Real talk: why "millenials" are choosing atheism

chris.goodhueI grew up going to church / catholic high school..and I really did try and give Christianity a go early on in high school, but could never fully accept that fact that any on the bible actually happened. Hard to base beliefs off of something without solid evidence/ facts. Decided to pursue a Geology degree as well and haven't looked back.

Although what created it all? Who knows, a "god", energy? Science can only explain so far...not debunking science at all, but before the big bang, how did that energy get there? That's why I don't think I'd consider myself an atheist per-say...i'm more open to the fact of there being something more, but not in a religious sense by any means.

The one thing that does bug me is that, at least through my friend groups / college campus, religion is really just put down and really never talked about. Most conversations of the subject really just shit on it, instead of having a more intellectual discussion on how we got here, what's next, thoughts on religion exct... Seems to be most millennials, which is probably why religion will take a hit in our generation

Look into string theory, perfect geometry, etc. there was a creator or force. When people refer to it as a god so be it but something created all of this, some magnificent force created this existence and I think we are living on only the tip of the iceberg. We really only know what lies on our plane of existence.

theabortionatorI get that the Christian church is butthurt about losing their hold on society, but I don't see the problem. Let me believe what they want. There are still plenty of churches and plenty of Christians.

I get that the route of many religions is that it's "the ultimate truth" but it's kind of illogical to assume that everyone will believe the same things as you.

Idk. I have some really good christian friends that are open minded and not obsurdly judgemental. I have my beliefs, they have theirs, and we leave it at that other than some mellow discussions.

Feel bad for the Christians in ISIS and al Nuara held territory. One of them is our enemy, the other we help arm.

fuckmekevinLook into string theory, perfect geometry, etc. there was a creator or force. When people refer to it as a god so be it but something created all of this, some magnificent force created this existence and I think we are living on only the tip of the iceberg. We really only know what lies on our plane of existence.

I am much more sympathetic to a deist's conception of god/ultimate cause which is far more intellectually appealing, philosophically rigorous, and ultimately lacking the childish & barbaric qualities of any God or Goddess of religion.

Man this thread makes me sad :( hurts my heart to see some of these answers. I'm sorry for the experiences some of you have had from people who claim to love Jesus. I am glad to see so many people seeking answers of truth though. Seek and you will find

I've got some reservations trying to engage in a religious dialogue with someone who's chosen the username "fuckmekevin" but I'll give it a shot. (Jokes)

Also, I'm going to respond to the OP too.

First of all, I respect some of your viewpoints and I want to commend you for seeking some sort of truth. I do feel the need to address some things specifically, however, and hope you'll keep an open mind and would invite you to look into what I say deeper on your own, as my fingers can only type for so long.

fuckmekevinThe Vatican is one example of an 'anti-Christ' like establishment. Though I don't personally believe in the anti-Christ, the Vatican has altered much of the bible during the Coucil of Nicea to hide truth and gnosis.

First off, "The Vatican" is not a religion, or a church. Vatican City is a state that is not technically a sovereign country as many believe, but governed by the Holy See, which is considered a sovereign entity, headed up by the Pope (Currently Pope Francis) which also governs all Catholic entities in of other varieties in other countries. When people say "The Vatican" says or did this or that, they are referring to the governance of The State of Vatican City, otherwise known as the Holy See or someone within the hierarchy of the Catholic Church.

Second - "CATHOLIC" is a phrase that leaves a sour taste in many people's mouths these days, especially other Christians. It should be noted, however, that from the beginnings of Christianity, there was no "Catholic" church. It was just one, unified Church.

The greek word "katholou" meaning "whole" or "universal" was first used (as far as we know) in the phrase "Catholic Church" by St. Ignatius of Antioch in 107 A.D. in a letter to Smyrnaeans to describe the body of believers as "one in heart and mind". It wasn't until the first schism - the East-West Schism which was over doctrine and the extent of papal primacy (as well as a slew of social issues) that there were distinctions between Christian believers.

Third - The council of Nicea was held in 325 to settle some matters of some early theological disagreements in the Church, as well as formalizing a unifying theological creed, known as the Nicene Creed that helped to unify the Church for the next 600+ years. It had nothing to do with formalizing Scripture (or "assembling the Bible).

The Bible as we know it was assembled officially 57 years later at the Council of Rome, in 382. That was when the Christian Church officially said "This is what we consider to be truly divinely inspired". It remained unchanged, albeit some books were moved around or considered more or less important by Luther and the founders of Anglicanism, until the 1640s when a collection of books originally included that were then referred to by Lutherans, Calvinists, and Anglicans as "Apocrypha" were removed.

I've heard the claim from protestants that the council of Nicea somehow led the Church into a period of depravity and apostasy until Luther or Calvin stepped in and fixed everything, but I am always confused as to why Christians of good will believe that God just checked out and let everyone be entirely misled for 1225 years.

I assume you're referring to the Catholic Church as an institution, and will base the rest of my talking points on that assumption.

fuckmekevinThe Vatican has done some obscene things such as cover-up the molestation of children. An establishment that promotes a godly figure who molests children is in deed corrupt.

I would like to stress that the Catholic Church is first and foremost a body of believers, and being human, they are prone to some really bad things - just like all humans. The difference is that Catholics believe that we NEED God to help us with those weaknesses we have. Plenty of people, myself included, are terrible at this. Thankfully one of the weaknesses I have is not pedophilia or pedastry or whatever you want to call it, and I'm also not a member of the hierarchy of the Church who suffers from pride or fear or a disregard for other people's wellbeing - therefore I've never had to deal with any of this firsthand.

NO HONEST CATHOLIC, myself included, would ever downplay or ignore the fact that this happens. All of the best and most faithful Catholics I know are disgusted by it, and most of us feel that there are numerous times and numerous instances where it should have been handled very differently.

However, it's worth pointing out that nowhere does the Church institutionally promote the molestation of children. Individuals and groups of individuals acting together have indeed done what you have accused them of, but the Church itself has always condemned it - Psalm 118 and 146 come are applicable.

fuckmekevinThe Bible is a story but it is bound to occultism, mysticism and gnosis. The problem is the Vatican took out all of the interesting books that illustrated that all of us have an inner wisdom and intuition that each and everyone of us can tap into.

Occultism - maybe, depending on your definition. The secular definition is different than that of the Christian one.

Mysticism - well.... of course. The Church is full of mystics - you can read about some of them here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Roman_Catholic_mystics

Gnosis - you'll have to define your term here. Gnosis as defined as "knowledge of spiritual mysteries" perhaps, but not if you're referring to "Gnosticism" proper, which is opposed on many levels to Christian theology.

fuckmekevinLike meditation, kundalini, vispanna, zen, Taoism even deep prayer teach that we need to sit in silence and quite our carnal ego.

Catholics meditate, although often in a different context than eastern religions do. The rosary itself is a meditation on the life of Jesus. The Church has always taught that deep prayer and meditation/contemplation are best done in silence and solitude, hence the desert fathers, the preferred mode of Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, the mandatory moments of silence during the mass, so on and so forth.

Fundamentally IF we believe that we are ALL created by ONE God, then wouldn't we have some sort of innate experience of that God written into our souls? So wouldn't we see similar experiences of God across all forms of religion that reach out to Him? Of course...

fuckmekevinWe need to rely on intuition through the will of our inner secret.

I don't know what this means. Intuition is one thing but you were talking about spiritual gnosis before - it's really both/and not either/or, and your earlier statements indicate you have a sense of this.

fuckmekevinThe bible was one big parable and that is why it is so interesting. It is gritty and at times disgusting but it tells many truths.

The Bible is a collection of books - some are intended to be historical, some intended to be instructional, some allegorical, some a collection of prayers. In a way, I agree with you - even the parts that are intended to be historic, we know contain some sort of lesson or "parable" that's been left for us to learn from and apply to our lives today.

fuckmekevinDespite what we are told relgion can't exist without spirituality.

I don't know who tells you this, but it's not a traditional Catholic view of religion, although we just view spirituality in a different way than many people do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_spirituality

fuckmekevinIf more people read the words of Jesus, more people might help out those impoverished and see that hoarding trivial things that make their way back into the box is pointless.

True!

I said I would respond yesterday but had to get back to work.

OP, I think you're on par with a lot of your thoughts. However, I don't think the original article is that far off in some of the point. I do think they miss the mark in a number of important ways though. Included thoughts on each point below

1. Mindset of “digital natives” is very much separate from other generations.

What does this even mean?

2. Breakdown of the family.

Christianity teaches that Jesus, in a way, is married to his bride, being the Church. Of course having broken families, which have always been said to be a "domestic church" and a sign of Christ's union to His Church on Earth would make faith and specifically religion harder for people. Nobody can deny that there's more broken families than ever these days.

3. Militant secularism:

Sure, why wouldn't this make it more difficult? Not even close to the main reason.

4. Lack of spiritual authenticity among adults.

I agree. Most adults don't have and desire to communicate that there may be something good about Christianity to their children - most couldn't articulate it as they don't know the faith themselves.

5. The church’s cultural influence has diminished.

Of course this would make it harder, but it's not the main reason.

6. Pervasive cultural abandonment of morality.

Again, not a huge issue when you think of the history of Christianity.

7. Intellectual skepticism.

The intellectual tradition of Christianity is nearly endless if you get past the surface level experiential spirituality of modern American protestant Christianity. Even just in the scientific field - ask these guys if you want a second opinion:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_scientists

8. The rise of a fad called “atheism.”

This is another one of those things that doesn't matter, along with 3,5,6,7. Christianity flourished in times of persecution.


9. Our new God: Tolerance be Thy name.

This I view as the most important point, but they don't go far enough.

10. The commonly defiant posture of young adulthood.

This hasn't ever changed.





The article states: "Tolerance” today essentially means, “Because my truth is, well, my truth, no one may ever question any behavior or belief I hold.” This “standard” has become so ingrained that it is now impossible to rationally critique any belief or behavior without a backlash of criticism."

I mean, sure, but this isn't DIRECTLY effecting religion. This, if anything, would allow for more religious expression.

