Pope Francis says atheists can be good

[Tamas]

  professional clergymen dedicated to study. And infant ass.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Pretty funny to see an alleged intellectual argue that, while the Catholic church asks its followers to believe in the impossible, it is superior to some hillbilly churches because it asks its followers to believe in fewer impossible things than they do!   

Two words for ya to think about for a second, before you say anything more that's so silly:  ritual cannibalism.

Not really that funny. I always find it interesting that atheists think their arguments are interesting to the faithful, anyone serious about their faith is well aware that to an atheist it's all just the same load of shit. But that has nothing to do with how the faithful would look at and interpret theological arguments. Protestantism, dating back to Luther, taught that individuals can read and interpret the bible on their own and that the Holy Spirit would protect them from error. Unfortunately once more than one person started doing that you had to reconcile individuals with widely different interpretations, and how could the Holy Spirit be protecting both believers and yet they conclude very different interpretations? This resulted for a long time in basically extreme fracturing in Protestantism and lots of Protestant groups emerging essentially overnight and many of them viciously hating one another. But it also ultimately lead in the last 150 years or so to a growing vein of literalism. That uniquely Protestant problem is really most logically solved by literalism, and that's the pitfall of Protestantism. Once you're sucked into the hole of biblical literalism you also by extension have to accept the concept of biblical supremacy, in which you believe the bible must be the truly infallible word of God and the begin and the end of all Christian thought and teachings. The Catholic Church's approach is far more reasoned and realistic, and based in large part on learned interpretation and an understanding that God created the world we live in so when a fable from the Bible contradicts a confirmed understanding of the world we need to recognize the Bible story as the fable that it is.

[grumbler]

I understand where you're coming from on the "magical power of prayer" argument. Yes, my Church recognizes miracles and essentially supernatural intercession by Saints elicited sometimes by prayer. But this is very, very rare.

Huh?  Isn't it the Catholic Church's position that priests perform a miracle every time they consecrate the Eucharist?

Protestants ascribe God's hand in every good fortune that comes their way, and ascribe God's hand in every misfortune and consider it a "test from God."

Are you sure this isn't a straw man?  Smells like straw to me.  The Catholic Church does, as far as I know, believe that their god is both omniscient and omnipotent; therefor, everything that happens, good or bad, must logically happen with their god's knowledge and consent.

My own belief is that you Christians make far too much of tiny differences between your creeds.  The difference between belief and disbelief in magic kinda dwarfs any differences between the various ways in which one believes in magic, at least to us who disbelieve.

[Martinus]

It really does seem Marti is turning back to the faith

I am not turning back to the faith (at least not yet), it's just that (as I have always been saying), if I were to relapse back into Christianity, then I would almost certainly go Catholic, as Catholicism seems like the real deal and not a cheap copy.

[Martinus]

Huh?  Isn't it the Catholic Church's position that priests perform a miracle every time they consecrate the Eucharist?

Well, to be specific, transsubstantiation is only a miracle in a stricly theological sense, and not a "popular" sense - the Catholic Church does not believe the transformation is physical.

On the other hand, all claims of the Eucharist shedding blood and whatnot are met by the Catholic Church with a large dose of scepticism.

[Valmy]

It really does seem Marti is turning back to the faith

I am not turning back to the faith (at least not yet), it's just that (as I have always been saying), if I were to relapse back into Christianity, then I would almost certainly go Catholic, as Catholicism seems like the real deal and not a cheap copy.

Eastern Orthodoxy is now appropriately outraged.

[Tamas]

It really does seem Marti is turning back to the faith

I am not turning back to the faith (at least not yet), it's just that (as I have always been saying), if I were to relapse back into Christianity, then I would almost certainly go Catholic, as Catholicism seems like the real deal and not a cheap copy.

You would choose Catholicism because you are a Polack and even Polish household items go to Catholic churches.

[grumbler]

Not really that funny. I always find it interesting that atheists think their arguments are interesting to the faithful, anyone serious about their faith is well aware that to an atheist it's all just the same load of shit.

Atheists get a great deal of amusement out of the squirming attempts of "the faithful" to justify their insistence on the importance of the tiny differences between their various versions of magic.  So, we discuss these magical beliefs with "the faithful" and "the faithful" dutifully charge at our red capes.

