Religion Discussion (Rebuttal)

Thank you for your kind words regarding my previous response. Your agreement makes proceeding much easier.

Before I attempt to make a case for the Church's divine authority, which I will undoubtedly have to do, I'll first attempt to answer your misgivings and doubts here.

You note that you doubt that the teachings of Jesus the Christ survived after the approximately three hundred year period before the codification of the Bible. You doubt this based on the Council of Nicaea, which defined explicitly that Christ was God, and that God was one Being, three Persons, in response largely to the Arian heresy. Your position is essentially that if Christians then didn't agree that Christ was God, and that was only 300 years after Christ, how can we be sure any teachings survived.

The first step in addressing this doubt is examining history.

First point. Historically speaking, the Bible was not codified until the late 4th century. But that doesn't mean no written testaments as to Jesus Christ's life and teachings existed. It means that Christianity didn't have a set canon of Scripture that was authoritatively held by all as inspired, revelatory material. The first Gospel concerning Christ's mission and ministry was written by about ten years after His death, well within the lifetime's of the 12 Apostles and His other disciples. The final Gospel considered legitimate was written by about 95-100 AD, and is thought to still be within the life of John the Evangelist (though it may have been assembled or written partially by his students). Paul's letters, however, quite possible pre-date all of the other writings of the New Testament, as they began with Paul's own ministry and evangelization.

So let's not fall prey to the error of believing that there were no written records of Christ's teachings, nor of His apostles' teachings.

Second point. When talking about oral traditions, particularly those of the early Christians, or the Hebrews, etc. it's important to realize that what we're NOT dealing with is the child's game of telephone. Exactly the opposite in fact. It is not as if the Early Christians were whispering secrets of Jesus' life to each other, passing them along with all too dimly recalled accuracy. The Apostles themselves were the ones teaching about Christ, and their writings support the fact that they personally instructed those who were to be their successors. In the Greek, these are known as the episkopos and presbuteros, and are often cited in the New Testament.

Moreover, these were teachings and traditions of immense importance to the Early Christians, beliefs which were frankly considered just as important as written Scripture. They were treated with immense care towards maintaining their integrity, it is not as if they were haphazardly handed down or fudged around with.

Third point. We have, thankfully, the writings of many Early Christians that attest to the various beliefs of Christians, both providing historical context and background information as well as further written evidence. You challenge that Christians before Nicaea were divided about whether Jesus was God. This is not accurate. The writings of Early Christian Fathers strongly attest to Christian beliefs held by the Church before their definitive definition by any council. For example, St. Ignatius wrote of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist before the dogmas concerning transubstantiation were completely defined.

It is, therefore, possible to know, both from Biblical writings and extra-Biblical writings what, precisely, the Church believed prior to the Council of Nicaea's codification of Christian dogma. When doctrines or dogmas are defined by the Church, it means that the Church has examined the revelatory materials it possesses (Scripture and Oral Tradition), and is clarifying some point of belief which has become confused. It doesn't mean the teaching is new.

Now, I wish to address specifically the nature of the doubt you've presented here, which is that, "if the people can't agree on even this point how can we be sure that any teachings did survive?"

I'd like to note that I believe your reasoning here to be fallacious. That people don't agree on something does not mean, or even indicate, that the original teachings didn't survive. After all, might not one side of the disagreement be the original teaching, as we Christians claim it is? That people have or had a disagreement as to their beliefs should neither be surprising, nor should it raise doubt as to whether orthodox doctrine is possible. Humans are fallen creatures, imperfect and flawed. We make mistakes. It's not only likely, it's assured that someone, somewhere, will make a mistake, and teach something incorrect that they believe to be true.

And this says nothing as to the authority of the Church. That is a seperate issue entirely. In the historical situation of Nicaea, we have the disagreement between the Arians and the orthodox Christians, and we have the Church authoritatively teaching that the Arians are heretics. We can know, via simple logic, that some Christians did believe Christ to be God, by virtue of the fact that the Arians didn't and argued with them. And likewise we can see the Church laying out an authoritative teaching on the subject.

Now, in regard to the Church's authority here, I'd like to raise an interesting pair of points, both regarding historical continuity. I think we can both agree that God is unchanging, and therefore any authority of His must be similarly unchanging. It cannot disappear, it cannot change its mind, etc. So when I claim the Church is authoritative, I am also claiming the Church can never be destroyed, and that the Church can never go back on those things it has taught authoritatively.

You ask how we can know whether any teachings did survive. I would note in the case of the Arian controversy that we can at least know that the Arians were wrong. Had the Arians been inspired by God and had His authority, they would have survived, instead of disappearing for centuries. Instead, despite being numerically weaker, and opposed to by the Roman imperial government at the time, it wasn't Arianism, but orthodox Christianity which survived, and even thrived.

Next, we must consider all of the time between today and the birth of the Church, wherein the Church has never once gone back on any of her teachings. We know the Church teaches Trinitarianism. We know also that the Church has never swayed or denied that belief, regardless of pressures put upon it to do so, and Arianism was neither the first, nor the last to doubt some aspect of the Trinitarian formula. The witness of the heretics themselves proves, historically speaking, that Christians have consistently believed in these things, and the Church has consistently taught them to be true.

And we return to that original argument, that humans are flawed creatures who inevitably make mistakes and errors. If it is true that humans make mistakes and errors, and I know of no one arrogant enough to claim that they do not, how can it possibly be that this Church has not only existed for 2000 years continuously, (despite some rather abysmal leadership and plenty of corrupt periods), but has maintained consistent teaching throughout that period? If it was merely human, it would have failed in some way. It would have disappeared, as has every empire before and most during it, or it would have contradicted itself.

Now, you bring up an interesting idea that Islam joined with remnants of those who didn't believe Christ to be God. But which people? Plenty of heretics denied this, not all of them Arians, and not all of them at the same points in time. I don't deny that Islam shares many commonalities with Arianism, but there's a 300-400 year gap between Arianism as a corpus of believers and Islam as a corpus of believers. Where'd it go in the meantime? Where was its authority? And if they're the same or related, and inspired by God, why do they differ then on several other key teachings?

Again, that there are differences of belief doesn't mean anything other than this:

That we need an inspired, authoritative teacher, which is a living institution, as opposed to a book or set of writings. Why? Because people make mistakes and believe things which are in error, and written works only rarely address, in very specific and convincing language these individual and personalized doubts and complaints. That there are doubts in the minds of some doesn't mean the Church isn't authoritative. It means that there had better be an authoritative Church to correct them!

I do hope and believe this has addressed your initial doubts and criticisms, and also made a beginning in regards to showing the Church to be authoritative. As with the last time, I shall post this on my blog as well. Your reply is already there. Have a great one, Mr. Diga, I hope to hear from you again soon with whatever we'll address next!

God Bless,

Religion Discussion (Reply)

Mr. Diga has now gotten back to me with his first reply to my initial posting in our discussion. I shall recreate it here, and then reply hopefully before the end of the weekend.

"ok, first i have to say that i love the fact that you gave such answer concerninng the bible.
i guess i agree with everything you said about the bible...

which brings us to the church... did the church have any divine authority?

well first i start by doubting that the teachings of christ did get to survive after the 300 years period. proof is, before Nicaea people were divided on whether Jesus is God or not... now if the people can't agree on even this point how can we be sure that any teachings did survive?
after Necaea there were still people that teaches that Jesus is not christ, and most likely the one that existed till islam all joined it... because it came with the same idea (Jesus being a prophet).

on another level i have to ask... 300 years of oral teachings... how accurate can it be?
what's to prove that what survived after Necaea is what Jesus taught?

i think this is enough for now... though i had alot more to say..

i'll wait to see what you will reply to me.

thanks for the time you are giving to answer
best regards,
diga"

On re-ordering

Continuing my musings from yesterday, I had originally intended to delve into another aspect of spirituality today, but instead find myself returning after some more thoughts occurred to me on the subject of order and cleanliness today before, during and after Mass.

I found myself thinking about the idea of re-ordering. I believe that cleaning a room is re-ordering it, ie a room generally starts out empty, has things put into it, usually in a pretty orderly fashion, and over time that order decays and the room becomes messier and more chaotic in arrangement. I think the same principle applies to our souls and spiritual lives as well, as stated previously. And so we have the process of taking a place which has become disordered and re-ordering it. Putting things away into their proper places, clearing away trash, cleaning, etc. all are part of that re-ordering process. What struck me about this process that I only briefly, if at all, touched on yesterday was that this was tremendously similar to penitence, particularly of the Catholic variety.

The first idea that struck me was the fact that re-ordering is essentially an opportunity not just to put back things where they were before, but to re-arrange. When you're cleaning up a room is the best time to re-arrange furniture, alter the decorations, etc. all of which can have a profound impact on how you view and use the room, which in turn alters your attitude while inside it. Penitence and penance offer us the same opportunity in our spiritual journeys. They not only provide us with that chance to return to a clean and ordered slate, but further grant us a moment when we can redirect ourselves to God and take stock of our situation. This is metanoia, the interior conversion of the soul, and it is a natural part of this process of repentance, and works well within the metaphor.