My take - "Real Talk" - Nobody believes because the people that do have lost a sense of the sacred.

Think about the concept of God for a minute - whoever you are and whatever you believe. IF He is real, the idea that there's an infinite, omniscient, omnipresent being out there somewhere is pretty damn phenomenal. Does religion, as it's expressed now, seem like it recognizes the transcendent nature of God? Or does God feel like a big teddy bear, a friendly therapist that wants you to be happy? A supreme comforter, an all-powerful therapist? Because that was my experience of religion before I experienced Catholicism. And I don't have any use for that - I can get good feelings from a LOT of other things (mostly skiing).

Take it or leave it - I fully, totally, entirely believe in God. I'm Catholic because not because I think it's perfect, but because I think it's the most truthful expression of religion. I consider myself a traditionalist because I find that expression more truthful and beautiful in the traditions of the Church as opposed to the modern expressions of the Church, which I believe are lacking in a number of ways.

And I'm happy to discuss that with any of you who want to, if you have questions here, or PM me.

^^avsolutely loved those responses! Didn't quote you so that I wouldn't take up a ton of space. I have so much respect for Catholics.. it seems like they're so much more definitive and grounded in their beliefs than other people at times

TWoodsDoes religion, as it's expressed now, seem like it recognizes the transcendent nature of God? Or does God feel like a big teddy bear, a friendly therapist that wants you to be happy? A supreme comforter, an all-powerful therapist? Because that was my experience of religion before I experienced Catholicism. And I don't have any use for that - I can get good feelings from a LOT of other things (mostly skiing).
.

This. I'm not Catholic (Reformed protestant, hint of Calvinism when pushed) but the biggest thing I see and appreciate about the Catholic church is their awareness of the sacred, their value of the weight of what you believe.

The world I see around me drives me towards God, toward spirituality, towards a desire for the solemn and sacred, and if it ever becomes the opposite, if I ever find myself projecting that order onto the world instead of reveling in its reflection, that's how I'll know there's something wrong in what I believe.

milk_man^^avsolutely loved those responses! Didn't quote you so that I wouldn't take up a ton of space. I have so much respect for Catholics.. it seems like they're so much more definitive and grounded in their beliefs than other people at times

Thank you very much, it is a lot easier to believe with all of the miracles that happen within the Church. Being a Catholic can be a blessing and a curse. We tend to get the most hypocritical and fake people because of all of the rules. People think that if they follow the rules for fast, lent, and mass every sunday that they will make it; they are missing out on the whole point and it drives me completely nuts. Like Jesus died and wants us to have a relationship with him, but people seem to value not eating meat on fridays over following the great commandment (Matt 22:34). The Pope has also spoken about how bad it is to be a hypothetical Catholic and some media claims he said its worse than being an athiest (its the media so its probably way out of context). On the other hand, it is amazing because the Catholic Church has so much to offer. It is the OG of the variations of Christianity. The only con that i have with the Church is how complicated it is. I realize everything has a reason, but there are so many random things that its super hard to answer my friend's questions without having to ask my youth minister or googling it. The Catholic Church gets a ton of hate, but most of it is, as Donald Trump would say, "Fake News." Like its ridiculous how inaccurate the articles I read are. Glad that some newschoolers are defending their beliefs and not sticking with society.

Why are 'millennials' straying from organized religion?

I was born in 1987, not a millennial by definition, but I dont follow any religion. I guess my answer would be a well qualified one.I never 'strayed' from religion, but I tried understanding it. Even after listening to true believers, I still wasnt convinced.

1. My previous generation never cared for it. 2 generations ago were believers, baptized and all. So my first answer is the question's premise is wrong. Religion became less important to my grand parents and never got passed on. Family passes down identity values and determines if the offspring is going to believe in organized religion. I was only exposed to organized religion when I was 6, but was only confused by their ideology.

2. Government and the church were the closely tied in Canada. If you wanted a birth certificate in the 50's, going through the church was the only way to get one for free. To get it through church, you had to be an active participant. Most people back then were observant, but not exactly practicing. It was a leverage the church was using to keep its numbers artificially high. When the church and state began to separate because of widespread immigration from the war, many Europeans from different faiths found this unfair. Now, the physician and bureaucrats could process the paperwork making the church obsolete for social registration.

3. Science has gotten to a point where stories to describe physical phenomena experienced by people began to break down. Sure its nice to hear God makes it rain and make people sick; but this goes nowhere in usable data. You cant predict anything with accuracy by making up stories. Where God was the only accepted explanation, science and empirical observations lead to an alternative, useful explanation to describe phenomena took its place. More research and better tools to that research killed the God story in physical life.

4. So we are left with philosophy and morals argument. Now this one is touchy because religion isnt about converting people and saving their souls by faith. Its about creating a community with like minded individuals to establish power and structure. Before, people use to gather at church, like hipsters at a cafe shop. It creates a social bond that removes the absurdity of existence from individuals and help people feel connected with others. If we look at religion this was; we can all agree that our modern, fast pace society with instant gratification removes the need of gathering because of time restrictions. We dont have time to use 4 hours on a Sunday, when most of us work 7 day weeks on minimum wage.

5. The last argument and the worst one to use is historical facts. Religion changes, warps and adapts to an ever changing society. I am quite sure Catholics living in the 1600s are unable to comprehend the Church today. Many aspects of Christianity was hijacked by economy (why do we give gifts on a certain date when the whole point was to eliminate greed and monetarily wealth?) As historians look back at the artifacts and try to comprehend what differencent beliefs were back then and how they got shaped by society over time. When religion did not fit people anymore, people changed religion to reflect their values. Now there are many sects of a very same religion. People branch off into sects that reflect them best, killing the singular, one system belief. (roman catholics, anglican, orthodoxe, born again...)

6. FOX news... exists to make money. Nothing more, nothing less. They just use belief to get you to watch your personal bias come true. If they please you by confirming your biases, your gonna watch it more. More views=more advertisement revenue.

Your point number 3 doesn't make any sense.^^^ no one ever would go outside and see it's raining and be like "oh there must be a God." I think you're getting confused with people thanking God for rain. That's completely different... same with sickness..

Confirmation bias. You're told your whole life that science has ALL the answers and that religion makes some people feel good but doesn't really make any sense. So obviously if you grow up with this rhetoric constantly spewed at you, your limited experience with church etc isn't going to keep you coming back. Find someone you like who believes and spend some amount of time opening up. Otherwise it's not fair to say you even gave it a chance

milk_manConfirmation bias. You're told your whole life that science has ALL the answers and that religion makes some people feel good but doesn't really make any sense.

Well, since humans began to figure out the world around them, there has been a limit to our knowledge. And always at that limit, religious people claim that that's where God is. We don't know the answer? Must be God at work (even Newton was guilty of this). But over time, that limit has been pushed further and further back because of breakthroughs in science. Through science, we figure out the actual reasons of why and how. Religion has never pushed science back or proved science wrong. At all. Not once. So it's hardly rhetoric that people buy into science- it's actually with good reason and sufficient evidence that they do.

Does science have ALL the answers? Not yet, of course not- but that's OK! It's ok not to know everything. Moreover, this lack of knowledge is actually what keeps us driving forward and trying solving the problem.

onenerdykidWell, since humans began to figure out the world around them, there has been a limit to our knowledge. And always at that limit, religious people claim that that's where God is. We don't know the answer? Must be God at work (even Newton was guilty of this). But over time, that limit has been pushed further and further back because of breakthroughs in science. Through science, we figure out the actual reasons of why and how. Religion has never pushed science back or proved science wrong. At all. Not once. So it's hardly rhetoric that people buy into science- it's actually with good reason and sufficient evidence that they do.

Does science have ALL the answers? Not yet, of course not- but that's OK! It's ok not to know everything. Moreover, this lack of knowledge is actually what keeps us driving forward and trying solving the problem.

Yep, and I don't understand what that has to do with the validity of religion. The fact that things work so well in our universe (and the fact that they can be measured and predicted) honestly more effectively proves an intelligent creator than just saying that whatever happens in this world is magically caused by said creator. But that's just how I see it

milk_manYour point number 3 doesn't make any sense.^^^ no one ever would go outside and see it's raining and be like "oh there must be a God." I think you're getting confused with people thanking God for rain. That's completely different... same with sickness..

Confirmation bias. You're told your whole life that science has ALL the answers and that religion makes some people feel good but doesn't really make any sense. So obviously if you grow up with this rhetoric constantly spewed at you, your limited experience with church etc isn't going to keep you coming back. Find someone you like who believes and spend some amount of time opening up. Otherwise it's not fair to say you even gave it a chance

Onenerdykid actually answered point one with good accuracy, Deities as a cause to an effect was slowly replaced by better, well founded arguments with demonstrable experimentation. The "need" for a God to explain the functioning of our universe has lost its awesomeness and replaced by less interesting "sciency" stuff. Science depends on applicability, reproduction and accuracy of a claim through experiment. Then, it goes through a vigorous "proving" phase called peer review process. But science is about being wrong and building a more observation dependent process. Religion is agreed upon by the highest authority of religion for its implementation into "common knowledge"...or what is taught at school. Think about Aristocratic gravity, Newtonian gravity and Eisensteinian gravity. It was a progression of understanding, changing upon new observations that did not fit the original theory.

Now this is where I am countering your second point. Confirmation bias is the scariest thing science is trying to avoid at all costs. Science can be done by anyone curious enough to pay attention to cause and effect. In school, we are drilled about how the world works in the simplest terms. Where science fails in school is the fact that understandable proofs tend to be more and more complex, with terminology and mathematics that would make anyone shiver in disgust. Often times, information is not properly understood by the teacher, skewed, then presented as facts then punished through testing. This why I never agreed with teachers ( I barely got through high school), but got along with professors (I was a A student). Have you ever dissagreed with a professor? I did all the time...but I dont dare question a priest or a follower.

You have to remember that religion and identity are intertwined. A system of belief is too complex and deeply tied with values and interpretations to criticize. As an amateur scientist, I recognize that, but I have to remember that a counter argument is not an attack on character or short comings. Nor is it an attack on my intelligence, but on my faulty observation...or lack of.

