Is Christian faith necessary for Selfless Love?

[PRmerger]

Originally Posted by inocente

Your argument would work if you worship Kolbe. Do you worship Kolbe then?

Your argument would work if I worshipped Jesus because he committed a profound sublime act of love for me.

I don't.

I worship him because he is God.

[PRmerger]

Originally Posted by Sair

My source for these supposed offences is, admittedly, the word of my Catholic brother who learned of such things during a religious education course at university (designed for the teaching of religious education in Catholic schools).

Best, then, not to proclaim things when one is gravely misinformed.

I have no immediate sources.

And do you have a source for this, or is this something you learned from overhearing a conversation on a bus between 2 people, one of whom "actually saw the pope in his popemobile!"

The only reason offered for a wife to actually leave a husband is if he is an unbeliever.

Perhaps you meant "divorce" a husband, not leave?

Because I can assure you that the Church coerces no one to stay with an abusive husband.

That is another piece of gaga lala nonsense that you've believed without a single piece of evidence.

(Well, perhaps you have more evidence than you have for, say, the existence of a Phantom Atheistic Kolbe--that, I'll give you. Perhaps you met a woman who says she was coerced. But I guarantee you that it's not part of Catholic teaching that anyone be coerced to stay with an abusive spouse. But I also guarantee you that you haven't met a single person who says they met the PAK, so, again, still no evidence for his existence. )

[atheistgirl]

Originally Posted by PRmerger

(Well, perhaps you have more evidence than you have for, say, the existence of a Phantom Atheistic Kolbe--that, I'll give you. Perhaps you met a woman who says she was coerced. But I guarantee you that it's not part of Catholic teaching that anyone be coerced to stay with an abusive spouse. But I also guarantee you that you haven't met a single person who says they met the PAK, so, again, still no evidence for his existence. )

It's kinda weird the way you seem to use this man, Max Kolbe, as if he was some kind of trump card and not a real person who did one of the bravest things a person can do.

Would you, or anyone else, have heard of him, if he wasn't made a Saint?

Do you know the names of every single person in the world, that ever existed, that gave their life for another, and their religious or non religious background?

When atheists do the right thing, or a brave thing, or a selfless thing, or a morally courageous thing, there's generally not a 2 billion member global organization behind them to give them an internationally recognized honor, publically broadcast and publicized all over the world, they most likely wouldn't want in the first place.

Sarah x

[levinas12]

Originally Posted by atheistgirl

There are many people I alone would ''volunteer'' as you put it, to lay down my life for, to willingly exchange my life for, in the full knowledge the exchange would result in a horrific agonizing long slow lingering death.

These same people would do exactly the same for me.

We are all, to a person, atheists.

I might be going out on a limb to say this but most of us Catholics would not be willing to do this.

Maybe the most charitable way of describing our position is that we think of ourselves as "natural" losers.

But that's why we subscribe to a doctrine of grace. With "outside help", we might be able to do the right thing in spite of our loser status.

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Originally Posted by Sair

Your Bible admonishes wives to "submit" to their husbands in all things. Husbands are, to be sure, exhorted to love their wives, but not afforded any punishment for doing otherwise. The only reason offered for a wife to actually leave a husband is if he is an unbeliever. And as far as I'm aware, the Catholic church does not recognise divorce, even now. Hence the expectation that even if a husband is abusive, a wife is - in this day and age, at least, tacitly - expected to stay married to him.

Actually, you would probably be surprised that the Church does allow civil divorce in cases of legal issues (retaining care of children, inheritances, etc), but the divorced couple are still married in the eyes of God so remarriage is still quite impossible.
One should also note that divorce and separation are two totally different ideas. Separation is allowed in the Catholic faith, divorce is not.

For a church that excommunicates a young girl who has an abortion yet fails to condemn the rapist who put her in the position of requiring the abortion in the first place, I don't think any level of misogyny is beneath them.

