Catholic FAQ


Help support Catholic Answers!

Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #1  
Old May 18, '12, 11:36 am
savedbygrace92 savedbygrace92 is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2011
Posts: 14
Religion: Catholic
Default How Do You Respond To This Argument?

So it's pretty long and it made me think for a long time. I thought it was actually well-written and the author made some good points, but I don't know how to respond to it. What are your guys' thoughts?

The actual posting was too long to include in one huge post so I'll post the rest of it afterwards.

Here it is:

Why I Think Christianity Is Flawed

Origina Sin

This is my biggest theological beef with Christianity and other religions that have original sin. This concept has been used as justification to murder children and infants, and used as justification for the Holocaust, yet most mainstream Christian denominations still practice it and believe in it- the idea that humans are born sinful beings. The idea that a newborn child is somehow sinful. What sin could a newborn baby possibly commit? Newborns are not yet moral beings, and I do not believe one can sin if you have no concept of right or wrong.

When we read Hitler's writings, and see how he says Jews are innately bad people simply because they were born, we are utterly disgusted. Yet, when the Bible says we are innately sinful people simply because we were born, it's celebrated as divine? That makes no sense to me, and I really hope that neo-Christian traditions continue to migrate away from this tradition, because it's immoral and dangerous.

War with Science

Christianity has a dark and oppressive track record with science, that is sadly extending into the future. Gregor Mendel had his ground breaking genetics work burned by Christian authorities. People were burned at the stake for accepting the heliocentric model of the world by Christians. Charles Darwin was ostracized during his time, and religious groups still try to keep natural selection and evolution from being taught in school. My university did an experiment where you could literally see evolution on a micro scale with bacteria, right before your eyes, and three religious students sat the lab out and took a zero. I've heard religious groups argue that somehow the entire scientific community is in cahoots and evolution is a global conspiracy, but when you can literally SEE it yourself, and TEST it yourself, and you sit out, that's blatant denial, and provides a prime example of Christianity hindering science.

No doubt, if I ended this segment here, someone would comment about how those events are in the past, and Christianity no longer opposes science. On the contrary, Christianity has gotten bolder and more involved in oppressing science. Life saving stem cell research is opposed almost exclusively by the religious community. Any evidence that links sexuality and gender to be naturally occurring concepts and not choices is dismissed as heretical. In fact, Christians have gone so far as to create a dangerous psuedo-science called "Ex-Gay therapy" to torture homosexuals and make them hate themselves. Some Christian denominations, albeit smaller groups, deny their children modern medical care in favor of faith healing. Thankfully the legal system steps in and punishes those people, but it's unfortunate that religion is used as a justification for child abuse in the first place.

On a different note, the Bibe is riddled with scientific inaccuracies. For Christians who believe the BIble to be literal and the absolute word of God, this creates huge red flags. Some of these red flags include the biblical dating practices that indicate the world is 6000 years old, as opposed to the millions of years old carbon dating and other half-life studies show us. The sky is depicted to be a solid shield in the Bible, clearly inaccurate as a we know our atmosphere is made of gases. The creation story (well, one of them...) states the Earth was made before the Sun.

1 Kings 7:23 has my favorite scientific inaccuracy, because it's so freaking weird. It describes the dimensions of a circle... but when you use mathematical formulas (C=piR^2) it's not a circle at all. Things like this- thing so simple to us today- prove you cannot take the Bible to be literal or even historically accurate in most cases, but now I'm starting to drift back towards scriptural formation.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old May 18, '12, 11:37 am
savedbygrace92 savedbygrace92 is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2011
Posts: 14
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: How Do You Respond To This Argument?

More arguments mentioned:


Scriptural Formation

The glamorized ideas about philosophical men inspired by God writing the Bible are inaccurate. This is one problem with Judaism and Christianity that is irreconcilable, and I think churches mislead their followers by not explaining the nature of authorship in ancient Israel.