Religion teaches philosophy and how to be a good person to yourself and to society in order to accept yourself and find a reason to live. You dont need to recite quotes from a book to get it, you just have to ask yourself: Am I helping society become a better place while becoming a better person by thoughts and actions?

Probably more millennials are straying from religion because its more acceptable to be atheist and as a result people our concluding that it is unlikely that any single religion is correct.

milk_manYep, and I don't understand what that has to do with the validity of religion. The fact that things work so well in our universe (and the fact that they can be measured and predicted) honestly more effectively proves an intelligent creator than just saying that whatever happens in this world is magically caused by said creator. But that's just how I see it

Religion is our first attempt at understanding the world around us. When ancient peoples wanted to make sense of events that they (rightfully) could not figure out, they invented a cause via religion.

Almost all religions, including Christianity, make scientific claims about the universe, about our planet, about our biology, about our chemistry, etc. etc. The claims made in Genesis were (and are by some) believed to be 100% true and were the basis of "science". However, when examined through the scientific method, they were completely disproven and are now understood and taught as "metaphor". But never forget that these claims were taught as 100% certain truth and this is a major reason why people question the validity of religion. If religion got that wrong (which is supposedly divinely inspired), then what else is made up and fictitious?

Moreover, it doesn't effectively prove an intelligent creator (an idea which I am sympathetic to). An intelligent creator is indeed an elegant solution but there is no evidence for such a being- it's simply a non-contradictory concept. However, if you could arrive at an intelligent creator from the actual universe around us, it is impossible to argue that such a being is perfectly perfect, perfectly omniscient, perfectly benevolent, and perfectly powerful. The best you can arrive at is such a being is finitely omniscient, finitely benevolent, finitely powerful, and finitely intelligent.

When all the world's major religions came about people were basically stupid and did dumb shit all the time and what better way to control them by saying there is a man in the sky always watching and judging you. People back when were so stupid they believed it with out any proof besides the person saying god speaks to me. It was a good for 2,000 years ago but we need to move on. Religions have held back all progress for man kind. 99% of wars have been started over them. I'm glad millennials are seeing religions for what they are and focusing more on science and logic.

The.FishThank you very much, it is a lot easier to believe with all of the miracles that happen within the Church. Being a Catholic can be a blessing and a curse. We tend to get the most hypocritical and fake people because of all of the rules. People think that if they follow the rules for fast, lent, and mass every sunday that they will make it; they are missing out on the whole point and it drives me completely nuts. Like Jesus died and wants us to have a relationship with him, but people seem to value not eating meat on fridays over following the great commandment (Matt 22:34). The Pope has also spoken about how bad it is to be a hypothetical Catholic and some media claims he said its worse than being an athiest (its the media so its probably way out of context). On the other hand, it is amazing because the Catholic Church has so much to offer. It is the OG of the variations of Christianity. The only con that i have with the Church is how complicated it is. I realize everything has a reason, but there are so many random things that its super hard to answer my friend's questions without having to ask my youth minister or googling it. The Catholic Church gets a ton of hate, but most of it is, as Donald Trump would say, "Fake News." Like its ridiculous how inaccurate the articles I read are. Glad that some newschoolers are defending their beliefs and not sticking with society.

Hey man, thanks this is awesome.

One thing I would encourage you with - The Catholic Church, is definitely full of complexities and nuance - on the one hand there are things that are inherently more important than others, and those other things are much more important than the details. However, the reality is that even though some things are MORE important, it's all still important. I think you already have a sense of this.

The beauty is in the details. When it comes down to it - IF all that the Church teaches is true, that God created and ordered everything, than in one way or another EVERYTHING has a relationship to God... which makes things complicated really quickly, of course.

The more I learn about the faith and the history of the faith - theology, philosophy, art, architecture, etc, the more my faith is nourished. Many people who aren't willing to delve into the depths of the faith accuse these traditions and those who understand them - like yourself and me, who are willing to learn - as being unnecessary or ostentatious or just a bunch of pomp and circumstance that's not ultimately useful. The reality is that each and every one of these traditions or signs or symbols or theology - the details - was painfully crafted and thought about as an act of love for God, and if you ask me, that's beautiful.

So google on!

I wanted to respond to some of these:

freestyler540I was born in 1987, not a millennial by definition, but I dont follow any religion. I guess my answer would be a well qualified one.I never 'strayed' from religion, but I tried understanding it. Even after listening to true believers, I still wasnt convinced.

1. My previous generation never cared for it. 2 generations ago were believers, baptized and all. So my first answer is the question's premise is wrong. Religion became less important to my grand parents and never got passed on. Family passes down identity values and determines if the offspring is going to believe in organized religion. I was only exposed to organized religion when I was 6, but was only confused by their ideology.

First of all - belief and "understanding" are two very different things. God gave us intellect and the powers of reason so that we can come to know Him more thoroughly - a very important principle to touch on.

Most people don't know this, but authentic forms of Christianity have ALWAYS taught that FAITH does not find perfection in emotions - IE in huge "praise and worship" concerts or revival meetings. Faith perfects REASON. We come to KNOW God more through our reason, aided by our faith.

That's not to downplay experience, but it does help us to remember that experience is flawed. Think about it like this - You can have an EXPERIENCE of the ocean by standing at the edge of the water. Smell the salty air, hear the waves, all that. However, you can have a totally different experience in gaining knowledge about the ocean by looking at a map. It's different, it's still valuable, and you could never know the actual size of a body of water without looking at it on a map.

One can have simple faith. I would never say that just because they've never read Aquinas, the "church ladies" and their constant promises to "pray for you" DON'T have faith in a proper way... it's just simpler. They don't go past that - maybe they don't need to - that's not for us to decide, but it's for God. However, simple faith is often tied to simple understanding.

As for point 1... Christianity began with 12 grown men following Jesus around the middle east, and fast-forward to 2010, you've got me getting baptized Catholic at age 22 at the end of my senior year of college. It's not just about family! There's something more.

freestyler5403. Science has gotten to a point where stories to describe physical phenomena experienced by people began to break down. Sure its nice to hear God makes it rain and make people sick; but this goes nowhere in usable data. You cant predict anything with accuracy by making up stories. Where God was the only accepted explanation, science and empirical observations lead to an alternative, useful explanation to describe phenomena took its place. More research and better tools to that research killed the God story in physical life.

As I said above - God gives us our intellect for a purpose. Science and authentic Christianity are NOT at odds with each other.

There's two levels of unknown out there in Christian theology. First, that which is simply unknown, because we don't know it, such as, for example, those things which we have yet to discover through science. Second, mystery. But there's a HUGE difference between "Mystery" and "We don't know". When people claim that there's things we don't know, and they just say "God does it", that's not an authentic realization of these two principles... in fact it's such a huge cop-out that it's actually called the "God of the Gaps" argument and it's widely regarded as absurd - and rightly so.

Although there have been many times when certain prelates or members of the Church hierarchy have snuffed science, there have been plenty of other times that Catholic thinking was the force driving science forward. Evidence:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_scientists

Mystery SHOULD be used to describe things that are seemingly philosophically irreconcilable - things like predestination. IF God knows eveything, How can we have free will? If I have free will, and God knows what I'm going to do, especially in regards to actions that affect my soul or my faith, and God can DO everything, and he doesn't MAKE us do good things, does he really love us? But then - if God MADE us do things, wouldn't we just b meat-puppets, with no purpose in life other than to basically just be play things?

This is where the idea of Christian "Mystery" finds it's rightful meaning - Yes, if God doesn't know everything, if he isn't all powerful, he's not God; if he controls us and our destiny then we don't have free will, and thus are incapable of love. Where these two concepts come together, although something that we can't necessarily figure out with our own understanding of time, will, or our limited vocabulary - this is where we find God.

freestyler5404. So we are left with philosophy and morals argument. Now this one is touchy because religion isnt about converting people and saving their souls by faith. Its about creating a community with like minded individuals to establish power and structure. Before, people use to gather at church, like hipsters at a cafe shop. It creates a social bond that removes the absurdity of existence from individuals and help people feel connected with others. If we look at religion this was; we can all agree that our modern, fast pace society with instant gratification removes the need of gathering because of time restrictions. We dont have time to use 4 hours on a Sunday, when most of us work 7 day weeks on minimum wage.

You say "religion isn't about converting people and saving their souls by faith". Well - yes and no. First of all, you can't lump all religions into the same category, because each religion has a very different understanding of what the purpose of that religion is, and our relationship to God - even though you may have been taught, or on the surface, they may seem to be very similar.

Additionally, you are conflating how people have practiced (or how you have seen people practice) religion with what the different forms of religion ACTUALLY teach. That's a valid argument, but it's wrong to claim what the "purpose" is, when the purpose is inherently philosophical or theological, and that many people never get there.

The word "Religion" comes from Latin "Relagare" which means "To Bind". The PRIMARY understanding of religion in the western world, has always (even in pre-Judaic Israelite religion) been how we, each and every one of us, "Binds" ourselves to God. So, first and foremost, that's what religion is about.

Now, in Christianity, it's taught explicitly that as Jesus left this world, he told his disciples to GO and "teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you..." So, yes, teaching, aiding in conversion (Christians don't believe WE can convert anyone - God converts people through us, a seemingly nitpicky but super important distinction), and baptism are very specifically things that Christians believe are integral to their religion, the way they bind themselves to God. There's plenty of people who have done this well and plenty who have done this poorly; but here I am right now working on the teaching part.

freestyler5405. The last argument and the worst one to use is historical facts. Religion changes, warps and adapts to an ever changing society. I am quite sure Catholics living in the 1600s are unable to comprehend the Church today. Many aspects of Christianity was hijacked by economy (why do we give gifts on a certain date when the whole point was to eliminate greed and monetarily wealth?) As historians look back at the artifacts and try to comprehend what differencent beliefs were back then and how they got shaped by society over time. When religion did not fit people anymore, people changed religion to reflect their values. Now there are many sects of a very same religion. People branch off into sects that reflect them best, killing the singular, one system belief. (roman catholics, anglican, orthodoxe, born again...)

