for Secularist and Atheist, and all others who wish too tear down the **traditions and mores **of western society?
It seems as most western governments and institutions are now deeply invested in progressive secular thinking and practices. Being “PC” or Politically Correct is now the unwritten law of the land in the United States and most of Europe and the UN
So it would seem, that the last bastion for them to defeat is the oldest in the west, the Catholic Church
The only problem with the other Christian communities is that, they are very divided and many have no codified morals or dogmas. And many of the old main line protestant groups that once held many of the same morals and values as the Catholic Church, are waning, or slowly becoming secularized in there views.
We are even deteriorating from within. Apparently there are pro-aborts in the CCHD, which is a subsidiary of the USCCB, who have been funneling millions from collection basket money for the poor to groups supporting abortion, same sex marriage, Marxist communism, etc.:
I have no doubt that many catholics and even some bishops have fallen and are lost. But as long as the See Of Peter holds fast to the Truth, the Father of A Lies has not won.
It is always easier to corrupt from the inside out, that is how most fruit goes bad. But it will not happen with the Church, the church has the Holy Spirit to protect it. That is one of the fruits of the Holy Spirit
Other religions and other Christian communities won’t, in my view, be present in the last combat. I do hope, one day, that all Christian communities will return in full communion with the Church (for Christ did will that we all be “one flock with one shepherd” and this moves me to hope that this word will become true one day). However, I fear that when Antichrist comes, He will easily draw into great error all those who do not have preserved the fullness of the Christian tradition (since Christ teaches us little by little, given that at every time there are many things we cannot bear yet, and that stands true until the end of time), and even many within the Church herself, which is not immune from the influence of darkness.
I think the final combat will be against the Church Militant and will strike it at its very heart. Few believers will be alive on that day, and will suffer great persecution. The mystical Bride of Christ must follow the path of Her divine Spouse, who after a most sorrowful Passion experienced even death, and yet “the gates of Hell did not prevail”. When we get there, all will seem lost, and when it appears to be so, that’s when we will have won and Christ will return with glory.
But that’s just a thought of mine :shrug: Let us pray that we be not amidst those who will fight the last combat, for those days will be terrible.
Being a secularist doesn’t mean someone doesn’t have or want morals.
Morality isn’t confined to just the institution of religion.
Some of the highest moral people have been atheists, and some of the most degenerate people have been devoutly religious.
The aim of being politically correct is to try to be fair to all different kinds of people–hence the word “correct”. Why would you feel this is a bad thing?
Tearing down some unhealthy or out of date traditions are essential for the growth of humankind.
This is why we got rid of the tradition that women couldn’t vote for centuries…or the tradition of slavery…or even the biblical tradition of stoning a sinner…or even the tradition of cruxifiction, which was a common method of execution of criminals for about a thousand years.
I don’t think atheists or governments or institutions desire to specifically “defeat” the Catholic religion…they are not even thinking that way.
They are thinking more on the lines of: Everybody has their own beliefs, and no one’s belief should be imposed on another and we must welcome a variety of people into the fold.
That’s what it seems today. The Catholic Church and especially through the Pope has become more and more prominent a voice against secularism, liberalism and relativitism that the world is going to. It is not uncommon to hear attack being directed against the Church for her unwavering stand for the sanctity of life and protecting the tradition and her belief. Whereas many other churches has succumbed and compromised on issues that affecting the lives of Christians, the Catholic Church holds firm with her value.
There are many of our separated brethren who are with us in belief and spirit in this fight but they obviously need leaders that can be succinctly identified with the cause. The Pope has no problem with this because the Church’s stand is clear in such issues.
In other words, the major view in humanity today is that all religions require arbitrary assent to a book/person on what the Transcendent looks like (or if it even exists). This is a major error.
Catholicism is not an arbitrary assent.
So Political Correctness is based on an invalid and infeasible principle. Why? Because if no religion is true, then we have no knowledge of the Transcendent. So our laws are merely grounded preferential opinions of the majority. So murder isn’t wrong. Its just considered impractical to sustain in our current society. But with times and needs of the majority or the most powerful, that can change.
In this sense, PC and Secularism are pretty unreasonable positions for one to hold. The fact that governments would hold it shows the grave state that we face today.
I think it’d be difficult to deny that the same process is occurring within the Roman Catholic Church as well.
Most American Catholics are already heavily secularized, and a majority of self-proclaimed Catholics are opposed to the Church’s teachings on contraceptives, abortion, and gay marriage. Some priests have allowed blasphemous things to occur within their parishes.
Many of the denominations, at any rate, do have codified morals and dogmas. Whether they abide by them anymore is a different argument altogether.
I don’t understand the first half of your post.
People grow up in different countries with different religions. We can’t, for example, expect everyone living in Russia in 1940 to have much exposure to, say, Hinduism. There is usually a “majority” religion where a person grows up and they “assent” to it because it is around them and their parents follow it and they are taught it.
Re the second half…you bring up murder as an example of something that is either right or wrong in religion, but could be changeable in a secular society.
But murder is a good example of moral relativism in religion.
There are many parts of the bible that condone and encourage killing and genocide…and at the same time, it urges: “thou shalt not kill”.
In some religious teachings, birth control/abortion is a sin…but you must be willing to murder your child if God commands it.