But that has nothing to do with how the faithful would look at and interpret theological arguments. Protestantism, dating back to Luther, taught that individuals can read and interpret the bible on their own and that the Holy Spirit would protect them from error. Unfortunately once more than one person started doing that you had to reconcile individuals with widely different interpretations, and how could the Holy Spirit be protecting both believers and yet they conclude very different interpretations? This resulted for a long time in basically extreme fracturing in Protestantism and lots of Protestant groups emerging essentially overnight and many of them viciously hating one another. But it also ultimately lead in the last 150 years or so to a growing vein of literalism. That uniquely Protestant problem is really most logically solved by literalism, and that's the pitfall of Protestantism. Once you're sucked into the hole of biblical literalism you also by extension have to accept the concept of biblical supremacy, in which you believe the bible must be the truly infallible word of God and the begin and the end of all Christian thought and teachings. The Catholic Church's approach is far more reasoned and realistic, and based in large part on learned interpretation and an understanding that God created the world we live in so when a fable from the Bible contradicts a confirmed understanding of the world we need to recognize the Bible story as the fable that it is.

The problem with your argument is that it proceeds from ignorance.  Not a protestant I know believes in literalism.  There may be some Protestants who do, but you can't draw the line between Catholics and Protestants at literalism.

And it is amusing to hear someone claim that the Catholic church always discards evidence from the bible in favor of empirical evidence; Galileo Galilei would not agree. 

[grumbler]

Well, to be specific, transsubstantiation is only a miracle in a stricly theological sense, and not a "popular" sense - the Catholic Church does not believe the transformation is physical.

Are you sure that the Catholic Church's official position is that it "does not believe the transformation is physical" in the Eucharist?  That contradicts what I have been told by priests and lay Catholics alike, and read in several sources.  My sources could all be wrong, however.  But I'd like more than your word for it.

[Viking]

And Catholicism is flawed because it rejects, when convenient, Holy Scripture.  Try to troll harder, Marty.

But I still want Otto to answer for his ridiculous claims that it's the Protestants who believe in the magical power of prayer, and not catholics.

I would argue we do not reject Holy Scripture "when convenient", but instead that as a Church shepherded by many generations of professional priests who devoted their life to learned study we can elucidate doctrine that strays from "literalism" because of the deeper understanding of our faith.

Which is Theology speak for "we make it up as we go along". You are arguing that the best understanding of the nature of the world and morality and ethics is to listen to people who spent their entire life understanding a book you already say is full of un-truth.

You are not reaching a deeper understanding of faith. Catholicism has had less to contribute to knowledge, ethics and morality as time goes by. The progress that it has made has been done when it has been dragged kicking and screaming forwards while secular knowledge, ethics and morality has been there for a long time.

But, I am open to being proved wrong. What deeper understanding of faith has there been since 1657? (Spinozas excommunication)

[Malthus]

If Luther had been a Languishista, it would have been 95 feces he nailed to the door of the Church of Wittenberg. 

[Valmy]

Atheists get a great deal of amusement out of the squirming attempts of "the faithful" to justify their insistence on the importance of the tiny differences between their various versions of magic.  So, we discuss these magical beliefs with "the faithful" and "the faithful" dutifully charge at our red capes.

Um...yes that is what he just said.

And it is amusing to hear someone claim that the Catholic church always discards evidence from the bible in favor of empirical evidence; Galileo Galilei would not agree.

Really?  I am amused that was the best example you could think of.

[Viking]

Well, to be specific, transsubstantiation is only a miracle in a stricly theological sense, and not a "popular" sense - the Catholic Church does not believe the transformation is physical.

Are you sure that the Catholic Church's official position is that it "does not believe the transformation is physical" in the Eucharist?  That contradicts what I have been told by priests and lay Catholics alike, and read in several sources.  My sources could all be wrong, however.  But I'd like more than your word for it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation

In Roman Catholic theology, transubstantiation (in Latin, transsubstantiatio, in Greek μετουσίωσις metousiosis) is the doctrine that, in the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and the wine used in the sacrament is literally, not merely as by a sign or a figure, but in actual reality as well,[1][2] changed into the substance of the Body and the Blood of Jesus,[3] while all that is accessible to the senses (the physical[citation needed] appearances - species[4][5][6] in Latin) remains unchanged.[7][8] What remains unaltered is also referred to as the "accidents" of the bread and wine,[9] but this term is not used in the official definition of the doctrine by the Council of Trent.[10]
The Eastern Ort

It actually changes without seeming to change. Both physical and spiritual.

[grumbler]

Um...yes that is what he just said.

Um, yes, it was.

Really?  I am amused that was the best example you could think of.

Really?  You've never heard of him?  His case is probably the best-known case of the church rejecting empirical evidence. 

[Martinus]

The "essence" changes but to our senses (i.e. physically) it remains the same. It's really a highly abstract difference.