When we think of authorship, we think of a polished, edited book with a named author listed. It did not work like that in ancient Israel. For one thing, paper was expensive. In fact, they wrote on lengthy scrolls that were VERY expensive. And, the person who literally did the writing was not the original creator of the content- it was a scribe, sometimes doing their best to write down a story that was only transmitted verbally. When stories are oral traditions, they change. They become distorted and many versions, sometimes contradictory, are passed along. You can see many examples of this in the Bible, but I think an example most people are familiar with would be the creation stories in Genesis. There are two accounts, that present completely different time lines and orders, and if you read them- they have completely different tones and moods. Some Christians will produce outrageous stories to try and reconcile these two accounts, but you cannot. The scrolls I mentioned before were ALWAYS filled- it was too expensive to leave part of a scroll blank when a story was finished, so they just started a new one. In relation to the creation story, this probably means that the first creation story with Genesis was written incompletely on a scroll. The second creation story is very complete, which means it existed intact on one scroll. Yet they both end up in the Bible because there is NO way to ascertain which story is accurate, or which is inspired by God, if you follow the Christian faith.

There are other examples of this in the Bible, but perhaps a lesser known one are the sister-wife stories. There are three separate stories in the Bible where someone moves to a foreign land, and lies and says his wife is his sister to protect himself and her. Two of the stories are about Abraham, and one is about Isaiah. This is a huge discrepancy, and shows how even the main protagonist of a story can be lost in translation. In one story, a Pharaoh is the villain. In the other two, the leader of Gerar, Abimelech, is the villain. In one story, God confronts the Pharaoh about the conflict, so Abraham and Sarah can be happily married, and the Pharaoh won't commit adultery unknowingly. In the other two stories, God punishes Abimelech with plagues even though Abraham/Isaiah are the ones who lies and caused the trouble. These three stories have very different morals, and once again, it's impossible to know what the original story is. In fact, its most likely that none of these are "originals" and all contain distortions, not because anyone was corrupt or out to ruin the Bible, but simply because authorship and writing technology were not advanced enough to maintain a story.

On a shorter note- you can see other effects of writing on scrolls in the Bible when you simply flip through it, because there is no chronology or transitions between stories. It was simply compiling scrolls, and scribes were not divine beings, and they did not create the stories. Therefore, I do not believe that you can call the Bible the word of God with historical accuracy. My Old Testament professor, who happens to hold a doctoral degree in Hebrew Studies and is an ordained minister, agrees. His class was probably the most interesting religious class I've taken in college, because he speaks Hebrew and would read us scrolls and talk about the problems with translation- another huge issue with scriptural formation.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old May 18, '12, 11:38 am
savedbygrace92 savedbygrace92 is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2011
Posts: 14
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: How Do You Respond To This Argument?

Civil Rights

There is a belief by most Christians that the Old Testament is full of bad things, but Jesus changed everything with the New Testament. Now, I could pull out horrible sexist and racist quotes from Deuteronomy all day, but instead I'll focus on the New Testament, to dispel this myth that it's not like the Old Testament. I will say this though first- Christians still hold the Old Testament as sacred and the word of God. God murders people in the Old Testament. He encourages armies to slaughter villages simply because they're foreigners. He ordered Jews to enslave foreigners As far as I'm concerned, if you hold the Old Testament sacred and holy, you condone the behavior within it. You can't call something divine and the word of God while saying it's wrong at the same time.

As a woman, sexism in the New Testament offends me. It offends me that people consider the oppression of women holy and sacred. Most sexist ideas in the New Testament come from Paul, and boy does he have a lot of them. This is an idea carried from the Old Testament into the New Testament, showing theologically, it was still accepted by Jesus:

"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve."
1 Timothy 2:11-13

First, I will point out that almost no modern Christians follow this. Most evangelists are women, and women are permitted to speak and sing in Church. Yet, the Bible still holds this hateful rhetoric to be sacred and good. I'll also note that any woman who says she follows a literal version of the Bible is ill-informed, because based on this quote, she is not worthy enough to even discuss religion.

"And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
But women will be saved through childbearing - if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety."
1 Timothy 2:14-15

I'm not sure which account of creation Paul read, but you can see plain as day that Adam and Eve BOTH disobeyed God and they BOTH consumed forbidden fruit. Yet, Paul wants to criminalize the woman and make her a second class person.

