|
Posted on 12/23/2004 8:37:38 AM PST by NYer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Catholic League is the nation's largest Catholic civil rights organization. It defends individual Catholics and the institutional Church from defamation and discrimination. |
|
|
|
|
The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...
Most of your beliefs are based on testimony from others. Christians do the same. Who is your mother ? You know who she is based on testimony.
What is your authority for believing in 6 of the 10 commandments? That is, on what basis do you evaluate them?
Why do you even give any of the commandments credence or value?
Why do you care about "coming together in society?" Either way, I assume you believe this is a virtuous occurrence. So where do virtues come from? How many are there? What are they in the first place?
By the way, if you reread your post to me, you'll see that you did refer to my ideas as ridiculous. (unless I was confused by another poster, in which case I apologize)
I hope you can see that you are simply talking around the issue of what you belief fundamentally.
That's what I figured, since the Consitution is surprisingly silent on God and Religion.
The creationism or intelligent design debate will have to wait for another day. Time to go home and visit the parents.
Don't you find moralizing atheism a bit ironic?
What's a "real problem"?
The purpose of life is to know, love and serve God in this life, and to be happy forever with Him in the next. Therefore, the removal of "under God" from the pledge of allegience is a very significant problem, perhaps more so than the other issues that you have raised. But you've proposed a false dichotomy. It's not necessary to choose one or the other.
And their favorite holiday movie will be "Coincidence on 34th Street."
Doesn't imply that it is the one true religion. And there is still question if it really happened at all.
Could you show me where the clause is on the Seperation of Church and State I keep hearing the seculars rail about? :)
I hereby ordain you with a splash of virtual holy water.
Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, PT. 1
Handlin 442--48
Part the First. A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Art. I.--All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.
II.--It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons, to worship the SUPREME BEING, the great creator and preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping GOD in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession or sentiments; provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship.
III.--As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the public worship of GOD, and of public instructions in piety, religion and morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this Commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies-politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of GOD, and for the support and maintenance of public protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.
Do you believe that it snows in Siberia?
If so, why? Unless you have been to Siberia, how can you know?
Do you believe in atoms? Why?
But, you know what, as a Christian, I also believe in reality and what is. Jesus lived and died on this earth, and was reprted by hundreds of eyewitnesses to have risen from the dead. You may chose to not believe their accounts, but then you should also not wander too far from your neighborhood, because I shold think you would be afraid of falling off the earth.
I say this not to be insulting or unfriendly, but to point out that your simple encapsulation of atheism is quite problematic.
You should probably think about getting together with other self-professed atheists and working up some doctrine for atheism. Do you see my point?
Its a start. It is one heck of a calling card. It sure gets my attention.
And there is still question if it really happened at all.
True enough. Examine the witness statements. Examine the prophecies that came true(about 500 of them). Examine the testimony of current and past Christians regarding how their lives were changed. Some will conclude OJ was innocent and some guilty.
Her Newfie is off- the correct pronunciation is "Cheeses is Lard". The normal usage is "Lard tunderin cheeses!"
The Uniqueness of Christianity
by Peter KreeftRonald Knox once quipped that "the study of comparative religions is the best way to become comparatively religious." The reason, as G. K. Chesterton says, is that, according to most "scholars" of comparative religion, "Christianity and Buddhism are very much alike, especially Buddhism."
But any Christian who does apologetics must think about comparative religions because the most popular of all objections against the claims of Christianity today comes from this field. The objection is not that Christianity is not true but that it is not the truth; not that it is a false religion but that it is only a religion. The world is a big place, the objector reasons; "different strokes for different folks". How insufferably narrow-minded to claim that Christianity is the one true religion! Godjust has to be more open-minded than that.
This is the single most common objection to the Faith today, for "today" worships not God but equality. It fears being right where others are wrong more than it fears being wrong. It worships democracy and resents the fact that God is an absolute monarch. It has changed the meaning of the word honor from being respected because you are superior in some way to being accepted because you are not superior in any way but just like us. The one unanswerable insult, the absolutely worst name you can possibly call a person in today's society, is "fanatic", especially "religious fanatic". If you confess at a fashionable cocktail party that you are plotting to overthrow the government, or that you are a PLO terrorist or a KGB spy, or that you molest porcupines or bite bats' heads off, you will soon attract a buzzing, fascinated, sympathetic circle of listeners. But if you confess that you believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, you will find yourself suddenly alone, with a distinct chill in the air.
Here are twelve of the commonest forms of this objection, the odium of elitism, with answers to each.
1. "All religions are the same, deep down."