The next idea to occur to me was concerning how little I go to confession, particularly for a practicing Catholic. I often find myself working, or otherwise reticent to confess, and I have a particularly hard time bringing myself to repent if I do not believe I will be able to stop sinning whatever sin(s) are most particularly troubling me. I found myself comparing this with my own arguments over making my bed with my parents. If I'm just going to mess it up again that night when I go to sleep, why bother making it? I've unconsciously been applying this same logic (or lack thereof) to my spiritual life. If I'm just going to sin again, I can't confess because it won't be legitimate, even if I am repenting.

This attitude is particularly poisonous, and I think I've finally come upon the answer to it, at least for myself (though don't hold your breath on the bed making bit just yet...). When you live a messy lifestyle, you become more and more innurred to it, to the point where you tolerate more mess gradually, because you're used to it. Thus it becomes harder and much less likely that you'll ever clean up and re-order everything. The same is true of sin. The more you sin, the harder it is to repent and re-order your life. This is why habitual cleaning, and habitual repentance and penance are so important. By building up this continual process of repentance, this process of cleaning yourself, you make it so that you are less and less able to tolerate sin in your life. I found myself thinking of it in mathematical terms, which means it must be important, as I generally avoid mathematics like the plague. Picture an asymptotic line approaching infinity. This is the spiritual path for us on Earth. We cannot attain perfect holiness in this life. We are human, we do sin and fall, for some only occassionally, for others fairly often, for me, all the time. The objective of a penitential lifestyle where one is continually re-ordering and re-orienting oneself towards God is to gradually approach the holiness to which we are called and which God will perfect in us (hopefully) after our physical deaths.

And if you recall your old calculus lessons, yes, at first those asymptotic approaches demand some pretty radical alteration. They take some big jumps and re-arranging to truly effect, and these changes in lifestyle are not possible without God. Remember that each point on that line is another act of renewal, another act of penitence, another moment of re-ordering. Of cleaning. You're not going to go from one end of the spectrum to the other over night (or at least, most people don't), but you can do it by gradually building in yourself those habits of cleanliness, both in the interior and exterior, by which you can approach true holiness and communion with God and the Saints before you.

This is why confession is so important, this is why you should never wait years, or even months between confession, unless you've truly gone that long without sin (and if you have, bravo!). Each time you confess, you are cleaned off and re-oriented towards God. You wouldn't shower once every year or three, so why treat your soul with any less consideration? Making confession a habit, a practice and process of continual re-ordering, rejustifying, re-sanctifying of yourself to God is probably the first step for any adult Catholic seeking to grow in love and faith with God.

God Bless,

Cleanliness is close to Godliness

There are two aspects of spirituality that have been on my mind increasingly often these days. The first I want to address is that of cleanliness, or perhaps orderliness would be a better descriptor.

A little background:

I am a messy person. I always have been. I attribute this to my rebellious nature. Seriously. Of my siblings, I think I was probably the one who gave my parents the most grief, argued the most, fought the most and rebelled the most. At least directly to their faces. My little brother may have won out in the doing things behind their backs category. My dad, as you likely can imagine, existed in as straight arrow a fashion as he could, apparently for as long as he could before he eventually cracked and threw away every principle upon which he'd lived his life. As a former policeman, officer in the army, and son of a police captain and soldier, he lived a life of solid discipline. "Duty, honor and country," he'd say, generally on the same day he'd wake me up with an annoying fake bugle sounding Reveille to do chores all day long. He made his bed everyday, and said I could not make mine on the days he didn't make his. I didn't bother making mine anyway, but you can be sure I checked his bed (and called him any chance I had on hypocrisy). And that's my point. My dad was such a neat freak disciplinarian that I became messy because I hated having to clean all the time.

So I get mess. I like mess. To a certain point, at least. I hope, at least, that most people don't want to live in a shit hole or visit one for any particularly long length of time.

How does this relate to spirituality, particularly of the Christian sort? Aside from the truism, "Cleanliness is close to Godliness," I'd like to explore the effects of ordering one's environment and externalities upon one's soul.

For myself, I've found with time, and free from the influence of my cleanly parents, that I cannot reach an equilibrium with mess. I just can't get to a point where the mess is comfortable, but not a distraction, obstacle, or health hazard. I end up being too lazy to clean, too bored, too distracted, or whatever, but whatever my initial good intentions, I wind up shirking them and the mess mounts to the point where even I get sick of it and clean as best as I can bring myself to, before it all starts over again. In this I found a parallel with my (and I believe many other people's) spiritual lives, in that all too often we find ourselves letting small sins, venial sins, even mortal sins, build up in our souls like the clutter we allow to build up in our lives. We're too bored, distracted, lazy, or perhaps simply like it too much to do anything about it and clean up. But eventually we all seem to reach points wherein the mess in our hearts and minds is too much to bear, and we clean it up a bit. All too often I am afraid we resort to half-measures and corner cutting, both in our cleaning and our spirituality.

What is more is that I found that the way I treat my soul and the way I treat my environment not only seem to have similarities and parallels, but they seem to mirror each other. In other words, whenever I effect, or desire to effect a re-ordering and "cleaning" of my soul, I generally experience a desire for a re-ordering and cleaning of my environment and person. Conversely, when I become overcome with the urge to clean up the mess I've surrounded myself with in terms of laundry, books, papers, and other physical phenomena, I find not only that I have the urge, but that I've already begun to effect a spiritual metanoia. Even Saints like St. Teresa of Avila and theologians like C.S. Lewis have likened the soul to a house or a castle or a palace or a cottage, which God is not only creating, but that He intends to sanctify and enter into. When Go intends to live in you as not just a palace but a temple, it brings a new perspective to the notion of keeping your soul clean. If you're embarrassed when guests see you as a slob, imagine how you'll feel when God arrives and instead of a bright shining space, airy and lit with the light of love, filled with the arts of the talents you were given, He is shown into a damp, moldy crawlspace, without even a candle, which is filled with the refuse of your heart.

Perhaps the root of the truism is that these calls to cleanliness are linked to the call to holiness that consistently and constantly comes to us from God, and opening ourself to one opens ourself to the other. I think it is also the case that, because order is intrinsically related to morality and law and even reason, when one brings order to one aspect of one's life, whether it be internal or external, there's a desire and even an immediate reflection or continuation of that order in other aspects.

So when you clean your room, or your house, or other spaces, you begin the process of scrubbing out the dark corners and hiding places of your soul where you've hidden from God or let the detritus of immorality stain away. And likewise when you go to confession and do penance, you take the first steps on the path to cleaning up the rest of your life. I expect this is part of the reason monastic communities in religious of all sorts make cleanliness and order a fundamental part of life in the community. They could exist in a state of perpetual mess and disorder, like a commune of hippies or somesuch, but they do not. They understand that bringing order to one's surroundings helps bring order to the soul, and vice verse. So be clean in your castle's and in your interior palaces.

Spirituality

While I continue my discussion with Mr. Diga, I think I may devote a few posts to spirituality. These won't be nearly so heavy hitting as my usual posting (not that those hit that heavily), but more like musings or random thoughts.

In other words, more like a blog. Huh...

Religion Discussion

Mr. Diga and I have agreed to start with the question:

"what's to proof the bible is indeed trustworthy?"

Good question. My answer is that the Bible is a product of the Christian Church, not the other way around, and therefore, the question misses the reality of Christianity. The Bible is only trustworthy if the Church that created it is trustworthy, and the Church can only be trustworthy if it has some aspect of the Divine, which I would argue it does.

A lot of people nowadays make the mistake of believing that the Bible is the root source of all Christianity, but historically and practically, this is simply not the case. The Bible as we know it today came into existence some 350 years after Christ's death, and 50 some years after the Council of Nicaea wherein the basics of Christian dogma were codified in the Nicene Creed. Christians comprised a thriving and authoritative Church which was teaching on these issues well before they canonized the Bible, not to mention translated and promulgated it. For hundreds of years, Christians lived, taught and believed without a set Biblical canon, and without even all the books of Scripture. For the first 10-50 years after Christ, they didn't even possess written Gospels, and most communities likely lacked even Paul's letters. While the Old Testament would at least have been prevalent in those communities with Jewish members or backgrounds, the New Testament, those scriptures which are avowedly Christian, would not have been present.

Even in logical terms it doesn't make sense to treat the Bible alone as authority for Christianity. It can't be denied that Christianity is based on the teachings of Jesus the Christ, and that Christianity first and foremost derives from Him, most particularly in the fact that all of Christianity's most basic (and controversial) dogmas stem from this Person's Divine and Human natures. The Trinity, hypostatic union, the efficacy of Salvation, all of these core issues go back to Christ. And Christ didn't write down any of His teachings that we know of, they were all delivered in oral speeches and parables to His followers and the crowds. If we go to the beginning, we don't find a book, we find oral teachings.

Same thing with the Apostles, who didn't go into a flurry of writing and recording after Christ's death (or even before it), but instead went into a flurry of missionary work, preaching the Gospel to any who would listen. It would be years before it was written down. So again, we must conclude that to treat the legitimacy of the Bible, we must treat with the legitimacy of the Church itself, and the person of Christ.

So shall we move on to that next?

(NB: English appears to be a second or third language for Mr. Diga, I will be posting his responses/questions/comments in the manner in which he posted them, As I do not wish to mistakenly misrepresent him by altering any of his text. I believe they'll be fairly intelligible, so it shouldn't present a problem. For future reference, I will also be posting his statements whatever they may be, in bold, and my own in normal font.)