I probably shouldn't pick on Paul alone, because in 1 Peter 3:1-7, Peter goes on about why women are the inferior vessel and must submit fully to their husbands. In Luke 2:22, the idea that women are impure after giving birth is introduced, which still plagues women today in underdeveloped parts of the world who are not allowed to seek medical treatment until they are "pure" again. To attack child birth is the ultimate attack against women, if even our biological functions outside of our control are sinful. Interestingly enough, Luke is talking about the freaking Virgin Mary in that passage. If giving birth to the Son of God makes a woman impure, ladies, we're all doomed.

Allegedly, Jesus also threatens to kill women and their children, but this quote is from the book of Revelations, and I find it to be illogical that this book was ever canonized because it's history and the time it was written is so questionable.

"I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling. 22 So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. 23 I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds."

Racism and discrimination also runs rampent in both the Old and New Testament. Galatians provides a key example:

"Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. At that time the son born in the ordinary way persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. But what does the Scripture say? 'Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son.' Therefore, brothers, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman."
Galatians 4:28-31

If being a woman wasn't bad enough, being a slave woman is even worse, and if you happened to be born to a slave, you're a deplorable person automatically. I don't understand how any tolerant and loving person can hold such hateful verses as sacred.

Jesus even says he was only sent to minister to Israelites, and this furthers the idea from the Old Testament that other races or ethnicities are inferior.

A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession.” Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.” He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”
Matthew 15

Jesus does end up helping the woman ironically, only after his disciplines urge him to and the woman has groveled and begged because she's not an Israelite.

And of course, I could not write this section without mentioning homosexuality... or any type of sexuality that isn't heterosexuality, for that matter. This is the oddest issue with Christianity to me, because while there is rampant racism and sexism, most don't consider it as a pillar of their religion, yet homosexuality is mentioned so sparingly, and so many Christians are enraged about it.

"...at the beginning, the Creator 'made them male and female' and said 'For this reason man will leave his father and mother, and be united with his wife; and the two will become one flesh.'"
Matthew 19:4-5:

To me, this verse seems innocent enough. It doesn't exactly condem homosexuality, but celebrates marriage. Yet this verse is used as justification for why gay people cannot get married.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old May 18, '12, 11:38 am
savedbygrace92 savedbygrace92 is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2011
Posts: 14
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: How Do You Respond To This Argument?

Civil Rights Continued (last post, I promise)

"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."
Romans 1:26-27

This verse is more hateful, but when you look at the historical context of the verse, it was meant to condemn the acts of a particular group and place more so than homosexuals. Yet, this verse is ammunition against Gay rights today and used to oppress people.

No doubt, in response to this, someone will say they are a loving and tolerant Christian, and I won't argue with you. There are many loving and tolerant Christians, but the fact of the matter is you still hold this hateful literature to be sacred, and the organization you are apart of has oppressed people. Your love and tolerance doesn't nullify that, and there are still plenty of Christians who are not tolerant of Gay people, and they are successfully banning gay marriage and limiting gay rights.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old May 18, '12, 12:49 pm
ahs's Avatar
ahs ahs is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: July 13, 2011
Posts: 2,747
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: How Do You Respond To This Argument?

Quote:
Originally Posted by savedbygrace92 View Post
This is my biggest theological beef with Christianity and other religions that have original sin. This concept has been used as justification to murder children and infants, and used as justification for the Holocaust...
Blind accusation with no factual basis.

Quote:
Originally Posted by savedbygrace92 View Post
...yet most mainstream Christian denominations still practice it and believe in it- the idea that humans are born sinful beings. The idea that a newborn child is somehow sinful. What sin could a newborn baby possibly commit...
This is a misunderstanding of "actual sin" vs. "original sin". The author would benefit from studying this topic.



Quote:
When we read Hitler's writings, and see how he says Jews are innately bad people simply because they were born, we are utterly disgusted. Yet, when the Bible says we are innately sinful people simply because we were born, it's celebrated as divine? That makes no sense to me, and I really hope that neo-Christian traditions continue to migrate away from this tradition, because it's immoral and dangerous...
No, Hitler did not say Jews were bad because they were "born". He hated Jews because they were "Jews". Again, a misunderstanding or lack or recognition between actual and original sin.