That is simply factually untrue. No one ever makes this claim unless he is (1) abysmally ignorant of what the different religions of the world actually teach or (2) intellectually irresponsible in understanding these teachings in the vaguest and woolliest way or (3) morally irresponsible in being indifferent to them. The objector's implicit assumption is that the distinctive teachings of the world's religions are unimportant, that the essential business of religion is not truth but something else: transformation of consciousness or sharing and caring or culture and comfort or something of that sort—not conversion but conversation. Christianity teaches many things no other religion teaches, and some of them directly contradict those others. If Christianity isn't true, why be a Christian?
By Catholic standards, the religions of the world can be ranked by how much truth they teach.
Catholicism is first, with Orthodoxy equal except for the one issue of papal authority.
Then comes Protestantism and any "separated brethren" who keep the Christian essentials as found in Scripture.
Third comes traditional Judaism, which worships the same God but not via Christ.
Fourth is Islam, greatest of the theistic heresies.
Fifth, Hinduism, a mystical pantheism;
Sixth, Buddhism, a pantheism without a theos;
Seventh, modern Judaism, Unitarianism, Confucianism, Modernism, and secular humanism, none of which have either mysticism or supernatural religion but only ethics;
Eighth, idolarity; and
Ninth, Satanism. To collapse these nine levels is like thinking the earth is flat.
2. "But the essence of religion is the same at any rate: all religions agree at least in being religious."
What is this essence of religion anyway? I challenge anyone to define it broadly enough to include Confucianism, Buddhism, and modern Reform Judaism but narrowly enough to exclude Platonism, atheistic Marxism, and Nazism.
The unproved and unprovable assumption of this second objection is that the essence of religion is a kind of lowest common denominator or common factor. Perhaps the common factor is a weak and watery thing rather than an essential thing. Perhaps it does not exist at all. No one has ever produced it.
3. "But if you compare the Sermon on the Mount, Buddha's Dhammapada, Lao-tzu's Tao-te-ching, Confucius' Analects, the Bhagavad Gita, the Proverbs of Solomon, and the Dialogues of Plato, you willfind it: a real, profound, and strong agreement."
Yes, but this is ethics, not religion. The objector is assuming that the essence of religion is ethics. It is not. Everyone has an ethic, not everyone has a religion. Tell an atheist that ethics equals religion. He will be rightly insulted, for you would be calling him either religious if he is ethical, or unethical because he is nonreligious. Ethics maybe the first step in religion but it is not the last. As C.S. Lewis says, "The road to the Promised Land runs past Mount Sinai."
4. "Speaking of mountains reminds me of my favorite analogy. Many roads lead up the single mountain of religion to God at the top. It is provincial, narrow-minded, and blind to deny the validity of other roads than yours."
The unproved assumption of this very common mountain analogy is that the roads go up, not down; that man makes the roads, not God; that religion is man's search for God, not God's search for man. C. S. Lewis says this sounds like "the mouse's search for the cat".
Christianity is not a system of man's search for God but a story of God's search for man. True religion is not like a cloud of incense wafting up from special spirits into the nostrils of a waiting God, but like a Father's hand thrust downward to rescue the fallen. Throughout the Bible, man-made religion fails. There is no human way up the mountain, only a divine way down. "No man has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known."
If we made the roads, it would indeed be arrogant to claim that any one road is the only valid one, for all human things are equal, at least in all being human, finite, and mixtures of good and bad. If we made the roads, it would be as stupid to absolutize one of them as to absolutize one art form, one political system, or one way of skinning a cat. But if God made the road, we must find out whether he made many or one. If he made only one, then the shoe is on the other foot: it is humility, not arrogance, to accept this one road from God, and it is arrogance, not humility, to insist that our manmade roads are as good as God's God-made one.
But which assumption is true? Even if the pluralistic one is true, not all religions are equal, for then one religion is worse and more arrogant than all others, for it centers on one who claimed, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no man can come to the Father but by me."
5. "Still, it fosters religious imperialism to insist that your way is the only way. You're on a power trip."
No, we believe it not because we want to, because we are imperialistic, or because we invented it, but because Christ taught it. It isn't our way, it's his way, that's the only way. We're just being faithful to him and to what he said. The objector's assumption is that we can make religion whatever we want it to
6. "If the one-way doctrine comes from Christ, not from you, then he must have been arrogant."
How ironic to think Jesus is arrogant! No sin excited his anger more than the arrogance and bigotry of religious leaders. No man was ever more merciful, meek, loving, and compassionate.
The objector is always assuming the thing to be proved: that Christ is just one among many religious founders, human teachers. But he claimed to be the Way, the Truth, and the Life; if that claim is not true, he is not one among many religious sages but one among many lunatics. If the claim is true, then again he is not one among many religious sages, but the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
7. "Do you want to revive the Inquisition? Don't you value religious tolerance? Do you object to giving other religions equal rights?"