State of the Blog address:

Apologies to anyone who's actually been reading this regularly or semi-regularly. I keep having these several week long hiatuses when I either have writer's block, no motivation, or am too busy/tired. Or some combination thereof. Hopefully this most recent spat of nothing will be coming to end as I embark on a discussion of religion with a gentleman named Ahmad Diga, who put out an open invitation to any and all who wanted to discuss religion with him in a forum I frequent fairly often. I'll be posting our discussions, and labeling them as to whether they're mine or his, on the blog after this post.

Thanks for reading!

Faith

Let's talk a bit about faith. Few words have as potent an impact on the minds that receive them. Christians and other theists tend to view faith through rose colored glasses, happily ensconced in our convenient views of faith in God and the joys it brings. Non-theists, on the other hand, have a rather more cynical view of the subject, seeing faith in God (they rarely acknowledge any other type) as a delusion in need of treatment at best, and a disease capable of destroying the human race at worst. Thank you, radical fundamentalism. To a certain extent, both theist and atheist camps are responsible for the degradation of the concept of faith. I have an announcement to make for both parties.

You're both wrong.

Being a Christian, specifically of the Catholic variety, I will hereby confine myself to Christian theism (being the only one I'm specifically qualified to engage in apologetics for, even if only in my own mind), and Christianity's usage of the term "faith," as compared with atheist/agnostic usage of the term.

While I often complain about the problem of people redefining words to suit their needs, I'm going to have to be guilty of it myself. The issue, of course, is that there's no hard line. One cannot say the word means what it means with no room for discussion, since, of course, usage determines meaning in language. If a word is used in a new way by enough people, that word gains a new meaning, regardless of whether purists are happy over it. Because usage determines meanings, resources such as dictionaries are never perfect authorities, they merely reflect compiled usages of words.

When it comes to what the dictionaries tend to say about "faith," we see this:

1.	confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

2.	belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

3.	belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.

4.	belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.

5.	a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

6.	the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.

7.	the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.

8.	Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.

(Dictionary.com)

Having listed all the definitions to be found in the first dictionary entry at dictionary.com, I'd like to highlight two.

"belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact."

and

"Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved."

I want to highlight these two because I believe that these are the two usages closest to those most prevalent among Christian theists and atheists today, particularly those of the fundamentalist/militant variety. I say "closest" because there's a singular problem in the usage of both camps in regards to their respective definitions.

In the atheist camp, which uses the first definition provided of the two, the word "proof" is often disregarded, and the word, "evidence," inserted. This is a major problem. Proof (and there's no way I'm appealing twice to the dictionary in one post), refers to something that is both 1) evidenced, and 2) accepted. If I provide compelling evidence of evolution, and a Creationist accepts it as proof of Evolution, then Evolution has been proven to that person. If, however, I provide evidence of Evolution, and a Creationist rejects it, then Evolution, despite its overwhelming evidence, wasn't proven. This is, in fact, very similar to the issue with regards to "faith" that I wish to address. Proof is a term that is, ultimately, subjective. The subjective individual decides what will qualify as proof for him or her. Thankfully, at least in the scientific world, things are often approached as objectively and rationally as humanly possible (putting aside the empirical axioms necessary), which results in logical, compelling evidence being taken as proof in a more universal fashion. But that is still the result of individuals accepting what has been evidenced. Failing this, it can only be thought of as evidence so drastically overwhelming and compelling as to be completely irresistable.

The reason the substitution of "evidence" for "proof" is a major problem is because it changes the implications of the word "faith." If someone has a belief that isn't based on "proof," then it is a belief that may very well be based on evidence, but that evidence may not be 1) accepted by others or 2) be utterly overwhelming and compelling. If it fails on either count, that evidence cannot be proof, and this the belief is a matter of faith by the definition. This is fine, it's what the definition offered is supposed to suggest. And contrary to a somewhat popular belief among atheists today, this does not only apply to God, or the supernatural. Faith is a concept that applies across the board to anything we believe, that others don't accept as proven. There are many objects to faith, each must be analyzed based on its individual merits and dealt with accordingly.

Now, to claim that faith is belief without evidence is to claim something completely and utterly impossible. Not only is it a misrepresentation of faith, it's an insult to what should be apparent to anyone with even an iota of common sense. And that is the foundational fact that underlies all beliefs: There is no person who believes something without a reason. I do not say believes without reason, ie without rational, logical reasons for belief. I mean that people always have some reason for believing what they believe, no matter how delusional, psychotic, stupid, irrational, personal, logical, scientific, environmental or genetic it may be. There is always a reason. Without fail. This is an absolute truth of belief, and it is apparent to anyone thinks about it for more than 5 minutes and actually analyzes the beliefs they hold.

This notion of "belief without evidence," is a perversion of the definition of faith used by some atheists to attack Christians who don't have a subtle enough understanding of the terms to tell the difference. Most frightening of all about this; however, is that so many atheists believe it to be true. Too many atheists have become convinced that to be a theist, to have faith, one has to utterly abandon all rational precepts, and devote oneself to believing in something while completely devoid of reasons for belief. This, of course, is absolutely absurd to any educated Christian, and thus the reason why so many atheists today are shocked when they meet just such a person. I cannot begin to relate the amount of atheists I have met who have been shaken to the core of their disbelief by the realization that theists can and do have reasons for their belief, and yet this is still faith. It is my belief that this realization is the trigger of at least some hope in them. If not hope of conversion, at least hope that not all theists are trigger happy lunatics with no reasoning behind them, and can be spoken to and worked with like any other rational adult person.

It is my own fervent wish that atheists who hold to this false notion of faith will read this and realize that they have been misled, either by their own experiences or by others who have come to believe this untruth, and wake up from it. I do not ask for your belief in what I believe, I simply ask that you hold us to a fair and rationally defensible definition of the word we both so often employ. Or, if I'm lucky, you'll accept the definition I will eventually offer, because then we can actually speak to each other with a common understanding of terms. Whichever may be the case, I believe that this aspect of the debate should be settled to the satisfaction of any fair minded and rational audience, theist or atheist alike. I hold no grudge or dislike for atheists or atheism, and I wish it understood this is not meant as an assault upon atheism. It is frustrating for me as a Christian apologist that there is such a huge gap in understanding and commonality between our usages of a simple word, and it is equally frustrating for me as a person who questions everything and loves to debate and analyze with logic to see rational people lured into a trap designed to delude them into believing that a theist cannot have reasons for belief.

I hope any atheists who are reading this will forgive that I addressed their side of the issue first. If it is understood this is not meant as an attack on atheism, I trust it will be easier for them to accept and bear with me as I proceed now to note the problems with the current fundamentalist Christian usage of the word "faith." Believe me, it is my opinion that both sides in this debate will have their feathers thoroughly ruffled before I am through.

As it has been some distance worth of text between this space and the original posting of the definition, I'll repost the second definition, the more specifically Christian one, here:

"Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved."

Now, to the issues at hand. First and foremost, to my fundamentalist Christian brethren, and even some other Christians out there who are much more rational. You need to stop listening to, and letting atheists set the tone for any discussion of faith. I've just finished explaining why there's a major disconnect between what is commonly being labelled "faith" by atheists, and what is at leats a fair and reasonable usage of the term. Don't play by such rules, or you'll deserve to be caught in the absurdly illogical trap you will find yourselves in.

More pressingly, the Christian problem with this definition is not that it has become perverted through a substitution of concepts, it is that this definition is simply not being adhered to. I suspect it is related to a reaction of anti-intellectualism among fundamentalist Christianity today, wherein people are suspiscious of anything that seems to have come from the academic world or the intellectual elite. If I cannot begin to express the atheists who've been shocked to meet a Christian who used logic and had expressible and rational reasons for belief, it is only because you all have so impressed upon the psyche of the atheist world your incredible penchant for spurning reason in all its forms.

You are wrong because you have abandoned reason. Your understanding of faith is faulty because so many of you believe merely what you're told, without exercising the rational faculties of your God0given minds. You either believe what your pastors and parents tell you about faith without examination, or you believe what atheists tell you about faith, equally without examination. The only ones you have to blame for the state of modern, fundamentalist Christianity are yourselves.

Non-Christians reading this, please forgive the digress as I delve into a touch of Scriptural hermeneutics on the topic of faith. And worry not, my own definition is on its way.

Faith, as the above definition highlights, is a concept involving trust in certain promises made by God and known largely through the Scriptures (for the Protestants in the audience, only through the Scriptures). This is all fine and good. Most atheists are, frankly, not going to care. They lack a belief in God, and couldn't care less about the supposed promises of the great Mespotamian Sky Daddy. This definition is meaningless to them. And frankly, it's meaningless to you if my observations are correct. It is my intent to rehabilitate it by offering an alternative I believe can be accepted by both parties.

For the Fundamentalists, the rehabilitation begins here. Faith in Scripture certainly involves belief in things that we cannot prove, particularly in an empirical sense. God cannot be proven via science. We can't perform experiments to demonstrate Him. We can't see Him with telescopes or bounce radio waves off Him, etc. God is unseen. God is immaterial. God is unprovable. Thus faith is involved. But Christian faith goes a step beyond the idea that faith is just belief which cannot be proven. To demonstrate this, and rehabilitate faith, we'll need to address several topics. First is the issue of "Sola Fide," or "faith alone." Second is the problem of believing faith and belief to be separate, which occurs in two ways.