Again, this is lumping religion together. In a way, you're right - the way we bond ourselves to God may change. However, God himself, being infinite, doesn't change... he just IS. Practice changes throughout history, but specific beliefs do not - or at least that's what Catholicism holds. I don't really want to get into this too much because although you may not know it, this is a HUGE conversation.

However - your diagnosis of being hijacked by the economy is flawed. I'll break it down in a couple ways.

- Yes, aspects of Christianity were APPROPRIATED, but not hijacked, by the economy. Christianity isn't changed when companies appropriate the holidays (holy-days), it's simply a bad expression of the underlying principles.

- As an example, our society's expression of Christmas is very consumerist and "stuff" based. The reasons why Christians give gifts to celebrate Christ's birth (the arguments involving the date aside) are numerous. Life is a gift, and should be enjoyed. The physical world and the things we own are not inherently bad; they are in fact morally neutral in of themselves. Doing nice things for others is a way to express love for one another, including giving gifts. Christ himself was given gifts in celebration of his birth, and we do that to remember him.

- The whole point is not to eliminate greed or monetary wealth. First the greed - Christianity does not teach that Jesus died in order to remove greed from the world. Greed is a vice; it's not good, it distracts us from what's good and ultimately from God, and we should work on it - but the point of Jesus' life was to his death itself. Greed is only a roadblock in our lives that will keep us from understanding this. Additionally, the whole point of Christianity is not to make everyone poor. You may be referencing the story of the young rich man who asked Jesus what he should do in order to follow Him. Jesus said to him, specifically, that HE needed to give up his wealth - that's what was holding HIM back. It's easy for greed, power, money to hold us back from religion, but wealth itself is morally neutral. It's a means of exchange of goods and services, and some people may specifically be called to be wealthy in order to be good stewards of that wealth.

- There have always been disagreements about the proper way to exercise religion. But, again, IF God exists, HE is objective truth. There's certain realities about who he is and what he does. Regarding the different sects of Christianity - even a casual reading of the Bible will tell you this wasn't how it was intended to be. The longest we ever hear Christ himself pray out loud is in John, ch.17 - and Jesus prays for two things for his disciples- Christian unity and strength to face persecution. He prayed out loud indicating that the apostles were intended to hear this message and take it to heart. All of these different sects is clearly not an authentic expression of Christianity.



Mad props if you read all that. I know I probably didn't say everything perfectly, so I hope you give it a charitable read.

TL;DR TWoods is a Bible Thumper

freestyler540Religion teaches philosophy and how to be a good person to yourself and to society in order to accept yourself and find a reason to live. You dont need to recite quotes from a book to get it, you just have to ask yourself: Am I helping society become a better place while becoming a better person by thoughts and actions?

Jesus never told anyone to "be a good person"... This over simplified Christianity and your argument here are perhaps a PERFECT summary of the whole "why are millennials choosing atheism" question.

How we live and what we do is not the end all - Christianity teaches that how we live and what we do flows from our identity as sons of God. Acknowledgement of that through just worship is the primary action that the rest of the actions in our lives begin with and point back to.

Wow Twoods, that was quite the come back. It must have taken a long time to write it out respectfully. Props on ya. You know your religion well and took my arguments with respect.

There is no way I can counter each argument because you are approaching the premise under a different angle. You are well versed and most of those arguments don't make any sense to me... I am approaching the question with the eyes of a child; with complete ignorance other than what I can grasp without being taught. Descartes's idea to reject all assumed knowledge and begin from scratch. This is where I begin.

I see most of the arguments are based on a personal God. In other words, its the idea that God can only be experienced through the mind and faith is the tool to this end. Dozens of philosophers have pondered the questions about spirituality and faith with many coming out with well founded arguments. Locke was a pioneer in this school of thought (might wanna fact check that...). He even touched on the aspect that maybe this universe is only God's dream...

I am more interested in the existential God; God is not in our existence, but the cause of our existence. God is the randomness that started the universe and the loss of equilibrium that started the chain of events that lead us to this conversation online. Most of these religious scientists were (are), in fact, looking to study the work of God, and not the interactions between God and us. They are not out to prove that praying will lead to anything, or outsmarting atheists (I hate the term atheist with a passion), but to appreciate the inner workings of nature to understand God. My best example to mind would be appreciating a painting and what it means, in contrast to analyzing every stroke and every shade to get to know who the author was.

Science was born from Natural Philosophy; using reason to determine how something worked in nature. Natural philosophy died with the coming of tools to track, note and observe the deep inner workings, instead of rationalizing it. Science has to be blind to interpretation and personal bias. Its a vigorous process included a lot of people, that seems to remove the awe of day to day life...but in the contrary, I am in complete awe of what nature did and I always hungry to know more about it. Science is never complete and I hope it never gets completed in my lifetime...

Remember that people that have definite answers to everything are definitely wrong. Nothing is simple and nothing can be certain... But the illusion of knowledge (on both sides of the spectrum) is easy to obtain and hard to undo. The harder the hardliners, the less I get to learn and the more pissed off I get.

TWoodsFirst of all - belief and "understanding" are two very different things. God gave us intellect and the powers of reason so that we can come to know Him more thoroughly - a very important principle to touch on.

Most people don't know this, but authentic forms of Christianity have ALWAYS taught that FAITH does not find perfection in emotions - IE in huge "praise and worship" concerts or revival meetings. Faith perfects REASON. We come to KNOW God more through our reason, aided by our faith.

That's not to downplay experience, but it does help us to remember that experience is flawed. Think about it like this - You can have an EXPERIENCE of the ocean by standing at the edge of the water. Smell the salty air, hear the waves, all that. However, you can have a totally different experience in gaining knowledge about the ocean by looking at a map. It's different, it's still valuable, and you could never know the actual size of a body of water without looking at it on a map.

Great contribution to the discussion TWoods! Even though this is "NS", I think if more people approached a conversation the way you have, it only leads to a better understanding of the subject.

It might seem like I am nitpicking, but I think you are incorrectly using the word "know". Knowledge of something is only possible when 2 conditions are met: we take our concept (idea) of the subject and then combine it with our sense experience of the subject (being able to examine the subject through our 5 senses). Concept + sense experience is the only way to arrive at actually knowledge. If we only have half of the equation, we don't have knowledge- we merely are thinking about it or have an "idea" about it.

For example, take a unicorn. It is safe to say we can think meaningfully about a unicorn (it's a horse type creature with a single horn on its head), but we cannot say we know unicorns. We have no sense experience of a unicorn that can be measured, tested, analyzed, etc. Now in common everyday language, we of course say " we know what unicorns are" but within actual epistemology or general science, we do not know anything about unicorns because while we have the concept of unicorn we lack the sense experience of one.

When we look at your ocean/map example, the map only came about because of the map maker's application of his ocean/beach/etc. concepts to his sense experience of the ocean, beach, etc. In order to have the map, we absolutely need the experience of the ocean. And our map is considered accurate (or true) when it represents reality (the actual ocean), which is only based on our sense experience. Additionally, this is why we also use peer reviews and multiple experiments when proving an idea- one experience is not enough, but many experiences of the same type/result leads us to say something is true.

Applying this to God, we cannot say that we "know" God. We have a (many) concept(s) of God, many of which are non-contradictory (the basis for real truth at least) but we lack sense experience of God the way we do for every other subject that we actually know. We can think meaningfully about God, we can have meaningful conversations about God, but we do not KNOW God. Our understanding of God is not knowledge, it is merely conceptual.

^Ill have to strongly disagree with that. Many, many people have had experiences of God. There are even Muslims who have had visions or dreams of Jesus and it actually has converted them. Yeah go ahead and call them crazy, but that IS an experience.

milk_man^Ill have to strongly disagree with that. Many, many people have had experiences of God. There are even Muslims who have had visions or dreams of Jesus and it actually has converted them. Yeah go ahead and call them crazy, but that IS an experience.

You can disagree with it all you want- you don't have experience of God the same way you have experience with any other sensibly tangible object. That is sense experience and the experience I am talking about, which is completely lacking with any God or Goddess. As soon as you can have sense experience of God the way you can have sense experience with a table, go collect your Noble Prize.

Also, don't forget about the many Christians who have had "experiences" of Allah and converted to Islam.

onenerdykidYou can disagree with it all you want- you don't have experience of God the same way you have experience with any other sensibly tangible object. That is sense experience and the experience I am talking about, which is completely lacking with any God or Goddess. As soon as you can have sense experience of God the way you can have sense experience with a table, go collect your Noble Prize.

Also, don't forget about the many Christians who have had "experiences" of Allah and converted to Islam.

Tell that to all the married couples. Tell them that their experience of love isn't real because it isn't tangible

As for Christians converting to Islam..I can't say I've ever heard of that being common. It wouldn't make any sense... change from a religion that offers forgiveness and acceptance to a religion that even if you follow all the rituals you still are at the discretion of Allah? No thanks

milk_manTell that to all the married couples. Tell them that their experience of love isn't real because it isn't tangible

As for Christians converting to Islam..I can't say I've ever heard of that being common. It wouldn't make any sense... change from a religion that offers forgiveness and acceptance to a religion that even if you follow all the rituals you still are at the discretion of Allah? No thanks

Not remotely- those 2 people actually exist and their experiences can both be witnessed, measured, analyzed, tested, etc. It is part of sense experience, it is not merely a conceptual idea.

Are you referring to Christianity's forgiveness and acceptance where I burn forever in Hell because I don't believe in your God? Or all other non-Christians who will burn forever in Hell?

onenerdykidNot remotely- those 2 people actually exist and their experiences can both be witnessed, measured, analyzed, tested, etc. It is part of sense experience, it is not merely a conceptual idea.

Are you referring to Christianity's forgiveness and acceptance where I burn forever in Hell because I don't believe in your God? Or all other non-Christians who will burn forever in Hell?

And an experience without God is not merely conceptual. Love is "proven" to exist through brain scans and observing chemical reactions. (Oversimplified obviously). If they had an opportunity to test the brain of someone while they are experiencing God--you would see something. Unfortunately that would not be easy to do.