I also do not believe you actually read the article you cite here. It states rather clearly in two separate locations:
"...the Catholic Church's decision to excommunicate the mother and doctors of a nine-year-old rape victim..." (first sentence of the very first paragraph)
"The young girl at the centre of the case escaped excommunication only because she is still a child in the eyes of Church authorities." (second sentence of the last paragraph)
I do not see how that is at all ambiguous or confusing in the least. The girl who received the abortion was not excommunicated, the girl's mother and her doctors were. Pretty sure that is in line with the Church's teaching on procuring abortion (cf CCC 2272).

[PRmerger]

Originally Posted by atheistgirl

It's kinda weird the way you seem to use this man, Max Kolbe, as if he was some kind of trump card and not a real person who did one of the bravest things a person can do.

Well, I must say I am taking great delight in this conversation, and wondering if the folks at Google are puzzled at the great increase in google searches for "avowed atheists who are capable of agape in the manner that Kolbe demonstrated".



Should your searches not end up empty, as they apparently have so far, I am prepared to consider the evidence for this Atheistic Kolbe and judge the situation on its own merits.

But, of course, I will apply all the atheistic demands for evidence: first hand witnesses of said event. Scientific and empirical evidence for same. Documentation, documentation, documentation. And repeatable evidence in a lab would be helpful, too.

I do find it amusing that there are atheists here who demand evidence for every other arena of belief, but are, in this case essentially taking the fideist approach of, "I believe this Phantom Atheist Koble exists because I just know in my heart of hearts that he does!"

Now, some have said they use reason alone to assert the existence of this PAK, and that's allowable. Of course, the Believers argue that we, too, use reason alone to argue for God's existence, so if you're a reason-alone apologist for this Phantom Atheistic Kolbe, then I hope you'll also consider the reason-alone arguments for the existence of God.

[tonyrey]

Originally Posted by PRmerger

Well, I must say I am taking great delight in this conversation, and wondering if the folks at google are puzzled at the great increase in google searches for "avowed atheists who are capable of agape in the manner that Kolbe demonstrated".



Should your searches not end up empty, as they apparently have so far, I am prepared to consider the evidence for this Atheistic Kolbe and judge the situation on its own merits.

But, of course, I will apply all the atheistic demands for evidence: first hand witnesses of said event. Scientific and empirical evidence for same. Documentation, documentation, documentation. And repeatable evidence in a lab would be helpful, too.

I do find it amusing that there are atheists here who demand evidence for every other arena of belief, but are, in this case essentially taking the fideist approach of, "I believe this Phantom Atheist Koble exists because I just know in my heart of hearts that he does!"

Now, some have said they use reason alone to assert the existence of this PAK, and that's allowable. Of course, the Believers argue that we, too, use reason alone to argue for God's existence, so if you're a reason-alone apologist for this Phantom Atheistic Kolbe, then I hope you'll also consider the reason-alone arguments for the existence of God.

Eminently reasonable!

[tonyrey]

Originally Posted by Alberti_Devoveo

Actually, you would probably be surprised that the Church does allow civil divorce in cases of legal issues (retaining care of children, inheritances, etc), but the divorced couple are still married in the eyes of God so remarriage is still quite impossible.
One should also note that divorce and separation are two totally different ideas. Separation is allowed in the Catholic faith, divorce is not.


I also do not believe you actually read the article you cite here. It states rather clearly in two separate locations:
"...the Catholic Church's decision to excommunicate the mother and doctors of a nine-year-old rape victim..." (first sentence of the very first paragraph)
"The young girl at the centre of the case escaped excommunication only because she is still a child in the eyes of Church authorities." (second sentence of the last paragraph)
I do not see how that is at all ambiguous or confusing in the least. The girl who received the abortion was not excommunicated, the girl's mother and her doctors were. Pretty sure that is in line with the Church's teaching on procuring abortion (cf CCC 2272).

Inexorable logic!

[tonyrey]

Originally Posted by PRmerger

Your argument would work if I worshipped Jesus because he committed a profound sublime act of love for me.