To the first: Sola Fide is the doctrine that Man is saved by Faith alone, and that humanity cannot earn salvation. To avoid any larger unnecessary debate, I will make it clear right now: No Christians since the Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians of the 4th Century have believed that humanity can merit salvation via their own actions. Not the Catholics, not the Orthodox, not the Protestants. No Christians, period.

But there is a fundamental difference between how certain of these sects express the notion of faith alone. We Catholics, for example, are careful to note that 1) it is Grace that saves, 2) it is through faith, not by faith, that we are saved and 3) that according to the Church, according to Scripture and according to Tradition, works are a fundamental expression of living faith. In other words, a person cannot have faith without having works. Without going into long exegesis, this is expressed most particularly in the letter of St. James 2:14-20, wherein such faith without works is compared to the empty words of those who wish warmth and food upon those who are cold and starving, yet do nothing to provide it. Furthermore, it is pointed out that faith without works is dead. Not just empty but dead. And finally a very important point: That even the devils believe in God, but such belief avails them nothing.

What does this mean for us, Christian, attempting to arrive at a rehabilitated understanding of the theological usage of the word faith? It means that faith, according to the Scriptures, involves a second requirement besides belief, which must be met before faith is achieved. That requirement is action. Thus we are now at a point where I can offer my own definition of faith:

To have faith is to believe/trust/or accept and then act upon.

For the atheists reading this, it should already be understood as a necessary condition of belief that one has a reason for belief, even if that reason is personal, or does not serve as proof for anyone else for some other reason. The issue of proof should be understood going in, thus removing the need for a further statement of a lack of provability. Likewise, I urge atheists to consider the implications of the second condition of faith in terms of its applications outside of the theism/atheism debate.

For example, if you have faith that a friend will mail a letter for you, that means you both believe that your friend would do so, and that you have acted, are acting, or are willing to act on that belief. If you just believed it, you only say you believe it. If you have faith, a component of action has entered into the equation. And this is true of every single instance wherein the term faith is used, again both in the context of our debate, and outside of it. I challenge anyone who has an issue with the proffered definition to provide an example they believe invalidates it, and I'll gladly take up the challenge to revision or rebuttal. Honestly, I don't expect many attempts, I believe this definition to be as perfect an understanding of the word as can be achieved by human means.

For the Christians reading this, I simply urge you to meditate upon the letter of St. James, particularly the passage already cited, and also to remember the one abiding truth we should all be able to agree on regarding our faith: It is transformative. Faith is such that it should be visible in the things a person does (hence the acting based on our beliefs), and that visibility should be the sign of the interior transformation that faith effects in humans through the power of God's Grace.

Now, to the second set of problems from the fundamentalist camp: I have seen (far too many times) people claiming one of two things in response to the atheist question, "why do you believe in God?" Those statements are:

1) I believe because I have faith!

2) You have to have faith to believe!

I have saved this until last because I needed to first outline the problem of a raw bones view of sola fide, and thus rehabilitate the notion of faith being predicated upon belief and action from belief, before I could address the fundamental flaw in this type of simplistic thinking.

You are repeating yourself, and thus not answering the question asked.

Given the definition of faith as "belief in something that is then acted upon," or one of the variant forms involving trust or acceptance, or even that of a belief which cannot be proven, it becomes intellectually vacuous to tell someone asking why you believe, that you believe because you have a belief which cannot be proven, or conversely that you must have a belief which cannot be proven to believe.

This is nonsensical, and as noted before it is exactly why atheist think the vast majority of Christian theists are utterly mad.

To answer the question of why one believes, you cannot answer that you believe because of faith, or that you need to have faith to believe.

You cannot believe because of faith, since to have faith, you must already believe, trust or accept the truth of Christianity. Likewise, you cannot use faith to believe, since you cannot have faith until you believe. When you answer like this to a rational atheist, they're going to see the absurdity of such circular and self-defeating propositions, and view faith as something absurd. This simply contributes further to atheists believing faith is something that cannot be evidenced, as opposed to something that cannot be proven. When Christian theists, by and large, cannot or do not provide any evidence or reason for their beliefs besides just talking about "faith," then it's difficult to blame atheists for believing faith to be something that cannot be evidenced. Very difficult, in fact. Were I an atheist, I expect I'd be caught in the same trap.

When asked why you have faith, you must answer with the reason why you believe, even if it isn't a very "good" one. For example, do you believe because you had a personal experience and felt God communicating with you in some way? Then say so! While you shouldn't expect anyone else to believe because of your experience, you still shouldn't be afraid to say that you believe in God because God revealed Himself to you in some way. Personal experiences are a valid reason for personal belief. They're just not great reasons for someone else to believe, lacking such an experience or other reason of their own to work in support.

If you believe because you were taught to believe, or raised to believe, then say so! I myself am a "cradle Catholic." I was born in Catholicism, raised in it, Confirmed in it, and I fully intend to die in it. I have no shame that my parents chose to teach me to love God, and you shouldn't either. And if you, also like me, have reasons to believe such as logical conclusions and arguments, or evidence you see in nature, or even a belief that God and the supernatural are part of what makes life worth living, etc. don't be afraid to share that too. It's not proof, but proof can't ever be provided, so it's not worth worrying about in this debate. Answer honestly, and answer joyfully. Answer with the love of Christ.

Great question!

"I am not saying that Catholicism is false, but why would a Christian not obey the ideals of Sola Scriptura? The Bible is the only reliable word of God."

Because Sola Scriptura is:

1) Illogical
2) Unhistorical
3) UnBiblical

It's illogical because it is circular reasoning, and thus a fallacious epistemology. You cannot take a book as authoritative without circular assumptions regarding the nature of that book. Moreover, when you take a book like the Bible as "sole authority," what you're really doing is saying that YOU are the sole authority, because the reading of a book like the Bible involves interpretation. When an individual claims Sola Scriptura is their rule of faith, that means their personal interpretation of Scripture is their rule of faith. Hardly logical.

It's unhistorical because no one prior to Martin Luther considered the Scriptures to be the sole word of God. Christians for 1500 years understood that there was Scripture, and it was valuable and important, but there was also Tradition, of equal importance and value because it is the mate of Scripture, it's Christ's teachings passed down orally. Without both, there's no way to check an interpretation for errors. Likewise, it's unhistorical because it neglects the entire period wherein Christianity existed WITHOUT the Bible as we know it. Christians had Scriptures, but they weren't a set canon, and they differed by region. And particularly early on, there wasn't anything written in the New Testament. Even the earliest estimates would have it seem that for a decade after Christ's death, nothing was written of the Gospel. And that's the early estimates, not the late ones. How is it the historical practice of Christianity that only Scripture can be relied upon?

And finally, Sola Scriptura is unbiblical. NOWHERE in Scripture is there any indication that Scripture is the sole authoritative source for Christian doctrine. Nowhere. It's absolutely and completely impossible to demonstrate Biblically, making Sola Scriptura a contradiction in terms. If all Christian doctrines must come from the Bible, that's a Christian doctrine in and of itself. Yet it is not Biblical. Sola Scriptura fails according to its own test.

Now, I'm certain you're going to give me the verse from 1 Timothy about Scripture being inspired, profitable for teaching, correcting, debating, etc.

But this verse says nothing about Scripture being 1) sole or 2) authoritative. It says that Scripture is a useful resource that's inspired by God. I agree completely. But that doesn't make it the sole authority for Christianity. And it technically leaves us with the problem that the verse itself, written as it was before most of the New Testament, refers to the Scriptures of Timothy's youth. The Old Testament. It leaves us with absolutely no way to know WHICH books are to be part of Scripture, either Old or New since, again, neither had a definitive canon at that point in history.

Lastly, the Bible DOES have certain things to relate concerning what is to be our authority after Christ ascended into Heaven. The Bible never mentions itself, but it does mention the Church. Christ never mentions leaving a Bible. Christ does talk about leaving a Church. Thus Sola Scriptura fails its own test again.

Fun Debate!

Starting with post #29, Mr. Adam Kennedy and myself have entered into a debate with some relevance to the entitlement series I've just finished posting. Stop by and check it out.

That Hideous Sense; Part V

4: "The Problem of Evil."

The Problem of Evil has been solved quite a few times by Christianity. Augustine solved it in the 4th Century AD, and his solution still works. Aquinas as well, and even I have solved it elsewhere. That being said, I will not here go to the full lengths necessary to deal with the Problem of Evil in its entirety. What I wish to deal with focuses on the main part of the Problem of Evil, that question asked, generally in our childhood, of "Why do bad things happen to good people?" or perhaps, "Why is there suffering?"

The reason I have saved the Problem of Evil for last is not because I believe it to be any more troublesome or valid than any of the preceding arguments, but because the preceding three arguments are all related. They all stem not only from our sense of entitlement, but from the Problem of Evil itself. At the end of the last section, we were left with the realization that the "genocides" of the Old Testament are skewed to our modern sensibilities because we have a false conception and sense of entitlement, both in regards to our lives, and to fairness. And it is at "fairness" that we must now look, and it's relationship with suffering.

One thing I wish to absolutely note about the idea of "fairness" in human terms is that it is, of course, about entitlement. Let us examine, to gain some perspective on this, the challenge of why God allows anyone, or even in particular, an innocent baby to die in the womb, or to die as an infant, having never experienced life. Why, exactly, is this a challenge? It is perceived as not being fair, and somewhere along the way, people have gotten it into their heads that God is about being fair, or that life is about being fair. And yet what is fairness?