Again I'm not even going to respond to you because you simply have a distaste for christianity. Maybe you would be willing to discuss it logically instead of emotionally with twoods.

milk_manAnd an experience without God is not merely conceptual. Love is "proven" to exist through brain scans and observing chemical reactions. (Oversimplified obviously). If they had an opportunity to test the brain of someone while they are experiencing God--you would see something. Unfortunately that would not be easy to do.

Again I'm not even going to respond to you because you simply have a distaste for christianity. Maybe you would be willing to discuss it logically instead of emotionally with twoods.

People love God the same way they love a wall, or some other object that does not reciprocate any measurable love. We do not and cannot measure any love coming from God, but we can measure the love between two people because both exist in our sense experience. You cannot see, smell, touch, hear, or taste God. If you think we have knowledge of God the same way we have knowledge of any sensible object (table, car, house, cat, human, etc.) then you are not using your brain and are speaking absolute nonsense.

What I have a distaste for is faith-based dogma that seeks to punish me for not believing in it. You fail to see that my arguments against Christianity come directly from Christian ideology itself and nowhere else. My previous critique of God's "perfect love" is directly from scripture. It is a Biblical fact that I am commanded to love God or be sent to Hell for all of eternity. It is also a Biblical fact that if I chose to believe in another god or gods or goddesses that I will be sent to Hell for all of eternity. These are Biblical facts that you are quick to gloss over in favor of your limited interpretation of how loving, forgiving, and benevolent you want your God to be.

If I get upset, please forgive me- I don't like being told that I am going to burn in Hell for all of eternity. There's something about it that I find it completely offensive, barbaric, and just plain disgusting.

onenerdykidPeople love God the same way they love a wall, or some other object that does not reciprocate any measurable love. We do not and cannot measure any love coming from God, but we can measure the love between two people because both exist in our sense experience. You cannot see, smell, touch, hear, or taste God. If you think we have knowledge of God the same way we have knowledge of any sensible object (table, car, house, cat, human, etc.) then you are not using your brain and are speaking absolute nonsense.

What I have a distaste for is faith-based dogma that seeks to punish me for not believing in it. You fail to see that my arguments against Christianity come directly from Christian ideology itself and nowhere else. My previous critique of God's "perfect love" is directly from scripture. It is a Biblical fact that I am commanded to love God or be sent to Hell for all of eternity. It is also a Biblical fact that if I chose to believe in another god or gods or goddesses that I will be sent to Hell for all of eternity. These are Biblical facts that you are quick to gloss over in favor of your limited interpretation of how loving, forgiving, and benevolent you want your God to be.

If I get upset, please forgive me- I don't like being told that I am going to burn in Hell for all of eternity. There's something about it that I find it completely offensive, barbaric, and just plain disgusting.

You just contradicted yourself. At first you said that you are sent to hell for not believing something, then later in your response you said people are sent to hell for committing acts. 1. "dogma that seeks to punish me for not believing in it." 2. "It is also a Biblical fact that if I chose to believe in another god or gods or goddesses that I will be sent to Hell.."

And they are both wrong. Hell is not a punishment for not believing. Hell is where everyone ends up because we are ALL messed up.........if it wasn't for grace we would all get what we deserve. It's literally a gift. God doesn't have an evil desire for us to be in hell. God has a desire for us to be SAVED. Why twist Christianity into something that it isn't? As for #2 that is wrong and right at the same time. Yes, sinning is what causes us to deserve punishment. But to say that even if you believe in Jesus and truly accept God's gift you will be sent to hell if you believe in some other "god" or whatever--that just isn't accurate. But then again, if you truly believe I don't think you would truly believe in another diety. So maybe in that situation they weren't saved in the first place? I dunno, I'm not going to judge that

Also..we don't know much about hell other than it is separation from God. Although you may have an idea of what it is in your head that seems barbaric, the truth is that we don't really know. What did Jesus say about hell?

milk_manYou just contradicted yourself. At first you said that you are sent to hell for not believing something, then later in your response you said people are sent to hell for committing acts. 1. "dogma that seeks to punish me for not believing in it." 2. "It is also a Biblical fact that if I chose to believe in another god or gods or goddesses that I will be sent to Hell.."

And they are both wrong. Hell is not a punishment for not believing. Hell is where everyone ends up because we are ALL messed up.........if it wasn't for grace we would all get what we deserve. It's literally a gift. God doesn't have an evil desire for us to be in hell. God has a desire for us to be SAVED. Why twist Christianity into something that it isn't? As for #2 that is wrong and right at the same time. Yes, sinning is what causes us to deserve punishment. But to say that even if you believe in Jesus and truly accept God's gift you will be sent to hell if you believe in some other "god" or whatever--that just isn't accurate. But then again, if you truly believe I don't think you would truly believe in another diety. So maybe in that situation they weren't saved in the first place? I dunno, I'm not going to judge that

Also..we don't know much about hell other than it is separation from God. Although you may have an idea of what it is in your head that seems barbaric, the truth is that we don't really know. What did Jesus say about hell?

I didn't contradict myself at all, far from it, but of course you would say that I did. Show me where I say X is true and then not-X is also true. All I said is that Hell awaits those 2 things. But, to New Testament scripture we go:
Mark 16:16 – "The one who believes and is baptized will be saved, but the one who does not believe will be condemned."

John 15:5-6 – "For apart from Me, you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned."

Non-believers are condemned and without God I will be cast out and burned. But, of course you will say I am taking these verses out of context somehow. You always twist the narrative to your favor, whereas I simply examine the actual narrative. There's no need to twist Christianity- it is twisted on its own. I simply expose it for what it is- a contradictory ideology that is no different than totalitarianism or a master/slave relationship. "Love me, or burn" is at the heart of Christianity, and this is contradictory to perfect love, perfect benevolence.

To me, the fact that there are 1000's of religions that all believe that they hold the truth about reality makes it extremely unlikely that any one religion is correct. The Bible says that if you don't personally believe in Jesus as the savior of mankind, then you will not go to Heaven. This makes Christianity incompatible with all these 1000's of other religions.

Further, what religion you believe in is almost completely dependent on where you were born and what culture you grew up with. There are people born in Africa that don't hear about Christianity their whole life. According to the Bible, these people are doomed to go to Hell before they are even born because they have no chance at hearing about or following the teachings of Jesus. If Christianity is the one true religion, then God is extremely unfair and cruel as he allows the majority of the world to be born without any chance of fulfilling the necessary requirements to go to Heaven.

bighomieflockTo me, the fact that there are 1000's of religions that all believe that they hold the truth about reality makes it extremely unlikely that any one religion is correct. The Bible says that if you don't personally believe in Jesus as the savior of mankind, then you will not go to Heaven. This makes Christianity incompatible with all these 1000's of other religions.

Further, what religion you believe in is almost completely dependent on where you were born and what culture you grew up with. There are people born in Africa that don't hear about Christianity their whole life. According to the Bible, these people are doomed to go to Hell before they are even born because they have no chance at hearing about or following the teachings of Jesus. If Christianity is the one true religion, then God is extremely unfair and cruel as he allows the majority of the world to be born without any chance of fulfilling the necessary requirements to go to Heaven.

To the second part.. that's why Jesus gave us "the great commission." To go out into all the world and proclaim the gospel. Everywhere!

As to the first part.. there are 1,000s of Elvis Presley impersonators, therefore there must not be or have been a real Elvis Presley

milk_manTo the second part.. that's why Jesus gave us "the great commission." To go out into all the world and proclaim the gospel. Everywhere!

As to the first part.. there are 1,000s of Elvis Presley impersonators, therefore there must not be or have been a real Elvis Presley

#ChristianLogic

TheHamburglar#ChristianLogic

You're saying that because there's lots of people claiming to know the truth no one actually knows the truth. #skepticlogic

milk_manTo the second part.. that's why Jesus gave us "the great commission." To go out into all the world and proclaim the gospel. Everywhere!

As to the first part.. there are 1,000s of Elvis Presley impersonators, therefore there must not be or have been a real Elvis Presley

Well there have already been billions of people who have been born and gone to hell without any chance since they weren't born in Christian areas, so the great commission is clearly not working quick enough. That seems like an extremely cruel thing for God to do to humans he created.

The second metaphor is not accurate to the situation... What I'm saying is that if there are a large number of differing opinions on what God is like, then it is unlikely that any one opinion about him is completely correct.

bighomieflockThe second metaphor is not accurate to the situation... What I'm saying is that if there are a large number of differing opinions on what God is like, then it is unlikely that any one opinion about him is completely correct.

Actually, the truly unlikely aspect is that the religious culture you were born into is the correct one. The odds of that are mind-numbingly low yet the vast, vast, vast majority of believers believe the religion they were born into is the one true way. Indoctrination is a powerful tool... Devout Christians like Milk Man can't understand at all how people can be persuaded by Islam (as he has said a few posts above), just as devout Muslims think Christians have been led astray and lied to their entire lives. They read the other's holy books and are completely baffled how anyone could believe this nonsense. And according to each faith, condemnation & Hell await the other.

But look at how neither are worried about this happening to them. Milk Man doesn't lose an ounce of sleep at night fearing eternal damnation at the hands of Allah. Same goes for the Muslims worrying about the Christian God. Each faith sounds ridiculously and utterly untrue to the other... which is precisely how each of them appear to non believers in general.

TWoodsI've got some reservations trying to engage in a religious dialogue with someone who's chosen the username "fuckmekevin" but I'll give it a shot. (Jokes)

Also, I'm going to respond to the OP too.

First of all, I respect some of your viewpoints and I want to commend you for seeking some sort of truth. I do feel the need to address some things specifically, however, and hope you'll keep an open mind and would invite you to look into what I say deeper on your own, as my fingers can only type for so long.

First off, "The Vatican" is not a religion, or a church. Vatican City is a state that is not technically a sovereign country as many believe, but governed by the Holy See, which is considered a sovereign entity, headed up by the Pope (Currently Pope Francis) which also governs all Catholic entities in of other varieties in other countries. When people say "The Vatican" says or did this or that, they are referring to the governance of The State of Vatican City, otherwise known as the Holy See or someone within the hierarchy of the Catholic Church.

