing new under the sun.
Every jerk who comes up with another twist on the, "There's no God", simply displays the fact that they haven't studied Scripture.

Of course you mean they haven't studied your Scripture. Have you studied all the others?

Since the NT and the Koran contain verses that admit they were copied from the Torah (I understand no one went of their way to alert you to this fact), I think I can make my statement with a certain amount of authority.

 

[Indeependent]

There is nothing new under the sun.
Every jerk who comes up with another twist on the, "There's no God", simply displays the fact that they haven't studied Scripture.

Of course you mean they haven't studied your Scripture. Have you studied all the others?

I have been through the NT 5 times and have read the first 20 or so Suras (The Koran is unbearably dull).