Something being fair is something that is perceived as entitled. If it is not fair that someone dies young, it is because we have a perception that that person is entitled to a long life, that that person deserves a good life.

Now one Christian reply to this question of why people suffer, or why do people die young, etc. might be that old idea of sin. That death or suffering are punishment for sin. That we do not deserve a long life, happiness, pleasure, etc. etc. because we are sinners, and what we deserve is actually death and punishment. We have done no good to earn any of these things, we do not deserve them. We recall that they are gifts, as I noted before. This is indeed one side of the coin, and it can be argued reasonably well. One can note that our entitlement here is so purely selfish that it blinds us. For the Christian, one might stress that Christ called us expressly to selflessness, not to selfishness, and thus we must destroy and disavow this sense of entitlement.

But in our particular case here I noted that we would examine the instance of even a baby in the womb, or an infant. Surely these poor innocents cannot be said to have earned punishment and death, even if they did not earn the gift of their life. These children are innocent of all willful evil, and thus are not deserving of punishment. But then, if they are innocent, death is not a punishment. Now we must look at the opposite side of the coin. Our sense of entitlement is selfish here as well. We believe that all humans are entitled to life, that they deserve to have it. But humans are not capable of living forever in our present forms (And it would be a horrible thing if we could. Pause to contemplate, if you will, the results of a world where no one ever died; the poverty, over crowding, starvation and general misery would be immense). Even Christians must be justified, sanctified and glorified by and in Christ to have ever lasting life. We are not entitled to life, we realized as much before. It is just as much of a freely given gift to us as the Grace that saves us from our just and deserved damnation. It is a freely given gift, not something we are entitled to. And thus, all sense of "fairness" fails. It cannot be unfair that some people die young, or even as children, because there is no entitlement to a lifespan of a certain length. Likewise, it cannot be unfair that people suffer, or that people experience what an observer might consider to be a less worthy existence. Without our sense of entitlement, which is baseless, there is no fairness to debate, and there is no Problem of Evil.

Now, I noted before that we would examine the possible relationship between "fairness" and suffering. And indeed there is one. It is one of the oldest philosophical relationships there is, and one which is the source of at least one major world religion. I am speaking, of course, about Buddhism. We can first note this relationship by realizing that both suffering and fairness are generally rooted in selfishness. When you believe yourself to be entitled to something or deserving of something, you suffer when you do not receive it. When you want something, and you don't get it, you suffer. But selfish desires and self entitlement fail when examined in the light of selflessness which is the meaning of Agape love, the love we Christians preach. They also fail in light of everything we have already observed in these essays. If you'll forgive the expression, by what "right" are we so selfish? By what "right" are we entitled? The heart of the Problem of Evil is entitlement. Not only in that it is our sense of entitlement that makes us believe we deserve that which we do not deserve, but because in so doing, it is entitlement that becomes the source of much of our suffering, not God.

Solve the problem of entitlement, and the problem of pain loses its... shall we say, "sting?"

That Hideous Sense; Part IV

3: "Why is there so much genocide in the Old Testament?"

And now we have reached, aside from the Problem of Evil, perhaps the greatest argument in the modern atheist arsenal against Christianity (and I suppose against Judaism and Islam as well). For the atheist points out that our God, who is supposedly Loving and Good, seems to order that quite a lot of people (and peoples) be butchered throughout the Old Testament.

And this is a great argument because it is quite strong. It is, on the face of it, paradoxical to our eyes that a God who is Love would order the deaths of various peoples. It is even more paradoxical that the God who supplied us with the 10 Commandments would seemingly order His people to violate one of them.

I agree with the atheist, this observation of God is not only paradoxical, it is contradictory. What I don't agree with, however, is that the argument has accurately described God! Again I am struck by the hideous strength which entitlement exerts over our thinking. Before, I said that all the goods in our life are gifts given by God. All those things that are rights or perceived as rights, are in fact gifts. The previous two problems dealt with two powerful examples of those alleged rights and the problems of entitlement that they entail.

Now what we must contend with is the principle problem of this issue. It is the principle problem because it is the greatest good! Thomistic philosophy states that existence is in and of itself Good, that Good and existence are fundamentally related to each other. For all other rights, we have so far identified them as Good things in our lives, but now we have come to the "right to life" and we must admit that it is not only the foremost good in our life, but it is the foremost good because it is our life. It is our very existence on this Earth, and thus is the most powerful and relevant Good available to us. And it is the thing that we are most likely to feel entitled to as a result. If all else can be taken from us, we still have our lives. Yet if even our lives be taken from us, what have we? Western liberal thinking has enshrined the right to life as foremost of the first three, the great three, rights. The rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; but happiness and liberty are automatically forfeited should we lose life. Life is the principle liberty, the greatest good. It is the thing that liberal philosophy most wants us to believe we are entitled to, that we deserve, and that our possession of it should be utterly inviolable. And against it stands, I believe somewhat ironically, Christianity.

Now certainly Christianity has used the expression "right to life." But Christianity has a peculiar advantage over the strictly secular world in doing so. Christians in the United States arguing about the right of children in the womb to live can do so because they live under a political system that works in terms of rights. And Christianity as a system can (and has) embrace the idea that all humans intrinsically have worth, and that we are equal, precisely and only because Christianity has taught this since long before "rights" existed, for it is what God Himself revealed to us. But none of this means that we have the "right to live." We have no such thing. As usual, the Christian concept is quite the opposite, what we have is the lack of the right to murder. "Thou shalt not murder," so often mistranslated as "thou shalt not kill" is the heart of the issue.

This commandment does not mean that we are entitled to life. Life is a gift. To paraphrase Chesterton, it is the birthday gift of being born. It is a gift, and it always will be. And what we have is not the right to it, but the lack of a right to unjustly suspend or end it. And this refers to all human lives. We have no right to unjustly end our own lives, nor those of our children, nor those of our neighbors, nor those of the infirm, etc.

"A-ha!" cries the atheist! "I have you now! You have admitted that we do not have the right to kill others unjustly, that we do not have the right to kill our children or our selves! So why is it that the Old Testament portrays not only genocide, but even commands that children be killed in certain situations?!"

And entitlement strikes again. For modern sensibilities, even if they accept that they do not have a right to live, still operate under the flawed assumption that they are entitled to a certain sense of justice. This is not the case. There is only one Justice, it is the objective Justice of God. Killing in the Old Testament falls under several categories. Some of the killings are murders, and you will note that God Himself reacts quite strictly to those. Some of them are not murders but are what atheists term genocide, and what the Hebrews understood as punishment. The Hebrews record in their Scriptures not only that God told them to kill or enslave a town or population, but that God gave them specific reasons for doing so. These people were not innocents being executed unjustly as is so often alleged by the atheist camp, they were sinners and those who rejected God. Not only were they not entitled to the gift of life, but they had taken their gift, and used it only to spurn God and fight against God's people (it should also be noted that just about every city destroyed was given the opportunity to peacefully join the Israelites).

In addition to this, we also have the situation arising where these people were worshiping other gods, and God (rightly if we examine the later history of Israel) noted that such worship would tempt His Chosen People. God is a jealous God (another often misunderstood phrase, which we should do well to note means that God is not tolerant of unfaithfulness, or in other words, sin, which is a natural outgrowth of His dual properties of being Good and being Just), and commanded the end of the worship of false gods among His people, and even that they prevent this by going so far as to destroy those whose gift of life God no longer chose to grant.

Some people, with modern sensibilities, would normally believe those people executed in this manner to be innocent of any crime, and would consider God to be a horrible monster. This is based not only on our sense of entitlement to life, but also entitlement to what we believe is justice. Because we are not objectively knowledgeable creatures, it is not only likely, it is expected and obvious that we will never be able to determine what is truly just. We do not know the perfect reality of any given situation, and any attempt on the part of atheists to argue that God here was not Just or that God was cruel or contradictory, etc. must be met with amusement. If an atheist cannot demonstrate to us objective morality, how much more unlikely is it that an atheist is going to be able to demonstrate to us objective Justice? And most especially objective Justice of events that occurred thousands of years ago? Their argument is easily dismissed, and with it, this argument as a whole. It is simply another problem of entitlement, though one doubly difficult to deal with, since it involved perhaps those two that are most important to us, life and fairness.

And that, will bring us to the last and final difficulty presented by atheism and related to entitlement, in the final piece of this series.

Mary and the Saints in Catholicism

This one will be in the form of a sort of dialog addressing common questions/misconceptions about Mary and the Saints. Apologetics 101 right here!

The first issue I'll address is that of the often noted complaint of many Protestants that Catholics place Mary on too high of a pedestal, despite her being a human, born of human parents. Most specifically we are often challenged on hymns or praise directed towards her, or prayer (which will have its own section, as it's quite important).

I do not disagree that Mary was human or born of human parents. In fact, I don't think you'll find any Catholic who would disagree with that, haha, though there are some crazy schismatic groups who are a bit nuts on Mary. But I would like to challenge this idea that hymns or praise of a human are out of place.

And I would like to challenge it based on the idea of glorification. Glorification in Catholic Theology is, in a sense, the last part of the process of salvation, and it is when we have died and entered into Heaven, we are glorified in addition to being justified and sanctified. You will find that Paul goes into this topic in depth in Romans chapter 8, but it is also present in other Epistles from the Apostle. I would like to examine a couple quickly in order to help illustrate an important point.