Second - "CATHOLIC" is a phrase that leaves a sour taste in many people's mouths these days, especially other Christians. It should be noted, however, that from the beginnings of Christianity, there was no "Catholic" church. It was just one, unified Church.

The greek word "katholou" meaning "whole" or "universal" was first used (as far as we know) in the phrase "Catholic Church" by St. Ignatius of Antioch in 107 A.D. in a letter to Smyrnaeans to describe the body of believers as "one in heart and mind". It wasn't until the first schism - the East-West Schism which was over doctrine and the extent of papal primacy (as well as a slew of social issues) that there were distinctions between Christian believers.

Third - The council of Nicea was held in 325 to settle some matters of some early theological disagreements in the Church, as well as formalizing a unifying theological creed, known as the Nicene Creed that helped to unify the Church for the next 600+ years. It had nothing to do with formalizing Scripture (or "assembling the Bible).

The Bible as we know it was assembled officially 57 years later at the Council of Rome, in 382. That was when the Christian Church officially said "This is what we consider to be truly divinely inspired". It remained unchanged, albeit some books were moved around or considered more or less important by Luther and the founders of Anglicanism, until the 1640s when a collection of books originally included that were then referred to by Lutherans, Calvinists, and Anglicans as "Apocrypha" were removed.

I've heard the claim from protestants that the council of Nicea somehow led the Church into a period of depravity and apostasy until Luther or Calvin stepped in and fixed everything, but I am always confused as to why Christians of good will believe that God just checked out and let everyone be entirely misled for 1225 years.

I assume you're referring to the Catholic Church as an institution, and will base the rest of my talking points on that assumption.




I would like to stress that the Catholic Church is first and foremost a body of believers, and being human, they are prone to some really bad things - just like all humans. The difference is that Catholics believe that we NEED God to help us with those weaknesses we have. Plenty of people, myself included, are terrible at this. Thankfully one of the weaknesses I have is not pedophilia or pedastry or whatever you want to call it, and I'm also not a member of the hierarchy of the Church who suffers from pride or fear or a disregard for other people's wellbeing - therefore I've never had to deal with any of this firsthand.

NO HONEST CATHOLIC, myself included, would ever downplay or ignore the fact that this happens. All of the best and most faithful Catholics I know are disgusted by it, and most of us feel that there are numerous times and numerous instances where it should have been handled very differently.

However, it's worth pointing out that nowhere does the Church institutionally promote the molestation of children. Individuals and groups of individuals acting together have indeed done what you have accused them of, but the Church itself has always condemned it - Psalm 118 and 146 come are applicable.




Occultism - maybe, depending on your definition. The secular definition is different than that of the Christian one.

Mysticism - well.... of course. The Church is full of mystics - you can read about some of them here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Roman_Catholic_mystics

Gnosis - you'll have to define your term here. Gnosis as defined as "knowledge of spiritual mysteries" perhaps, but not if you're referring to "Gnosticism" proper, which is opposed on many levels to Christian theology.



Catholics meditate, although often in a different context than eastern religions do. The rosary itself is a meditation on the life of Jesus. The Church has always taught that deep prayer and meditation/contemplation are best done in silence and solitude, hence the desert fathers, the preferred mode of Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, the mandatory moments of silence during the mass, so on and so forth.

Fundamentally IF we believe that we are ALL created by ONE God, then wouldn't we have some sort of innate experience of that God written into our souls? So wouldn't we see similar experiences of God across all forms of religion that reach out to Him? Of course...



I don't know what this means. Intuition is one thing but you were talking about spiritual gnosis before - it's really both/and not either/or, and your earlier statements indicate you have a sense of this.




The Bible is a collection of books - some are intended to be historical, some intended to be instructional, some allegorical, some a collection of prayers. In a way, I agree with you - even the parts that are intended to be historic, we know contain some sort of lesson or "parable"ew spirituality in a different way than many people

When I refered to gnosis I was alluding to the fact that an intuitive comprehension of spiritual truths can be experienced and attained whilst reading the Bible or other religious/philosophical texts.

I read the book 'Imitation of Christ', wondering if you've read it? It's a great read and sets principles on how one should live their life with the intention of humbling yourself so as to rid of pride. That alone can help to ease anxiety because for many people anxiety stems from pride. The book also talked about helping others through feeding, clothing, housing and health as well as to seek God and follow in Christs footsteps, for it says people can do greater acts than I.

Now in my understanding many Roman Catholics believe mediation to be evil by nature. I've had a few Catholics tell me that meditation opens up your mind to manipulation. Science tells me this is true regarding alpha and theta waves, where people can be more prone to hypnotism. Many also say it is an open doorway for any demon to infiltrate.

Now I do not in any way believe this, it doesn't make sense to me. Maybe they mean by demons, the material world which relentlessly bombards us and distracts us?

I see also other religons and philosophies teaching meditation and deep prayer. Kundalini is one form that can cause a medical term coined Kundalini Syndrome. I find it interesting how simple meditation can sometimes without warning rapidly change a person. Deep prayer can also induce visions and as I understand, Jesus's deciples had many visions.

And yeah, you're most likely right although the Catholics could have altered the bible hundreds of years after the Council of Nicea. Though, they probably just chose what was canon. I just find it a little weird how the Holy See has all this money; massive staues of pine cones and biblical figures, it's odd to me. The Holy See also covered up pedophilia for quite sometime but I know the majority of Catholics are good hearted, holy people.

I also wanted your opinion on why the Roman Catholics murdered all the Cathars during the Crusades. The cathars followed Christ closely and lived a monestary life. They even held women in high regard which was odd for the time.

milk_manYour point number 3 doesn't make any sense.^^^ no one ever would go outside and see it's raining and be like "oh there must be a God." I think you're getting confused with people thanking God for rain. That's completely different... same with sickness..

Confirmation bias. You're told your whole life that science has ALL the answers and that religion makes some people feel good but doesn't really make any sense. So obviously if you grow up with this rhetoric constantly spewed at you, your limited experience with church etc isn't going to keep you coming back. Find someone you like who believes and spend some amount of time opening up. Otherwise it's not fair to say you even gave it a chance

Do you refer to God as a being, an archon, some supernatural entity? Could not God be the energy, frequency that created the very universe that is seen and unseen. Science can only explain so much, and once you get into string theory and perfect geometry and symmetry, you start to see that something created this. It's not a matter of if something did, something had to because something can not come from nothing. If you wish to call it an all-loving god so be it. We are all made by this something.

onenerdykidYou can disagree with it all you want- you don't have experience of God the same way you have experience with any other sensibly tangible object. That is sense experience and the experience I am talking about, which is completely lacking with any God or Goddess. As soon as you can have sense experience of God the way you can have sense experience with a table, go collect your Noble Prize.

Also, don't forget about the many Christians who have had "experiences" of Allah and converted to Islam.

Can we measure dreams and conciousness, where do they stem from and can we interact with them? Could a hive mind exist? I think there's much more to us than we are led to believe.

Didn't Jesus cast all the bankers out and they killed him for it?

And what does this **mean?**

I take it this is some sort of parable. Why one eye and not two? Is this passage refering to the third eye or our pineal glands (basically has a retina and rods in cones) often mentioned in eastern religions? Could it be related to the Pineal gland which I believe is mentioned as a place in the Bible where one of Jesus's deciples met God through visions. It was written a few times as it was said that the kingdom of heaven is within all of us. So maybe heaven isn't an actual place but a state of mind and heart just as hell may be.

--Passage--

For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

The light of the body is the eye: if therefore your eye be **single** your whole body shall be full of light.
But if your eye be evil, your whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in you be darkness, how great is that darkness!
No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.
Therefore I say to you, Take no thought for your life, what you shall eat, or what you shall drink; nor yet for your body, what you shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?

milk_manAnd an experience without God is not merely conceptual. Love is "proven" to exist through brain scans and observing chemical reactions. (Oversimplified obviously). If they had an opportunity to test the brain of someone while they are experiencing God--you would see something. Unfortunately that would not be easy to do.

Again I'm not even going to respond to you because you simply have a distaste for christianity. Maybe you would be willing to discuss it logically instead of emotionally with twoods.

I hate it when people try to use science to support religion. Especially people like you who seem to have little understanding of the science and actually counter your own arguments. Brain scans show love as a series of chemical reactions in your brain. It's just an impulse to get animals to breed and it's not exclusive to humans. And it's not hard to test the brain while experiencing god, because you would simply see all the chemical reaction of happiness and security because you are filling the void of your pointless existence with something that guarantees a happy afterlife. There's god and religion for you chemically.

And out of everyone in this thread, myself included, nerdykid is probably the most objective poster.

fuckmekevinDo you refer to God as a being, an archon, some supernatural entity? Could not God be the energy, frequency that created the very universe that is seen and unseen. Science can only explain so much, and once you get into string theory and perfect geometry and symmetry, you start to see that something created this. It's not a matter of if something did, something had to because something can not come from nothing. If you wish to call it an all-loving god so be it. We are all made by this something.

This is a good argument, and probably one of the best arguments for the existence of a higher power. The issue is humans are limited to comprehending things that are within are plane of existence, and we can not truly comprehend things outside of that plane (you can use math to theorize about it but math is more or less a tool that does not substitute experience or knowledge). Although this argument will always lead to a paradox. If the universe was created by a higher power, then what created that higher power?

This leads to the simulation theory, something that is gaining more traction and makes a lot of sense. According to moors law computing power continues to increases exponentially. Given enough time humans could simulate an ancestor program, with sims that can "feel" and make their own decisions. These sims would not be able to comprehend that they are simulated, if they ever did, the system would crash. All classical laws would still exist but the sims would never be able to comprehend what created them. The program would not allow for it.

Here's a video that does a much better job of explaining it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5AffGBFya4&index=5&list=FLo9TwwpbAam8LbwUiz3Vd-A[URL]

My aunt--who I love very much who basically saved me from heading straight to the pen shortly after HS, is an ardent conservative. I don't share her beliefs (religiously or especially politically) but I am always a good outlet for her to vent to because liberals annoy me a bit, etc..