Quote:
War with Science

Christianity has a dark and oppressive track record with science, that is sadly extending into the future. Gregor Mendel had his ground breaking genetics work burned by Christian authorities. People were burned at the stake for accepting the heliocentric model of the world by Christians. Charles Darwin was ostracized during his time, and religious groups still try to keep natural selection and evolution from being taught in school. My university did an experiment where you could literally see evolution on a micro scale with bacteria, right before your eyes, and three religious students sat the lab out and took a zero. I've heard religious groups argue that somehow the entire scientific community is in cahoots and evolution is a global conspiracy, but when you can literally SEE it yourself, and TEST it yourself, and you sit out, that's blatant denial, and provides a prime example of Christianity hindering science.
Um...what's that got to do with Christianity or how it would be flawed? Seems more personal-opinion based than anything.

Quote:
...Life saving stem cell research is opposed almost exclusively by the religious community.
The author does not understand the reason WHY its opposed...can't justify an evil just because it can be used for a "good".

Quote:
Any evidence that links sexuality and gender to be naturally occurring concepts and not choices is dismissed as heretical. In fact, Christians have gone so far as to create a dangerous psuedo-science called "Ex-Gay therapy" to torture homosexuals and make them hate themselves. Some Christian denominations, albeit smaller groups, deny their children modern medical care in favor of faith healing. Thankfully the legal system steps in and punishes those people, but it's unfortunate that religion is used as a justification for child abuse in the first place.
Opinions based on non-fact and/or a misunderstanding of the Natural Moral Law and the Christian teaching to hate teh sin, love the sinner, fraternal correction, witness to the Truth , etc...

Quote:
On a different note, the Bibe is riddled with scientific inaccuracies. For Christians who believe the BIble to be literal and the absolute word of God, this creates huge red flags. Some of these red flags include the biblical dating practices that indicate the world is 6000 years old, as opposed to the millions of years old carbon dating and other half-life studies show us. The sky is depicted to be a solid shield in the Bible, clearly inaccurate as a we know our atmosphere is made of gases. The creation story (well, one of them...) states the Earth was made before the Sun.
...the point being? There is nothing to suggest that Christians (not all anyway) interpret the Bible literally in every word or story. There is also nothing to sugggest that evolution is incompatible with Creation. We simply don't know...and, in my humble opinion, it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things.

Quote:
1 Kings 7:23 has my favorite scientific inaccuracy, because it's so freaking weird. It describes the dimensions of a circle... but when you use mathematical formulas (C=piR^2) it's not a circle at all. Things like this- thing so simple to us today- prove you cannot take the Bible to be literal or even historically accurate in most cases, but now I'm starting to drift back towards scriptural formation.
I don't see why this would be a factor unless a person were convinced that every word or event in Scripture is to be taken literally. All things must be understood in the context of the Scriptures as a whole.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old May 18, '12, 12:56 pm
ahs's Avatar
ahs ahs is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: July 13, 2011
Posts: 2,747
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: How Do You Respond To This Argument?

Quote:
Originally Posted by savedbygrace92 View Post
More arguments mentioned:


Scriptural Formation

The glamorized ideas about philosophical men inspired by God writing the Bible are inaccurate. This is one problem with Judaism and Christianity that is irreconcilable, and I think churches mislead their followers by not explaining the nature of authorship in ancient Israel...
He goes on to give examples of what he sees as irreconcilable inaccuracies but fails to provide the references to the appropriate verses/books/etc... His whole view is based on his own opinion of what Scripture is supposed to be.

He does have one point that I agree with...in the end, it boils down to Faith.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old May 18, '12, 1:03 pm
itullian itullian is offline
Banned
Greeter
Prayer Warrior
Forum Supporter
Book Club Member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2012
Posts: 9,823
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: How Do You Respond To This Argument?

let the op post these gripes seperately like the rules say.

sheeeeeesh.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old May 18, '12, 1:21 pm
ahs's Avatar
ahs ahs is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: July 13, 2011
Posts: 2,747
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: How Do You Respond To This Argument?

Here I stand corrected...the author is a "she", not a "he"...

Quote:
Originally Posted by savedbygrace92 View Post
Civil Rights

There is a belief by most Christians that the Old Testament is full of bad things, but Jesus changed everything with the New Testament.
Misunderstanding of Christian belief. Christ did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. If the author had ever actually read the Scriptures in the depth she seems to claim, she'd have seen that in Christ's own words.