First, Galatians chapter 1, verse 24. Paul states, "And they glorified God in me." He says this while relaying his conversion experience, his missionary history, etc. and how he was called by God away from persecuting the Church to proclaiming the Church. And he says of those who heard of this remarkable conversion that they glorified God in him.

I would like to suggest that what this statement means was that in all of the Saints, in all holy men called by God, driven by the Spirit, etc., and in all who are glorified by God when they have been saved, that when we give to them glory and praise, we are also giving glory, honor and praise to the God who glorified them. For they would not be glorified without Him. If we honor them, how much more must we honor the One who made them and called them? And if we honor the One who glorifies them, is it not right and fitting for us to glorify them as well, for that is what God Himself has chosen to do?

Next, II Thessalonians, 1:10 and 1:12 in which Paul says, respectively, "When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be made wonderful in all them who have believed; because our testimony was believed upon you in that day." and "That the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to the grace of our God, and of the Lord Jesus Christ."

Again we see this interesting idea of God being glorified in His Saints. God being glorified in people, not just on His own, but also that in His servants His glory is also made manifest, thus making it right and proper to glorify them and through them Him. The second verse emphasizes this especially by noting, as I said before, that this is a dual property. "That the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to the grace of our God, [...]." Christ's name is glorified in His servants, in all of us when we act as true Christians should. And at the same time, we are glorified in Him as a result. Again I say, to those whom God has glorified, it is only right and fitting that we also glorify them, for God has raised them up.

Now, how does this relate to Mary? In Catholic theology, all of the Saints, those whom we know to be in Heaven, they are all considered glorified by Christ, in Christ, through Christ. Mary is also a Saint, making it right and proper for us to give her honor, glory and praise, for God Himself has done so. Moreover, there is a certain added dignity to Mary's position. Mary does have a unique role in all of human history, and is really only comparable to Eve in terms of all women in the world. Eve is the daughter of God through whom disobedience entered into the world, and Mary is the daughter of God whose perfect obedience brought the new Adam, Christ the Redeemer into the world. No other woman can ever make such a claim, no other woman can ever rightly be called the Mother of God. Which means, in the final analysis, that Mary is not only a glorified Saint, but also a person with a certain added dignity due to our recognition of her vast historical importance, and most especially to her critically important obedience. Had Mary refused God's Will, which was always within her power as she had Free Will just as we do, she would've disrupted God's entire plan for our salvation. No other human born of human parents was as singularly instrumental in any work of God's, not to mention in the greatest work of God, our Redemption. Therefore, I find I must object that it is only fitting that we afford to Mary the highest respect and honor given to any human born of human parents. We do not equate her to God, of course, but we do place her above all others, for only Mary can be said to have been perfectly obedient to God's will, and only Mary as a regular human can be said to have been crucially important to God's plan for our salvation.

To delve further into the topic of respect, we also should examine the words used to describe how Catholics regard Mary, the Saints and God:

Due to the inadequacies of the English language there are often misconceptions on this point. In Greek (and Latin, I believe the terms became mingled linguistically), the words dulia, hyper-dulia and latria are the words used to apply to the Saints, Mary and God respectively. Generally they are approximately translated as Respect, Reverence and Worshipful Adoration. Notice the gap between Mary and God and the linguistic relation between Mary and the Saints. We respect Saints, and revere Mary, both things we can do to people because they are varying degrees of respect and we must respect even those who are on Earth, so obviously we must respect those God has chosen to Glorify. God has Glorified them, therefore it is fitting that we also give them proper respect, as I've said like four times now. Both are based off the word dulia, whereas to God alone the word latria is applied. Latria is true worship, true adoration and full glory given, a huge difference in degree from the other two, but one that is simply not as noticeable in the English language, I'm sad to say.

As for Mary in particular she was just a human on Earth, like us, so how did she find such favor with God? Catholics do not believe that Mary is in any way divine, she is not God, at all, never was, never will be (I think you know this, but I like to be sure). So why did God find favor in her? Clearly Mary played a special role in God's plan for us, she was the mother of Christ, a unique position in the whole of human history. But before that, what was she? Just a woman to be sure. So what was there to find favor in? We know that humans are sinful, stained creatures whom God doesn't generally find favor in. Does anyone ever receive a greeting like Mary's, "Hail Mary, full of Grace," "Hail Mary, most favored one!" in the rest of the Bible? Mary was special, but still human. Full of Grace, most favored, highly favored, what does this mean? It means that Mary, because of her special role, was preserved from sin by God. Mary, as Ark of the Covenant, from the very moment of her conception was cleansed from sin by God through Christ to be the hallowed Vessel that would carry the New Covenant, Christ Jesus. We know that on our own, we are as nothing to God, that our good deeds are like dirty rags, that our obedience is ever failing, and our humility weak and fragile. There is nothing in us to favor. Thus Mary could only have found favor with God through God Himself working to preserve her from the failings of the rest of us. By freeing her from Original Sin and pouring Grace into her, He effectively kept her from sinning at any later point in time to preserve her purity for Christ. Yes, she's just a woman. A woman who found favor with God.

Next, I'll address the misconception that Catholics do not believe Mary needed a savior.

Catholics teach that Mary was born without sin, but not that she didn't need a Savior. In fact, we believe that Mary was born without sin because she had a Savior, her Son who made her specifically and especially for her role in His life, in His plan, etc. Mary is not only the new Eve, the obedient daughter who helps to remedy the flaws of the disobedient daughters, but she is also the new Ark of the Covenant, the sanctified vessel in which God Himself resided for nine months. Here is something to consider. I think you would agree that to have an intimate relationship with God, we must be sanctified, that is, we must be holy and without stain of sin. For most of us, this sanctification first occurs when we become Christians. For Mary, this sanctification occurred when she was conceived, because she would have to be sanctified to serve as the vessel for Christ who was God. And what means, exactly, were present for her sanctification outside of miraculous intervention?

If we analyze the nature of sin, and understand that sin generates a proclivity towards sinning more, it doesn't make sense to make Mary a creature suffering from the burden of Original Sin as we ourselves do. Proclivity towards sin in the Theotokos? If she were to make sacrifices for the remission of her sins in the Jewish fashion, there is still no reason that she, as a sinner then, wouldn't fall right back into sin, losing her sanctification and thus losing the special characteristic logic tells us would be needed for someone to bear God within her, intimately bound to her life. Mary must be protected from sin, and protected in such a way that her Free Will is never compromised, for to do so would be to make her a slave, which is a horrible and detestable notion to God. The only possible means for this are to create Mary without any blemish of Original sin, to ensure that she doesn't develop our proclivity towards sin, and then to shower her with Grace so that she always knows and desires the path of God instead of the path of sin. In this way, Mary can choose to follow God's Will, and thus not only retain her Free Will and not violate the divine plan for all Creation, but at the same time, set for us a perfect example of obedience to God's Will, even when we know the consequences will be dark (remember in normal circumstances Mary would've been disgraced, ostracized, even stoned for becoming pregnant with a child that wasn't her betrothed's, yet still she obeyed with no thought for herself).

And again, referencing my earlier argument, there is no other time in the Bible when any human is addressed as "Full of Grace", or as "Highly Favored One," by an angel, a messenger of God. No human who is sinful is worthy of such a greeting, and no human who is sinful ever receives one. Mary is very different, she is not sinful, she is full of Grace, and Grace is rather contrary to sin.

As I said, we certainly agree that Mary needed a Savior. But we, perhaps, disagree in the action of salvation. To use a popular Catholic analogy, most humans are like blind people who have fallen into a pit. We are trapped, stuck and buried, unable to escape on our own, basically helpless. For us, the Savior is the person who can see and comes along and pulls us out of the hole, and even brings light to our eyes that we may see for ourselves and avoid future pitfalls. But this is not the only way in which the Savior can save. For the Savior can also save by guiding the blind around the pit, preserving them from it in the first place, and saving them without them ever falling. It is in this way that Mary was saved. She was saved by a preemptive act of the Grace of God, in order to make her the perfect vessel God required for His plans, the perfect example of obedience, and the perfect mother for His Divine Begotten Son.

Catholics are often challenged on why we have need of intercessors (who we pray to) when Christ is our mediator with God. So next, I will address this issue.

This is an excellent question, and one which is, I think, based on a misunderstanding of prayer, intercession, and mediation.

Let's start with prayer to make sure we have a firm grasp of what it means in Catholicism. In Greek, there are several words for prayer, of which we will examine two, proseuchomai and deomai. Proseuchomai is prayer that carries with it the connotation of worship, it is prayer reserved for God alone. This is the word Christ uses when He teaches the Apostles the Lord's Prayer. Deomai is prayer in the form of requests for aid, entreaties, begging, etc. Deomai carries no connotation of worship, and is used throughout the Bible as people make requests of each other. The problem arises when translated from Greek into English, both words are translated as prayer. If you examine an English dictionary you will see that both definitions I have listed here have corresponding definitions for the word pray. You will also see that the etymology of the word pray comes from the Latin precari which simply means "to ask."

When Catholics pray to the Saints and Mary, we are not using proseuchomai, far from it. Catholics use deomai prayer, we ask those in Heaven to ask God for things on our behalf. In other words, we use deomai to request of the Saints and Mary that they use proseuchomai on our behalf. We also use deomai to ask of our friends and family to use proseuchomai on our behalf (which is exactly what you do if you've ever asked someone to pray for someone or something). And we of course use proseuchomai on our own behalf as well.