The Inquisition failed to distinguish the heresy from the heretic and tried to eliminate both by force or fire. The objector makes the same mistake in reverse: he refuses to condemn either. The state has no business defining and condemning heresy, of course, but the believer must do it-if not through the Church, then by himself. For to believe x is to condemn non-x as false. If you don't believe non-x is false, then you don't really believe x is true.
8. "I'm surprised at this intolerance. I thought Christianity was the religion of love."
It is. It is also the religion of truth. The objector is separating two divine attributes. We are not. We are "speaking the truth in love".
9. "But all God expects of us is sincerity."
How do you know what God expects of us? Have you listened to God's revelation? Isn't it dangerous to assume without question or doubt that God must do exactly what you would do if you were God? Suppose sincerity were not enough; suppose truth was needed too. Is that unthinkable? In every other area of life we need truth. Is sincerity enough for a surgeon? An explorer? Don't we need accurate road maps of reality?
The objector's implicit assumption here is that there is no objective truth in religion, only subjective sincerity, so that no one can ever be both sincere and wrong; that the spirit does not have objective roads like the body and the mind, which lead to distinct destinations: the body's physical roads lead to different cities and the mind's logical roads lead to different conclusions. True sincerity wants to know the truth.
10. "Are non-Christians all damned then?"
No. Father Feeny was excommunicated by the Catholic Church for teaching that "outside the Church, no salvation" meant outside the visible Church. God does not punish pagans unjustly. He does not punish them for not believing in a Jesus they never heard of, through no fault of their own (invincible ignorance). But God, who is just, punishes them for sinning against the God they do know through nature and conscience (see Rom 1-2). There are no innocent pagans, and there are no innocent Christians either. All have sinned against God and against conscience. All need a Savior. Christ is the Savior.
11. "But surely there's a little good in the worst of us anda little bad in the best of us. There's good and bad everywhere, inside the Church and outside."
True. What follows from that fact? That we need no Savior? That there are many Saviors? That contradictory religions can all be true? That none is true? None of these implied conclusions has the remotest logical connection with the admitted premise.
There is a little good in the worst of us, but there's also a little bad in the best of us; more, there's sin, separation from God, in all of us; and the best of us, the saints, are the first to admit it. The universal sin Saint Paul pinpoints in Romans 1:18 is to suppress the truth. We all sin against the truth we know and refuse it when it condemns us or threatens our self-sufficiency or complacency. We all rationalize. Our duty is plain to us—to be totally honest—and none of us does his duty perfectly. We have no excuse of invincible ignorance.
12. "But isn't God unjust to judge the whole world by Christian standards?"
God judges justly. "All who sinned without [knowing] the [Mosaic] law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law" (Rom 2:12). Even pagans show "that what the law requires is written on their hearts" (Rom 2:15). If we honestly consult our hearts, we will find two truths: that we know what we ought to do and be, and that we fail to do and be that.
Fundamentalists, faithful to the clear one-way teaching of Christ, often conclude from this that pagans, Buddhists, et cetera, cannot be saved. Liberals, who emphasize God's mercy, cannot bring themselves to believe that the mass of men are doomed to hell, and they ignore, deny, nuance, or water down Christ's own claims to uniqueness. The Church has found a third way, implied in the New Testament texts. On the one hand, no one can be saved except through Christ. On the other hand, Christ is not only the incarnate Jewish man but also the eternal, preexistent word of God, "which enlightens every man who comes into the world" (Jn 1:9). So Socrates was able to know Christ as word of God, as eternal Truth; and if the fundamental option of his deepest heart was to reach out to him as Truth, in faith and hope and love, however imperfectly known this Christ was to Socrates, Socrates could have been saved by Christ too. We are not saved by knowledge but by faith. Scripture nowhere says how explicit the intellectual content of faith has to be. But it does clearly say who the one Savior is.
The Second Vatican Council took a position on comparative religions that distinguished Catholicism from both Modernist relativism and Fundamentalist exclusivism. It taught that on the one hand there is much deep wisdom and value in other religions and that the Christian should respect them and learn from them. But, on the other hand, the claims of Christ and his Church can never be lessened, compromised, or relativized. We may add to our religious education by studying other religions but never subtract from it.
If I may add to your point about OJ, whether I believe he was or not, the fact is that he eiher IS guilty or IS NOT guilty. In other words, there is a truth about his case that is out there to be known.
The same is true about Jesus, and I simply submit that you ignore it at your peril. The entity in peril is your eternal soul. You may choose not to believe me, but at least prove me wrong by investigating for yourself. Otherwise, you may be in danger of giving up a very profound gift simply because you listened to Carl Sagan or Margaret Sanger or Jay Gould or Alec Baldwin, for heaven's sake (pun intended)!
By the way, all of them, except Baldwin now know the Truth. Are you really that much of a gambler?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