{QUOTE]Now, I could pull out horrible sexist and racist quotes from Deuteronomy all day,[/quote]

If an accusation is going to be made, then let's see the references...otherwise why mention them?

Quote:
...but instead I'll focus on the New Testament, to dispel this myth that it's not like the Old Testament. I will say this though first- Christians still hold the Old Testament as sacred and the word of God. God murders people in the Old Testament. He encourages armies to slaughter villages ....
A failure to recognize that God, as the Creator, has the right to do as He pleases to His "creation". WE are not to kill, etc...God can do as He pleases because it is His to do with as He pleases.

Quote:
As a woman, sexism in the New Testament offends me. ..."A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve."
1 Timothy 2:11-13
...context...

Quote:
First, I will point out that almost no modern Christians follow this. Most evangelists are women, and women are permitted to speak and sing in Church....
...moot point...

Quote:
...Yet, the Bible still holds this hateful rhetoric ...
...any discussion on how this is "hateful rhetoric...or is this just a matter of one person's opnion?

[QUOTE... Yet, Paul wants to criminalize the woman...[/quote]

How so? How is acknowledging the sin that a person comitted a "criminaliz[ing]" of women?

Quote:
and make her a second class person....
I don't recall Paul's words suggesting this...mere speculation at best.

Quote:
...Peter goes on about why women are the inferior vessel and must submit fully to their husbands. In Luke 2:22, the idea that women are impure after giving birth is introduced, ...
...context...

Quote:
Allegedly, Jesus also threatens to kill women and their children, but this quote is from the book of Revelations...
...context...and failure to recognize that this MIGHT not be a literal "woman" or actual "women" being discussed...

Quote:
Racism and discrimination ...
How is this racism and discrimination? ...context...I'm beginning to think this person could greatly benefit from a Bible study course...

Quote:
...Jesus even says he was only sent to minister to Israelites, ...
...again context...but what of it? Who are we to demand that God come for everyone and not a specific group of people? We have no say in the matter. Regardless, as is pointed out, Jesus DOES help and this was not by accident or only by the pleading of His Disciples...Scripture must be understood in the context of the whole of Scripture under the guidance of the proper Authority He placed to ensure the spreading of the Faith to "all nations".

Quote:
And of course, I could not write this section without mentioning homosexuality... or any type of sexuality that isn't heterosexuality, for that matter.
Partially correct, but a lot is lacking here. A quick reference will show a clear message in the Scriptures that fertility is a blessing, barren-ness seen as a curse, sterile sex is condemned, etc... The author shows a lack of understanding Natural Moral Law...no knowledge of the ends of marriage and the marriage act...
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old May 18, '12, 1:27 pm
ahs's Avatar
ahs ahs is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: July 13, 2011
Posts: 2,747
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: How Do You Respond To This Argument?

I guess the short version of a response would be [to the author]..."instead of subjecting Christianity to your personal opinion about how things should be and assuming that what you think Chrisianty is, is true Christianity...do a little research."

I don't think the author made any good points at all and is completely uninformed about the Scriptures. As mentioned above...it'd be best to list the individual topics in separate threads so they can get the attention they deserve.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old May 18, '12, 1:44 pm
EricFilmer's Avatar
EricFilmer EricFilmer is offline
Regular Member
Prayer Warrior
Book Club Member
 
Join Date: May 10, 2010
Posts: 3,209
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: How Do You Respond To This Argument?

This is really too much information to go through in a single thread. Therefore, I will simply touch upon the criticisms of the Doctrine of Original Sin.


Quote:
Originally Posted by savedbygrace92 View Post
This concept has been used as justification to murder children and infants
To those who makes such a claim, I challenge them to provide the name of one child who was killed in a situation where the killer cited Original Sin when justifying this action. Naturally, credible documentation should be provided by someone attempting to answer my challenge.


Quote:
...and used as justification for the Holocaust...
To those who make such a claim, I challenge them to provide a quote from a credible historical source showing that the idea of Original Sin had anything whatsoever to do with the Nazi's motivation for murdering Jews (and others deemed to be undesirable).