So in reply to the first part of the question, while we certainly have a God to pray to with Christ as our Mediator, this does not preclude in any way prayers to the Saints, for it is a different prayer altogether, and one that is not worshipful, but instead a simple request, and a request for prayers at that!

Now, this does not address why we pray to the Saints and Mary, nor does it demonstrate why there is any necessity for intercession from anyone else. There are many answers to this, many possible replies, etc. My personal favorite is the one given right below this paragraph. But one thing that I have to note before continuing is that we do not actually believe that intercession from Saints is necessary. You do not have to ask for the intercession of the Saints or of Mary as a Catholic. While we have many beautiful prayers that involve Saintly intercession, we also have many beautiful prayers that do not involve the Saints at all! And there is always free form prayer, which is the prayer I use the most. We don't claim it is absolutely necessary to ask for intercession. But we do believe it to be a very important, possibly even essential part of a strong spiritual life, because we are all part of the Mystical Body of Christ.

Like it or not, by virtue of the fact that we are Christians, even though we are currently walking around on Earth, we are connected through Christ to all the Saints who are alive in Christ in Heaven. We are still one Body, the Church, just in different states of existence. To deny a spiritual relationship with other parts of the Body is tantamount to the eye saying to the foot that it needs it not. We are not in this alone. We have our brothers and sisters walking the Earth with us now, and we have our brothers and sisters waiting for us in Heaven (we also have our brothers and sisters who are performing penance in Purgatory, but that's a whole other issue, haha). The mouth cannot say to the hand that it doesn't need it, the eye cannot cut off the foot, and we cannot say that it is wrong to have a relationship with our Saintly brethren. It is essential for a healthy body that all parts of it work together as they are meant to, if the arm ignores the brain, or the foot ignores the leg, there can only be pain and trouble for all involved, for the entire Body. And now, let's look at at another, perhaps more practical reason, why intercession is a good thing.

I ask you to consider this: Christ links our Faith and our Prayers, yes? Whatsoever you ask in my name will be given, whoever asks with faith that his request will be answered will have it granted to him, right? There is a link between our faith and our requests. And in times of great duress, it can be very difficult to have perfect faith in God, to see past our doubts and distress and rely on Him and know He will aid us. We are, after all, only people, people with imperfect bodies and minds. It is to be expected of us that at times doubts seep into our hearts and cloud our faith, damaging our prayers. But those who are in Heaven, in other words those people whose Faith we know to have been so great that they are already Glorified, Perfected in Christ, do they have such doubts? Such worries? Such clouding in their hearts? Of course not, they have been Glorified. So we turn to them, knowing that these people have a Faith which can never doubt and never fail, and we know then that even if we doubt and fail, we have those supporting us who will never. That is one reason why we pray to the Saints, and even more so to Mary for Mary was one whose faith never wavered even in life.

Next up, is the idea that Catholics believe that the Saints desire glorification from us, as well as the objection that we, as Christians, are not to take glory in men, but only in God.

First point is that we are not suggesting that they desire glory. It isn't that they desire, ask for, demand, etc. any glory. It is that God has glorified them, and in accord with His will we also glorify them.

Second point is that glorifying in men is different that glorifying men who have been glorified by God. Glorifying in men means that we are glorying in things that come from men, or in things that are entirely human in origins. This doesn't mean that we cannot glorify those whom God has glorified, for that is something that is from God, not from men.

We also have the objection that Mary cannot be the Mother of God because it implies that a portion of God was "unmade" before Christ. This is really a more minor issue, and easily addressed.

The Son proceeds from the Father, or is, as better put, Eternally Begotten by the Father. But unless you are going to suggest that Christ was not God, Mary is still the mother of Christ, who was 100% God (The Son). If Christ was God, something I'd assume we agree on, then Mary was indeed the Mother of God. This doesn't mean that Mary was necessary for The Son to exist, or that the Son wasn't the Son before He was born of Mary, it merely means that God became Man, remained both God and Man, and had a mother as a result. A mother who is rightfully called the Mother of God.

A further objection is occasionally offered against Mary as being sinless in that God used sinful humans for various purposes in the Old Testament, and that God was not specific nor picky as to who He wanted for His vessel. I will here address the flaw of treating men like Moses, Samuel, David, Jonah, etc. like Mary.

God used those unworthy servants (they were not vessels at all) for very different tasks than the one He had for Mary. First of all being that Mary was a vessel, while the gentlemen listed were prophets, kings, judges or patriarchs, etc. Their roles were not that of a vessel for the object of a divine covenant, they had different jobs.

In fact, in stark contradiction to the above objection, God was very specific as to the kind of vessel He desired to carry the tablets of His first covenant.

Exodus 25: "10 Frame an ark of setim wood, the length whereof shall be of two cubits and a half: the breadth, a cubit and a half: the height, likewise, a cubit and a half.

11 And thou shalt overlay it with the purest gold within and without: and over it thou shalt make a golden crown round about: 12 And four golden rings, which thou shall put at the four corners of the ark: let two rings be on the one side, and two on the other. 13 Thou shalt make bars also of setim wood, and shalt overlay them with gold. 14 And thou shalt put them in through the rings that are in the sides of the ark, that it may be carried on them. 15 And they shall be always in the rings, neither shall they at any time be drawn out of them.

16 And thou shalt put in the ark the testimony which I will give thee. 17 Thou shalt make also a propitiatory of the purest gold: the length thereof shall be two cubits and a half, and the breadth a cubit and a half. 18 Thou shalt make also two cherubims of beaten gold, on the two sides of the oracle. 19 Let one cherub be on the one side, and the other on the other. 20 Let them cover both sides of the propitiatory, spreading their wings, and covering the oracle, and let them look one towards the other, their faces being turned towards the propitiatory wherewith the ark is to be covered."

God was very specific as to the materials and their quality that were to be employed to create the Ark of the Old Covenant. For the sake of some stone tablets and the law, God demands the purest gold, rare wood, very exact measurements and specific decorations, etc. This was for some pieces of stone and written commandments. Christ was the New Covenant. His Flesh and His Blood are consecrated things offered up for us, He Himself notes this at the Last Supper. Christ was far greater in stature and importance than the first Covenant, and as a material object, He far surpasses the stone tablets and the law. And as a result, He also requires a far superior Ark, one which is capable of carrying Him. Christ requires a hallowed and specially made Ark, just as the Tablets of the Old Covenant required a hallowed and specially made Ark.

Finally, I will address the flawed misconception that Catholic prayers to the Saints are similar to pleading with the dead for favors.

This is a misunderstanding of prayer to the Saints. We are not pleading with the dead for favors.

What we are doing is asking for those who are alive with Christ to pray to Christ with us.

The idea is neither for us to not pray to Christ, nor is it to pray to the "dead." Those who are Saints are not dead, they are living in Christ, the fulfillment of His Promise of Everlasting Life to His followers.

If one will agree that Saints in Heaven are alive in Christ, and part of His promise to His followers of Everlasting Life (He even says in the Gospels that there are those with Him who will never taste of death), then that will remedy the first misunderstanding. Then if you understand that we do not expect the Saints to have any power of their own, and that it is assumed, automatically, when we petition a Saint that the Saint will pray to God, and not work some power through him or herself, and moreover that we are not supposed to neglect praying to God ourselves, this will be completely remedied.

As a final point regarding praying to the Saints, do remember that when Paul was writing, there were not particularly many Saints to pray to. Other than Stephen and Dismas, I cannot think of many Christians of note who would've been Saints when Paul was writing. But what Paul does do is encourage people on Earth to pray for each other. Paul himself often asks the communities that he writes to to pray for him and other missionaries, etc.

What this means is that if you accept the idea that the Church transcends just those of us currently walking the Earth, and also includes the Spiritual presence of the Saints, for example, then Paul asking the Earthly members of the Church for prayers is not at all dissimilar from our asking the Spiritual members of the Church for prayers. We are still all one Body, and it is only right that the parts of the Body help each other, love each other, etc.

That Hideous Sense; Part III

2: "Why does the Bible condone slavery?

This question is quite possibly more pervasive, problematic and pernicious than the previous (why doesn't God heal amputees?), but it is still an argument based upon entitlement. The basic tenets of the slavery argument, as it will be called from here on out, is that it is always immoral to own slaves, thus Biblical allowances or dealings with slavery mean that the Bible has condoned that which is immoral, making the Bible and all which relies on it (most atheists suffer from the delusion that Christianity, like Islam, is a religion of the book, we have Sola Scripture to thank for this) faulty and immoral. The only reason I say that this argument is more dangerous for the Christian is because few people are willing to actually analyze slavery. Slavery is a taboo subject, and suggesting that a further examination of slavery's morality, or its historical continuity (or lack thereof), to determine whether it is acceptable or not is automatically rejected. It is rejected, of course, because modern entitlement has preconditioned Westerners to think that freedom is the highest good, and that if you are a slave, you have lost this most precious good, and thus slavery must be evil. This is false, as we will soon see. This mindset is prevalent amongst Christians and atheists alike, who do not wish to be viewed as supporting slavery, thus they continue to assume that slavery is immoral without inspection.

This assumption, however, does not stand up to scrutiny. In fact, just in a basic sense, we have several major problems to address within it.