So, using your example of murder…its level of morality is indeed very, very changeable in the bible "depending on the times and needs, " as you say.
There are many fallen away Catholics, who are Catholic in name only. And as I said in a previous post, even Bishops have fallen into the fallacy secular progressiveness, so it is no wonder that many laity believe the way they do. My point is the Vicar of Christ and the Magisteriume have not been corrupted, and that is one of the last targets for those who want to live in a world of Subjective Truth.
In a world of Subjective Truth, there can be no God, So in a world of no God, the state and what ever political Idolology that is in control, decides what is right and what is wrong.
And in the end, it is all about denying God.
That let’s people live what ever evil and sinful life they want, and the Evil one, sits back and grins
Do you consider that those people were religious, beside their office? I mean, if I am supposed to enforce the law but steal, I become a thief, even if I wear a uniform. I do not consider (1) a valid example - devout Christians do not do evil, and those who do certainly are not devoutly religious.
Based on what do you consider them to be some of the highest moral people?
Edison was not an atheist, but a deist (“you jumped to the conclusion that [my article] denies the existence of God. There is no such denial, what you call God I call Nature, the Supreme intelligence that rules matter.”),
Marie Curie was Catholic, though she left the Church at an early age and afterwards remained agnostic (which is much different from atheist).
Helen Keller was a Christian. She wrote: “For years I have read [the Bible] with an ever-broadening sense of joy and inspiration; and I love it as I love no other book.”. She is known to have said, after learning about Christ: “I always knew He was there, but I didn’t know His name!”. Her autobiography My Religion underscores her faith in Christianity, at least according to the teachings of Swedenborg.
A not-well-know fact is that Pope Benedict XVI had very nice words towards agnostics last year, words worth of much thinking over.
In addition to the two phenomena of religion and anti-religion, a further basic orientation is found in the growing world of agnosticism: people who are on the lookout for truth, searching for God.
Such people do not simply assert: ‘There is no God.’ They are inwardly making their way towards him, inasmuch as they seek truth and goodness. They are ‘pilgrims of truth, pilgrims of peace.’ They ask questions of both sides.
They take away from militant atheists the false certainty by which these claim to know that there is no God and they invite them to leave polemics aside and to become seekers who do not give up hope in the existence of truth.
But they also challenge the followers of religions not to consider God as their own property, as if he belonged to them, in such a way that they feel vindicated in using force against others.
These people are seeking the truth, they are seeking the true God, whose image is frequently concealed in the religions because of the ways in which they are often practiced.
Murder is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human, and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter).
Probably, in your oppinion God should have brought his case before a court, presided by you???
In my first half, I was addressing the issues of reasonable assent. One can only assent to a religion, even one passed down through parents if it is reasonable. At a very young age, it would be reasonable to assent to parents regarding the religion they proclaim as true. Here, the child accepts parental authority (i.e. that parents know what is best and they have done their homework on why they assented in the first place) But once mature, one must find the actual reason to assent to a specific religion(or ask why your parents assented to it).
So while there are countless religions (including those you and I can start tomorrow), none of them can give reasons to consider their view to be reflective of the transcendent or that their founder has any clue regarding the transcendent. Hence they are all arbitrary (albeit logically consistent frameworks) and not worthy of assent.
In this sense, even Atheism is just as bad. Here you have followers who give assent to the claim that “There is no Transcendent/God(s)” when the claim itself is not within the directly verifiable scope of knowledge. Hence it is unreasonable. The Atheist has much chance of knowing about the non-existence of the Transcendent as a believer has of describing the transcendent by his own effort (i.e. without faith). So to give assent to the claim of atheism is as bad giving assent to the description of the transcendent by some arbitrary individual or book.
I am not sure what you are arguing against here. Murder is acting contrary to God’s will to end another’s life. If it is the will of God that a whole race be abolished from the earth, and he would like some persons to carry it out, it would be moral for them to do so.
So the issue here is since God’s will / Morality is a transcendent quantity even if it did exist, we cannot say for sure what is moral or immoral. We can perhaps draw consensus on things like murder ( here i mean **needless **killing of innocents ) but that does not give us reason to think that our consensus reflects the transcendent reality or if it even exists.
A word should probably be mentioned here about murder in the above use of the term. You might think at first that there is actually no consensus with respect to murder since there are so many cultures that practiced child/adult human sacrifice, cannibalism etc. But this would be to miss the point. All human civilizations accept that killing needlessly is wrong. Even those who killed their children as sacrifice only did so because they felt it necessary for their God’s.
Even in the case of pro-abortion individuals today, they argue on the basis that the fetus is not human. Or they (probably very few) would argue that the fact that the human is located in the womb inside the mother, give the mother the right to end the human life.
But in all cases, there is giving of reason for ending of life. No one accepts that it is ok to randomly kill for no rhyme or reason another human being. There is a consensus on that.
That being said, as I said before, this is just consensus based on intuition. Unless someone can be given reason to believe that this consensus based on intuition means anything, its purely useless in terms of knowing what actual morality is.
My argument is that most religions fail on this aspect. They cannot give any reasons to give assent to their holy text or founder by giving reasons to think them/it authoritative regarding the transcendent. Hence, no religion other than Judaism or Christianity (specifically Catholicism (in communion with Rome) and to some degree other Christian faiths) is reasonable to assent to.
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.