Quote:
...yet most mainstream Christian denominations still practice it and believe in it- the idea that humans are born sinful beings.
This is a bad rationality for abandoning a doctrine. Even if certain people have cited Original Sin as a justification for doing evil, that does not mean that people should stop believing in it. Objectively speaking, the only valid reason for rejecting a teaching is because it is not true, not because people may abuse it.


Quote:
The idea that a newborn child is somehow sinful. What sin could a newborn baby possibly commit? Newborns are not yet moral beings, and I do not believe one can sin if you have no concept of right or wrong.
Here the author shows that, whereas he has decided to write an entire article criticizing the Doctrine of Original Sin, he has not bothered to learn what the doctrine actually teaches! The only people who "committed" Original Sin were Adam and Eve. Everyone else acquires it. Think of this sort of thing in the physical order: A baby in the womb does not choose to drink alcohol, but may acquire fetal alcohol syndrome by his mother if she makes this choice. If it is possible that a child can be so harmed in the physical order of things, then it is possible for it to happen in the spiritual order of things.


Quote:
When we read Hitler's writings, and see how he says Jews are innately bad people simply because they were born, we are utterly disgusted.
And Hitler would have come to this conclusion regardless of any Christian teachings. He wanted a scapegoat to blame for the failings of German society.


Quote:
Yet, when the Bible says we are innately sinful people simply because we were born, it's celebrated as divine?
First of all, the Doctrine of Original Sin is not clearly represented in the Bible. Not all Christians believe in it, at least not in the manner defined in Catholicism (the idea that humanity is fallen, suffers from concupiscence and is in need of redemption is a more universal Christian understanding).

Secondly, God has provided an easy solution to the problem of Original Sin. It's called baptism, which is readily available and free of cost.

Thirdly, once again, the only valid reason for rejecting a teaching is because it is not true. But so far the author has not actually demonstrated Original Sin to be a false doctrine. All he has done is given his personal opinion that saying that all babies have Original Sin due to being human is similar to Hitler saying that certain babies are inferior due to race. As you can see when I've spelled it out like this, there is not a logical comparison between these two concepts. The author shows fallacious reasoning (a non-sequitur to be exact).


Quote:
That makes no sense to me, and I really hope that neo-Christian traditions continue to migrate away from this tradition, because it's immoral and dangerous.
Why is it immoral? Why is it dangerous? The author has failed to back up these assertions. If belief in Original Sin has actually lead to the killing of babies, I once again issue my challenge to provide the name of one such child who was so victimized.

If the author is worried that belief in Original Sin might lead to children being killed, then he needs to explain the parameters of how such a situation might arise. After all, those who believe in Original Sin likewise believe that 1) Everyone is born with Original Sin, including themselves, and 2) God desires the salvation of everyone and provides the grace of baptism to remove Original Sin. So I fail to see how there could be a person who would adopt the attitude of, "Here's an evil, unbaptized baby infected with Original Sin; it's ok to kill him!"
__________________
(disclaimer)
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old May 18, '12, 1:54 pm
Rich C's Avatar
Rich C Rich C is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2011
Posts: 1,814
Religion: Irish Catholic
Default Re: How Do You Respond To This Argument?

The author is defining Original Sin incorrectly, just setting that straight negates half that argument. Then the author makes outrageous claims that "Original Sin" makes people hate babies and made Hitler hate the Jews. Both are completely illogical sins every person has Original Sin (not just the Jews) and Christianity says the solution is to sprinkle a little water on the babies' heads. How the author equates that with infanticide I can't fathom.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old May 18, '12, 2:15 pm
fpesce's Avatar
fpesce fpesce is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2011
Posts: 277
Default Re: How Do You Respond To This Argument?

Quote:
Originally Posted by savedbygrace92 View Post
So it's pretty long and it made me think for a long time. I thought it was actually well-written and the author made some good points, but I don't know how to respond to it. What are your guys' thoughts?

The actual posting was too long to include in one huge post so I'll post the rest of it afterwards.

Here it is:

Why I Think Christianity Is Flawed

Origina Sin

This is my biggest theological beef with Christianity and other religions that have original sin. This concept has been used as justification to murder children and infants, and used as justification for the Holocaust, yet most mainstream Christian denominations still practice it and believe in it- the idea that humans are born sinful beings. The idea that a newborn child is somehow sinful. What sin could a newborn baby possibly commit? Newborns are not yet moral beings, and I do not believe one can sin if you have no concept of right or wrong.