Anyways, word is she just left her church that she has been very active in for the past decade--teaching sunday school, choir, all sorts of events--she's a empty nest housewife with no responsibilities--the church and her garden are her life (and Fox News/Limbaugh/Hannity).

The reason? She got into a big beef with her church because they are or are considering changing their stance on gay marriage so they can be performed in the church, etc. We thought she was changed, her daughter's best friend in college/grad school was gay and she loved him and we thought maybe that changed her views for the better. Now here we go, same old. I want to call her and be there for her and let her speak because I'm sure she needs someone to talk to, but I just can't.

sorry for the little vent. I get that religion (or more so, those that practice) can be very nasty and ugly but I still don't understand why people have to be militant atheists. Must be because I'm from a religious family though, I don't share the beliefs but will lay the smack down on anyone talkin trash

onenerdykidGreat contribution to the discussion TWoods! Even though this is "NS", I think if more people approached a conversation the way you have, it only leads to a better understanding of the subject.

It might seem like I am nitpicking, but I think you are incorrectly using the word "know". Knowledge of something is only possible when 2 conditions are met: we take our concept (idea) of the subject and then combine it with our sense experience of the subject (being able to examine the subject through our 5 senses). Concept + sense experience is the only way to arrive at actually knowledge. If we only have half of the equation, we don't have knowledge- we merely are thinking about it or have an "idea" about it.

For example, take a unicorn. It is safe to say we can think meaningfully about a unicorn (it's a horse type creature with a single horn on its head), but we cannot say we know unicorns. We have no sense experience of a unicorn that can be measured, tested, analyzed, etc. Now in common everyday language, we of course say " we know what unicorns are" but within actual epistemology or general science, we do not know anything about unicorns because while we have the concept of unicorn we lack the sense experience of one.

When we look at your ocean/map example, the map only came about because of the map maker's application of his ocean/beach/etc. concepts to his sense experience of the ocean, beach, etc. In order to have the map, we absolutely need the experience of the ocean. And our map is considered accurate (or true) when it represents reality (the actual ocean), which is only based on our sense experience. Additionally, this is why we also use peer reviews and multiple experiments when proving an idea- one experience is not enough, but many experiences of the same type/result leads us to say something is true.

Applying this to God, we cannot say that we "know" God. We have a (many) concept(s) of God, many of which are non-contradictory (the basis for real truth at least) but we lack sense experience of God the way we do for every other subject that we actually know. We can think meaningfully about God, we can have meaningful conversations about God, but we do not KNOW God. Our understanding of God is not knowledge, it is merely conceptual.

Thanks man. I would hope people would be able to talk about things they sincerely disagree on thoroughly and non-combatively, but it seems to be a skill that's been increasingly lost, especially recently.

I understand what you're saying. First of all, I agree with you in one sense - we can't ever fully "know" God - I don't know who said it first, but "the moment you're certain you've got God figured out is the moment you can be certain you're wrong." Which isn't intended to speak primarily to the idea that God is entirely un-knowable, but that us, as finite beings, will never fully "understand" and infinite God.

I would say that you can fully know a unicorn. Seeing as though they're a fictional being, made up in the stories of man, you could potentially know everything there is to know about unicorns - who first dreamt it up, who first wrote about it, who first drew a picture of one etc.

But, if we apply this to God, just like the ocean metaphor - it could potentially fall short. If we believe God is a popular myth created to placate the masses or explain the seasons or whatever else, then sure, it's the same thing. But if God is real, and everything that we would characterize as necessary for God to in fact be God (omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient) is true, then there's sure, there's no way to understand that in it's entirety, as only God can know himself so intimately.

However, we can know *something* of God. And that's what I initially said. "We come to KNOW God more through our reason, aided by our faith." The key word is "more". The ocean metaphor was not intended to express that one way of knowing things is necessarily better; but that two people - one who only ever had a chance to stand next to the ocean in one spot but never sees a map vs. the person who was only ever allowed to study a map but will never stand next to the ocean - they would both know something of the ocean. It was about the experience of those two people... although it wasn't mentioned, it does necessarily assume that someone had the experience of mapping the coastline in person as well as creating the map to begin with, and likely they were working from the data or observations of people who had done so before them - I'd doubt any mapmaker in history has surveyed all of the shorelines of the world himself.

Now, again, we have to take this back to what I initially posited. "We can come to know God more through our reason, aided by our faith."

Without faith, one would work very hard to explain away the perceptions that people have had, the glimpses of the divine they have received through their senses - maybe not so much taste, but sight, touch, smell, hearing. Some claim to have seen visions of God or heard the voice of God. Some have experienced things in prayer or in life that they claim can only be described as a divine intervention. But WITH faith, these experiences start to tell us something about God, and would meet both of your "sense experience" of the subject. The miracles.

Certainly for Christians, we believe Jesus WAS God, so the sight, touch, smell, and hearing of the apostles and early Christians would definitely qualify based on your definition.

I would even go so far as to say that this isn't altogether different than how any of us know anything - all of the things we know are inherently based on our senses, which aren't necessarily perfect. Additionally plenty of what you and I "know" is based not on a complete understanding of anything, but what scientists or historians or whoever have pieced together for us, and although we, someday, may be able to experience it for ourselves - we may additionally never have the opportunity or the intellect to really do so. Can we pour over data collected from a particle collider and parse from the evidence the existence of quarks? Doubtful (at least I'm certain I wouldn't be able to) but that doesn't mean I would deny their existence. Sure, it's a lot easier, but it's not altogether that different.

fuckmekevinWhen I refered to gnosis I was alluding to the fact that an intuitive comprehension of spiritual truths can be experienced and attained whilst reading the Bible or other religious/philosophical texts.

Gotcha, and yes, I agree.

fuckmekevinI read the book 'Imitation of Christ', wondering if you've read it? It's a great read and sets principles on how one should live their life with the intention of humbling yourself so as to rid of pride. That alone can help to ease anxiety because for many people anxiety stems from pride. The book also talked about helping others through feeding, clothing, housing and health as well as to seek God and follow in Christs footsteps, for it says people can do greater acts than I.

I do love this book, and admittedly haven't finished it. It's great. He calls for a pretty radical form of living.

fuckmekevinNow in my understanding many Roman Catholics believe mediation to be evil by nature. I've had a few Catholics tell me that meditation opens up your mind to manipulation. Science tells me this is true regarding alpha and theta waves, where people can be more prone to hypnotism. Many also say it is an open doorway for any demon to infiltrate.

Now I do not in any way believe this, it doesn't make sense to me. Maybe they mean by demons, the material world which relentlessly bombards us and distracts us?

Most Catholics have a very limited understanding of the word "meditate," and additionally, the word "meditate" is used in a lot of very different contexts. USUALLY, these days, it references a religious practice that isn't Christian - so of course christians would warn against this.

If you're trying to sit and contemplate the mysteries of Jesus' life and teachings, if you're focused on God, that's one form of prayer that can be called "meditation". If you're meditating just to open yourself up to "whatever is out there in the spiritual world".... well, now you're opening yourself up to potentially dangerous things.

I think very few people would disagree that good and evil exist. It would make sense that in the spiritual realm, all is not inherently good just because it's something foreign to us; I would think people should assume the opposite - the fact it's not part of our everyday experience means that we should be MORE cautious. That's what the Church teaches.

Do you believe that everything spiritual is inherently good? Maybe you do; I would disagree.

Let's operate on the premise that there IS spiritual good and evil. Would you ever just be "open to anything" that anyone suggested in our temporal, physical world? Probably not; you've probably declined doing things in your life already you saw as not good. Why wouldn't you want to be more prudent about a world you're not as familiar with?

The Church teaches that the spiritual world is a reality, that Heaven and Hell are literal realities, and that anything not leading you towards Jesus and ultimately communion with God in Heaven is evil. So sure, that would include the world, but it would also include the meditation upon or the openness to other spirits.

fuckmekevinAnd yeah, you're most likely right although the Catholics could have altered the bible hundreds of years after the Council of Nicea. Though, they probably just chose what was canon. I just find it a little weird how the Holy See has all this money; massive staues of pine cones and biblical figures, it's odd to me. The Holy See also covered up pedophilia for quite sometime but I know the majority of Catholics are good hearted, holy people.

The books of the Bible that were formally considered biblical canon were formalized at various councils after Nicea (325 AD) and eventually effectively solidified at the Council of Rome in 382 and then by St. Gerome's Latin Vulgate Bible that he assembled in its entirety in 383. There have been numerous translations, and the deuterocanonical books have been indexed in different ways in different versions, but there's a lot of evidence that very little has actually changed in this amount of time.

The pine cone in question is probably that of Publius Cincius Salvius, before Christianity was legalized in the Roman empire and before the Vatican state existed; the pine cone was associated with the cult of Bacchus, symbolizing hedonism and fertility and was a very common motif in Roman decorative arts, which is carried over today (though it's lost it's symbolism.) Do a quick search on Etsy or Ebay for "antique pinecone finials" and you'll see what I mean; I've got several of them in my house. The one in the Vatican is kept around and preserved as a historical artifact, much like many of the old statuary in the museums - I believe the original fountain was somewhere on Vatican hill when it was first built.

In terms of wealth, that's a whole different question. Do you have time to listen to a presentation on architecture / particularly Church architecture? I promise it's interesting and entertaining - skip the intro by the priest. Here's some food for thought:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fATRPlx6eA

Additionally, here's some more - the idea of the Church for the poor:

https://aleteia.org/2014/09/15/how-to-design-a-church-for-the-poor/

We build Churches for their liturgical function and worship - it's meant for everyone, for people to understand these heavenly realities that then motivate them into action. It's often not viewed that way these days, which is a shame - but that is the intent.

Regards to the pedophilia - I don't think anyone in their right mind would deny that things regarding those scandals were handled terribly by many members of the curia. I don't have the knowledge or authority to say anything else about that; it's reprehensible stuff.

fuckmekevinI also wanted your opinion on why the Roman Catholics murdered all the Cathars during the Crusades. The cathars followed Christ closely and lived a monestary life. They even held women in high regard which was odd for the time.