The first is the most practical. It is, "How do we know that slavery is objectively immoral?" The second is almost as practical, it is, "How do we know that what we think of as slavery is the same as the slavery found in the Bible?" These two questions must be addressed before any progress can be made on this particular question. They are also very difficult questions for many atheistic challengers to the faith to answer.

Morality is always a tricky subject. To say that something is immoral, in the manner of this argument (that slavery is always immoral), requires objective knowledge of both morality and slavery. When a religion claims that some act is immoral, the religion makes this claim based on divine teachings, for only divine teachings can possibly be objective sources of authority on whether an issue is moral or immoral. But when an atheist makes recourse to claim something is good, evil, or immoral, that atheist is attempting to use an objective adjective when he or she doesn't know the objective truth of the subject in question. He or she cannot even entertain the pretense that they do, because they cannot rely upon God. They have no recourse to objective authority, and thus their claims are problematic. The atheist who can objectively define morality does not exist, and no claim concerning morality from an atheist is ever truly troublesome for the Christian. Atheists simply have no ground to stand upon in this area.

Now, there are certainly plenty of philosophers now and in the past who've attempted to construct objectively moral systems without appeals to the divine, based upon various principles and axioms that they've established. In the case of slavery, the most likely recourse would be to appeal to the idea of humans having an objective right to liberty, such that slavery must be immoral, as I stated earlier. The problem, as we know, is that this alleged right is indemonstrable, leaving the objective morality claim weakened to the point of collapse.

Should an atheist attempt to skirt this by making a relativist argument, such that slavery has become evil now, or that our morality has changed to make slavery immoral, etc. then they have (in addition to making an absurdly fallacious claim) violated the terms of their own argument. For their argument is that the Bible is wrong because it supports a practice that is always immoral. If morality changes, or if slavery's morality has changed, then the Bible didn't support an immoral thing when it was written, and any attempt to force such an interpretation upon it is mere anachronism, and fails easily. No, the question is objective. The subject is objective. And the atheist has no recourse outside of appealing to a sense of human rights.

Now, one could say that while the atheist may not have an answer, the theist cannot demonstrate that slavery is moral either, now can he? Even aside from its false shift of the burden of proof, this argument is hardly any trouble. The theist can, and this particular theist will, demonstrate that being a slave is not necessarily an objectively evil thing. Indeed, this is easy to do, as Christianity has always posited that the very nature and purpose of our existence is to exist in a relationship of perfect Agape Love with God and our fellow humans. And the nature of Agape love is such that, contrary to philia love which asks us to make brothers of all Mankind, agape demands that we make masters of all Mankind, with ourselves the slaves. This is self-sacrificing Love. Surrendering the self, one's desires, ambitions, motives, wants, needs, even one's life or will, for the sake of others' good. This is agape. And slaves, interestingly enough, have an incredible opportunity in their bondage. By virtue of the fact that they are slaves, they are presented with the opportunity to live a perfect Christian life. The slave is placed into a situation wherein obedience, humility, and self-sacrifice are not only encouraged, but demanded, just as Christianity demands them from us.

Indeed, this is precisely what I believe the Apostle Paul noted when he wrote about the relationship of slaves to masters and masters to slaves in his epistles. He reminds slaves that they are servants, and that service is neither demeaning, nor is it evil. Service is the highest and the holiest calling of human kind. It is no shame, nor is it wrong to serve others, though it is best to choose to do so instead of being forced to do so. The interesting point of slavery is that slaves do still choose. There has yet to be a system of slavery in this world where the slaves were absolutely without choice. Even in the American institution of slavery, slaves rebelled, ran away, etc. They had a choice, and they exercised that choice. And like all choices, theirs had certain intendant risks and variables that they measured before choosing. But Paul's exhortations were not to run or to fight, Paul's instructions were to recall that we can also choose to serve and be content, and that choosing to serve is what agape love is all about. How can slavery be wrong if slaves can express the greatest love of all, perhaps more than anyone else?

This has brought us to the Biblical perspectives on slavery. One obvious flaw in the argumentation of atheists regarding this subject is that their understanding of slavery is tied into, and rather rightly so, the slavery of the 16th through 19th centuries in the Western world (particularly the American institution of slavery). All of us tend to agree that the slavery practiced in the American South was immoral. It is a historical fact, even, that the Abolitionist movement grew out of Christianity, and that it was the arguments and strengths of Christianity that really brought Abolitionism to the fore in the 1800s. Now the atheist, in his ignorance of the reality of Biblical teachings on the subject, will take this to be a contradiction. To the atheist, this is like scenting blood in the water, for behold! The Christians, who believe in an objective and unchanging morality, have said that the American institution of slavery was immoral! Therefore slavery has always been immoral, and Christianity and Christians used to support it! Ahh, they rush to the attack, and headlong in their rush, they forget one or two tiny little facts.

Unfortunately for them, those tiny facts prove to be quite relevant to the argument at hand. The first fact is that the American institution of slavery was a peculiar example of slavery, and not at all the same as slavery in the ancient world, nor even close to the slavery in the Bible. These things are all quite different. Our second fact is that the Christian teachings regarding slavery found in the New Testament do more than simply describe the conduct that slaves should engage in, as I noted above. Paul also notes that there is proper moral conduct that the owner of a slave should follow. Paul says that slave teachers should not abuse their slaves, and Paul reminds all Christians that they are spiritually equals, that before the sight of God, they are all human. And let us not forget Christ's own words that in Heaven, the last shall be first and the first shall be last, said just as He washed the feet of His own Apostles, the conduct of a slave.

There is a standard of proper conduct for masters as well as for slaves in Christianity. Both groups are called to act in Christian fashion, which for the masters might mean that they release their slaves (In some cases that may well prove to be the worse alternative, as mere liberation might also result in our former slaves having no shelter, clothing, food, money, education, etc. Indeed, this is a problem still relevant in our own society, 150 years after the abolition of slavery...), but at the very least it means that masters must treat their slaves well. They are not to be abused, and they are certainly not to be treated as non-human, for in the Christian perspective, they are still HUMAN, they are spiritually equal, they are Brothers and Sisters in Christ. This is never to be forgotten in Christianity.

The problem with American slavery wasn't that the slavery itself was horrible (though to our modern sensibilities, obsessed as we are with liberty it seems that way), but that the institution of it was horrible. Christianity rejected American slavery because American slavery had rejected Christianity. Slaves in the United States were dehumanized in a way never before seen in the world. Not only were they treated strictly as property, but their very psychology was warped to reflect this. They were abused in horrific fashion, not only through physical means (like the whippings or back breaking labor) but also through psychological or emotional means. Women raped or forced to have sex with white masters, families sundered, the relationship of husbands and wives ignored, etc. etc. All of these are abuses that Christianity does not permit among its members, and it was American slavery that perfected them. Thus it was American slavery that brought down upon itself the power of Christianity and others, and in the end result it was American slavery that lost.

We can also see the other side of the coin. While Christianity was working against the institution of slavery from the outside in the Abolitionist movement, it also worked to support the slaves from within. It is well known that American slaves embraced Christianity in a very real sense, identifying with the Christian message and coming to understand the Christian view of service and suffering. We must conclude, if we are to be historically unbiased, that Christianity is not only largely responsible for ending slavery, it is also largely responsible for keeping those enslaved strong and with some sense of purpose and value in their lives. Slavery did its best to turn men into mere beasts of burden (and nothing more) in the United States, and the only thing that stood in its way was Christianity, both in the minds and hearts of the slaves themselves, and also in the legal/moral battle waged over the system.

With that, we have mainly addressed the two concerns that marked our foray into the slavery argument. But so far there has only been scant reference to entitlement.

I noted earlier that it is our obsession with liberty that brings us to the conclusion that slavery is horrible, because it strips us of the liberty that we desire. This is the entitlement at the source of this complaint. While the atheist who makes this argument will fail because of the two questions already covered, the reality is that this argument isn't even truly worthy of being dealt with fully in such a manner. This argument is entirely dependent on this idea that humans are entitled to freedom, that they are entitled to liberty, and most of all that this freedom and liberty are what the libertarian philosophers say they are. But we have already seen that everything to which we previously felt entitled to is, in fact, a gift, and something we are not entitled to at all.

This slavery argument attempts to stand upon legs which it doesn't possess, there is no entitlement to freedom, there is no right to liberty, and there never has been. The only relevant right here is again the one Christianity has practiced all along. And it is that we have no right to abuse our fellow humans, but we have every right to serve them. As always, entitlement fails. And once we realize that there is no right to freedom, we are forced to admit that there is no legitimate argument against Christianity here, and there cannot be a legitimate argument against Christianity here.

Now, it is interesting to note that in the long history of the Church, there have been several Councils which spoke out against slavery, indeed, the practice of slavery virtually vanished from Europe in the Middle Ages thanks to the Church. These Councils universally decried the capture and enslavement of free Christians by pirates and slave traders from the Barbary Coast, and argued that such actions were, in fact, objectively immoral. Should anyone attempt to use these arguments to declare that slavery is always objectively immoral, I must note for them that they will have one simple problem to overcome. That the Church's actions in those cases reflect exactly what I have said all along. That no one has the right to strip another of God's gift of liberty where that gift has been given. Taking a free man and unjustly enslaving him is wrong, because it rejects a gift of God to that person. Beyond that, where is the evil?