I don't.

I worship him because he is God.

Non-Catholics often fail to distinguish "worship" from "venerate"!

[PRmerger]

Originally Posted by inocente

Good grief.

Jesus: Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.

Amen!

But an act, no matter how heroic and brave, of itself cannot be considered "love" unless one intends for it to be an act of love.

An atheist jumping on a grenade (which thus far as been as close to the example of the Phantom Atheist Kolbe as we've gotten, and is as nebulous as an example as one can get) is heroic. It's brave. But love, just because he gave his life? Not so much. Unless he did this with the intention of love*. And if that's your argument, then I'd like to see some evidence for this intention.

(And please note: patriotism *(love of country) comes as close to agape as my love for chocolate comes to my love for my DH).

An act, done without the intention of love, cannot be construed as loving, simply because it could be done as a loving act.

[PRmerger]

Originally Posted by tonyrey

Non-Catholics often fail to distinguish "worship" from "venerate"!

'zactly.

[PRmerger]

Originally Posted by tonyrey

Eminently reasonable!

[PRmerger]

Originally Posted by Sair

I think you mistake me if you assume I have a blanket objection to religious beliefs - I actually do find some of the purported words of Jesus as given in the gospels to be wonderful summations of how people should treat each other, original or otherwise.

Of course, that misses the entire point of the Good News, which is, naturally, not about what Jesus taught (for every morally sane person--Jew or pagan--already knew that it was better to give than to receive, to turn the other cheek, to give your cloak to the one who has none, etc etc etc.)

But the problem is, if religious beliefs are taken seriously, they cannot be taken piecemeal - to accept the teachings of Jesus, a serious Christian must accept all the morally reprehensible aspects, not only the whole idea of vicarious atonement, but also the appalling baggage of the Old Testament, since Jesus declared that this was to be accepted.

Oh, to be sure Catholics take the entire message of the Gospel--OT AND NT--and understand them in light of the source of Truth: Jesus Christ.

Your attitude of "truth trumps everything" assumes that all the teachings of Christ are, in fact, the truth

Actually, I was thinking bigger than that and talking about the existence of God. We believe in God not because it makes us act in a saintly way, but because it's true. God exists. Therefore reasonable people believe in him.

- you are thus obliged to act (and even think) in ways that are immoral, from an enlightened humanist perspective.

Huh? You can tell me that something is immoral?

If you can, it is only because you have conformed yourself to the divine law, which is written into your heart. Not to mention the fact that the indelible seal of baptism is on your immortal soul so if you do declare something to be true, in accord with God's law, it is because you are cooperating with the grace that was given to you at your baptism.

Yes, beliefs are primarily valuable for the actions they motivate - but if we are to take some religious believers at their word, the only reason they treat their fellows humanely is because they believe Christian teaching - or maybe even just theism in general - to be true, and that others are only worthy of respect and compassion because their god has said so. That means, in effect, that they place the commands/desires/whims of beings that are, for all intents and purposes, imaginary, ahead of the needs of real, living, feeling beings.

That's begging the question again, Sair. You need to prove, first, that God is imaginary.

I will wait for the evidence for that, as well as the evidence for the PAK...

and consider the evidence on its own merits (using, of course, the same criteria atheists demand as I limned earlier).

[PRmerger]

Originally Posted by Sair

For a church that excommunicates a young girl who has an abortion yet fails to condemn the rapist who put her in the position of requiring the abortion in the first place, I don't think any level of misogyny is beneath them.

Yes, this does seem wrong.

However, just to be clear, excommunication is not the same as condemning.

And how are we to know what counsel the rapist received from his priest? Maybe he repented and the abortionist didn't.

[PRmerger]

Originally Posted by Sair

For a church that excommunicates a young girl who has an abortion yet fails to condemn the rapist who put her in the position of requiring the abortion in the first place, I don't think any level of misogyny is beneath them.

Incidentally, the Church did not excommunicate the young girl. Only the abortionist and girl's mother.