This is super complex and I think requires a LOT of unpacking. I don't really have the time to get into it all, but here's a brief run-down. The Albigensian Crusade was also not a part of "The Crusades" of the middle east against the kingdoms of Islam.

1. One of the most important things to do when we look at history is not to view it in light of how we understand the world and society today. In those days, death was more just a fact of life, and juridicial action were WAY more aggressive than today. It was a different world, and that's important - however it's also important to remember immutable moral truths - one big one being "murder isn't OK".

2. The Cahars, more specifically known as the Albigensians, did NOT follow Christ closely. Their theology was entirely different than Christian theology, and was pretty clearly opposed to biblical principles. They rejected Christ as both human and God, they believed that earth itself was hell, that Satan was equally powerful as God and perhaps even that Satan himself was the "god of the old testament". Thus, sex was considered terrible because it imprisoned (good) souls in human bodies (which, you remember, they believed was hell). In extreme cases it encouraged suicide. Some of them denied themselves material goods to the point of starvation.

I think you can see why this would have been offensive and shocking to Christians who believed that the world we live in was inherently good albeit imperfect, but more disturbing to political figures of the time seeking to maintain social order.

3. Politics got involved fast. Pope Pius III promised seized land to those doing the seizing; who wouldn't take advantage of that (especially those who are non-religious, and looking for more wealth?) Additionally, like I said, nobility wanted to maintain social order and the quickest and easiest way to do that wasn't to argue them away with theology; it was to massacre them.

So, very basically, it's important to understand context - it makes more sense that something like that could happen, especially in this time. Of course, that being said, context doesn't make this RIGHT.

If you want to know more about when christians would say that war is morally acceptable, read about Just War Theory (find something that's more complete than a wikipedia summary if you can). I would argue that the Albigensian Crusade doesn't meet the requirements to begin with, and certainly the way it was conducted isn't aligned with Catholic teaching.

TWoodsGotcha, and yes, I agree.

I do love this book, and admittedly haven't finished it. It's great. He calls for a pretty radical form of living.


Most Catholics have a very limited understanding of the word "meditate," and additionally, the word "meditate" is used in a lot of very different contexts. USUALLY, these days, it references a religious practice that isn't Christian - so of course christians would warn against this.

If you're trying to sit and contemplate the mysteries of Jesus' life and teachings, if you're focused on God, that's one form of prayer that can be called "meditation". If you're meditating just to open yourself up to "whatever is out there in the spiritual world".... well, now you're opening yourself up to potentially dangerous things.

I think very few people would disagree that good and evil exist. It would make sense that in the spiritual realm, all is not inherently good just because it's something foreign to us; I would think people should assume the opposite - the fact it's not part of our everyday experience means that we should be MORE cautious. That's what the Church teaches.

Do you believe that everything spiritual is inherently good? Maybe you do; I would disagree.

Let's operate on the premise that there IS spiritual good and evil. Would you ever just be "open to anything" that anyone suggested in our temporal, physical world? Probably not; you've probably declined doing things in your life already you saw as not good. Why wouldn't you want to be more prudent about a world you're not as familiar with?

The Church teaches that the spiritual world is a reality, that Heaven and Hell are literal realities, and that anything not leading you towards Jesus and ultimately communion with God in Heaven is evil. So sure, that would include the world, but it would also include the meditation upon or the openness to other spirits.



The books of the Bible that were formally considered biblical canon were formalized at various councils after Nicea (325 AD) and eventually effectively solidified at the Council of Rome in 382 and then by St. Gerome's Latin Vulgate Bible that he assembled in its entirety in 383. There have been numerous translations, and the deuterocanonical books have been indexed in different ways in different versions, but there's a lot of evidence that very little has actually changed in this amount of time.

The pine cone in question is probably that of Publius Cincius Salvius, before Christianity was legalized in the Roman empire and before the Vatican state existed; the pine cone was associated with the cult of Bacchus, symbolizing hedonism and fertility and was a very common motif in Roman decorative arts, which is carried over today (though it's lost it's symbolism.) Do a quick search on Etsy or Ebay for "antique pinecone finials" and you'll see what I mean; I've got several of them in my house. The one in the Vatican is kept around and preserved as a historical artifact, much like many of the old statuary in the museums - I believe the original fountain was somewhere on Vatican hill when it was first built.

In terms of wealth, that's a whole different question. Do you have time to listen to a presentation on architecture / particularly Church architecture? I promise it's interesting and entertaining - skip the intro by the priest. Here's some food for thought:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fATRPlx6eA

Additionally, here's some more - the idea of the Church for the poor:

https://aleteia.org/2014/09/15/how-to-design-a-church-for-the-poor/

We build Churches for their liturgical function and worship - it's meant for everyone, for people to understand these heavenly realities that then motivate them into action. It's often not viewed that way these days, which is a shame - but that is the intent.

Regards to the pedophilia - I don't think anyone in their right mind would deny that things regarding those scandals were handled terribly by many members of the curia. I don't have the knowledge or authority to say anything else about that; it's reprehensible stuff.




This is super complex and I think requires a LOT of unpacking. I don't really have the time to get into it all, but here's a brief run-down. The Albigensian Crusade was also not a part of "The Crusades" of the middle east against the kingdoms of Islam.

1. One of the most important things to do when we look at history is not to view it in light of how we understand the world and society today. In those days, death was more just a fact of life, and juridicial action were WAY more aggressive than today. It was a different world, and that's important - however it's also important to remember immutable moral truths - one big one being "murder isn't OK".

2. The Cahars, more specifically known as the Albigensians, did NOT follow Christ closely. Their theology was entirely different than Christian theology, and was pretty clearly opposed to biblical principles. They rejected Christ as both human and God, they believed that earth itself was hell, that Satan was equally powerful as God and perhaps even that Satan himself was the "god of the old testament". Thus, sex was considered terrible because it imprisoned (good) souls in human bodies (which, you remember, they believed was hell). In extreme cases it encouraged suicide. Some of them denied themselves material goods to the point of starvation.

I think you can see why this would have been offensive and shocking to Christians who believed that the world we live in was inherently good albeit imperfect, but more disturbing to political figures of the time seeking to maintain social order.

3. Politics got involved fast. Pope Pius III promised seized land to those doing the seizing; who wouldn't take advantage of that (especially those who are non-religious, and looking for more wealth?) Additionally, like I said, nobility wanted to maintain social order and the quickest and easiest way to do that wasn't to argue them away with theology; it was to massacre them.

So, very basically, it's important to understand context - it makes more sense that something like that could happen, especially in this time. Of course, that being said, context doesn't make this RIGHT.

If you want to know more about when christians would say that war is morally acceptable, read about Just War Theory (find something that's more complete than a wikipedia summary if you can). I would argue that the Albigensian Crusade doesn't meet the requirements to begin with, and certainly the way it was conducted isn't aligned with Catholic teaching.

Although, as you've said the teachings of Cathars is in direct contraindiction to Catholicism their theology was essentially Gnostic in nature; believing in the duality between a good and evil God, who were both powerful. I do not see how one can preach that the cathars or vice versa were wrong in their principles and teaching? They did follow Christ through the act of ridding of the ego and self. And I find it hard to grasp how during the Cathar Wars, which was a genocide, the Catholics could murder women and children. This seems backwards to what they supposedly preach, is it not? And all because they were heretics? The Cathars never provoked them and it went so far as to use false pretexts as reason to attack them.

And do not Catholics teach or certain christian denominations that 'satan' is the king ir ruler of this physical world who has created the hate and suffering that exists? Doesn't Jesus teach to still your mind and to rid of material possessions? Seems like in direct opposition of the echelons of the holy see. Where as the Cathars seem more closely fitted in their actions.

"The benevolent god, on the other hand, was the one the Cathars worshipped and was responsible for the message of Jesus."

I mean the cathars closely followed and made every effort in molding their lives towards Christ. Maybe their faith was different in the way they precieved God but what gives anyone else the right to deem that faith heretical and even if so, what gives another religious institution the supposed 'god given right' to commit genocide?

The Cathars did not kill any man, held women in high regards and did not kill any living animal. Honestly, even if they may be gnostics, they seem to be followers of Christ, more so than the catholics who set out to murder women and children and to take their land.

As for meditation, I agree; although I can not grasp the spiritual realm because I have not seen with my own two eyes, nor has science proven it exists. Maybe it does in a different realm of existence but I can not say for a fact this ia true.

my family raised me catholic, had me in catholic school, went to church every so often, when i was 13 i chose to be baptized. then i read the bible, and it was the worst book i'd ever read, so i started looking into other religions and quickly became an anti-theist. that's probably around the time i joined NS. since then i've done enough drugs to put me more on the agnostic side of things. i just don't get into it anymore. if there is a hell, i'm going. if i have bad karma, i'm working on it. but those probably don't exist. at this point i'm going with the evidence, which points to simulation theory. which explains a lot, for me anyways.

k-robmy family raised me catholic, had me in catholic school, went to church every so often, when i was 13 i chose to be baptized. then i read the bible, and it was the worst book i'd ever read, so i started looking into other religions and quickly became an anti-theist. that's probably around the time i joined NS. since then i've done enough drugs to put me more on the agnostic side of things. i just don't get into it anymore. if there is a hell, i'm going. if i have bad karma, i'm working on it. but those probably don't exist. at this point i'm going with the evidence, which points to simulation theory. which explains a lot, for me anyways.

At what age did you read the Bible and decide that it was the worst book you had ever read?

I have come to decide that no matter what you believe it comes down to faith nothing on this world is 100% a theory isn't 100% nor is a religion, that being said I would rather put my faith in a supreme being and thus I have decided to be Christian but a good Christian I am not haha

After reading more of these comments, I think everyone should do what makes them happy first but I think before anyone can jump to conclusions you should at least dip your feet In the water experiment and if it isn't your thing that's totally fine and we are all individuals but personally I really do love Christianity because it stretches my brain and makes me think, in my church it isn't a place where we turn to page 572 and sing a hymn but where I go we ask each other questions and try and find an answer even though often times there isn't one.