Yes, you are confusing original sin with comitting a sin because you did something wrong. Either way just because we all have sin and come short of the glory of God doesn't mean we somehow look at a sinner (even a baby) with disgust. On the contrary, our greatest commandment straight out of the mouth of Jesus said to love one another as I (Jesus) have loved you. There is no condemnation only LOVE. Remember Jesus died a terrible death to take responsibility for our sins upon Himself that our sins could be wiped clean and not held against us.
.

When we read Hitler's writings, and see how he says Jews are innately bad people simply because they were born, we are utterly disgusted. Yet, when the Bible says we are innately sinful people simply because we were born, it's celebrated as divine? That makes no sense to me, and I really hope that neo-Christian traditions continue to migrate away from this tradition, because it's immoral and dangerous.
It makes no sense to you because you are confusing the fact the it was Hitler who hated the Jews not Christians. All people are divine because we are created in the image of God. Hate is not a Christian characteristic. And any Christian that hates is not following Christianity and are decieved.
War with Science

.
More coming I have to go.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old May 18, '12, 5:39 pm
savedbygrace92 savedbygrace92 is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2011
Posts: 14
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: How Do You Respond To This Argument?

WOW.

Thanks guys! I honestly wasn't expecting anyone to read this because I figured it would be too long anyway. I didn't bother responding to their argument though. I'm pretty sure she's an atheist and I know from several past experiences that arguing with them doesn't really get anywhere.

I just wanted to see what your thoughts were because some of the points did make me go "Hmm...."

Going back to the point that was made about original sin---forgive me if this is a dumb question (especially since I've been Roman Catholic for 20 years), but what exactly is original sin? I'm under the impression that it was acquired (borrowing your words here) from Adam and Eve and it's a tendency to sin? Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old May 18, '12, 7:42 pm
1ke 1ke is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: May 25, 2004
Posts: 23,657
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: How Do You Respond To This Argument?

Please be aware of forum rules which indicate one topic per thread.

As to how I would respond: peals of laughter
__________________
Pax, ke

ke's universal disclaimer: In my posts, when I post about marriage, canon law, or sacraments I am talking about Latin Rite only, not the Orthodox and Eastern Rites. These are exceptions that confuse the issue and I am not talking about those.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old May 18, '12, 8:18 pm
Equites Christi Equites Christi is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2007
Posts: 638
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: How Do You Respond To This Argument?

There are some problems with this.

One is that she has many glib and baseless claims. Many science-oriented non-believers are always talking about "evidence", so shouldn't they be happy to provide evidence for their claims?

A second is a total misunderstanding of the Bible. She fails to recognize that it is a large collection of books written by different people in different times in different places for different reasons. ALL of these people, times, places, and purposes are very different from 21st century Western culture. Is it surprising that it needs an interpreter?

A third muddling is that whenever someone confronts Christianity as a body, they will usually run into issues that are not part of Catholic theology (such as fundamentalism). The great differences between Christian denominations gives scandal to the nature of faith - it makes Christianity seem like a pick-and-choose religion. She said something to the effect of "some may say that Christianity has changed and no longer has such and such problems". But that wouldn't be a valid counter anyways, Christianity is not some club whose rules can be amended, if its theology was wrong once it's wrong forever.

I think the author herself has been influenced by this kind of relativist thinking. She hopes that more Christians denominations will drop the doctrine of original sin because it's "immoral" and "dangerous". But we shouldn't first be asking if it's immoral or dangerous. We should first be asking if it's true.
__________________
Iésus Iorna, os iqui dau aembur.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics

Bookmarks

Tags
argument, christianity, meaning

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
8020Meet and talk,talk talk
Last by: Butterflylily
4812CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: UpUpAndAway
4282Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: FootStool
4027OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: fencersmother
3809SOLITUDE
Last by: Prairie Rose
3356Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: RJB
3179Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: 4elise
3142Poems and Reflections
Last by: tonyg
2954For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: libralion
2675Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: Amiciel



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:57 pm.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2013, Catholic Answers.