The Papists

Apologetics and Evengelization
  • August 1, 2012 5:13 am

    "This is the last and most astounding fact about this faith; that its enemies will use any weapon against it, the swords that cut their own fingers, and the firebrands that burn their own homes. Men who begin to fight the Church for the sake of freedom and humanity end by flinging away freedom and humanity if only they may fight the Church. This is no exaggeration; I could fill a book with the instances of it. Mr. Blatchford set out, as an ordinary Bible-smasher, to prove that Adam was guiltless of sin against God; in manoeuvring so as to maintain this he admitted, as a mere side issue, that all the tyrants, from Nero to King Leopold, were guiltless of any sin against humanity. I know a man who has such a passion for proving that he will have no personal existence after death that he falls back on the position that he has no personal existence now. He invokes Buddhism and says that all souls fade into each other; in order to prove that he cannot go to heaven he proves that he cannot go to Hartle-pool. I have known people who protested against religious education with arguments against any education, saying that the child’s mind must grow freely or that the old must not teach the young. I have known people who showed that there could be no divine judgment by showing that there can be no human judgment, even for practical purposes. They burned their own corn to set fire to the church; they smashed their own tools to smash it; any stick was good enough to beat it with, though it were the last stick of their own dismembered furniture. We do not admire, we hardly excuse, the fanatic who wrecks this world for love of the other. But what are we to say of the fanatic who wrecks this world out of hatred of the other? He sacrifices the very existence of humanity to the non-existence of God. He offers his victims not to the altar, but merely to assert the idleness of the altar and the emptiness of the throne. He is ready to ruin even that primary ethic by which all things live, for his strange and eternal vengeance upon some one who never lived at all."

    Orthodoxy by GK Chesterton

    More than a hundred years later, his observation still holds true.

    (via randomnoisegenerator)

  • July 8, 2012 5:26 pm
    Anonymous:  No, agnostic theist means that I do not believe that it can be proved to all that God exists, but I believe in God regardless. You did not understand me at all.

    The Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy says that 

    Agnosticism is traditionally characterized as neither believing that God exists nor believing that God does not exist.

    So I stand by my original comment, which said that agnosticism is logically incompatible with theism. But if you’re looking to say that you believe in God but do not think He can be proven by reason, then I suppose you’re an agnostic theist. I’m just not super happy with the term ‘agnostic theist,’ because it’s self contradictory if you look at the definition of ‘agnostic,’ then the definition of ‘theist.’

    Praise God!


  • July 1, 2012 11:48 pm
    Anonymous:  I am an agnostic theist. Would the Catholic Church consider that bad?

    I don’t think “agnostic theist” makes much sense!

    To be agnostic means to suspend judgement on something, while to be a theist means to believe in some sort of god or god-like being. 

    The Catholic Church professes that the fullness of truth is found based on Jesus Christ’s definitive statement about Himself: “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.”

    If we accept that Jesus is Lord (and neither a lunatic nor a liar), then the entire Catholic faith flows coherently from Him and His teachings!

    If you’re an agnostic leaning towards theism, though (and I assume this is what you meant!), I recommend going to Mass (if you have any Catholic friends, ask them to take you!) and seeing what we’re all about :)

    Specifically regarding your question, though, I think this post might help. Here’s an excerpt:

    As Christians, we believe Christ established the Catholic Church as His Body here on earth to administer his grace in tangible ways to do just that, making the Church the “normative” way of salvation, the most explicit, the direct result of God’s direct revelation of himself. But that doesn’t mean God isn’t present elsewhere and doesn’t save others. God is present in the sacraments and the Church, but he is not limited to them. 

    Basically, no matter who you are or where or when you are, God loves you, and gives you opportunities to know Him and be sanctified.

    God bless, and be the saint you were meant to be!


  • June 11, 2012 8:54 pm
    Anonymous:  Asking atheists to be open minded is like asking giraffes to be tall. Saying that their minds are closed because they don't believe in a god is a ludicrous statement. The thing with believers is that no matter what the evidence, they will insist they're right. Atheists, however, are open to accepting anything so long as there is a valid, undeniable reason to accept it. They are still atheists because they have yet to see the undeniable reason why any practiced religion is "the truth."

    I will not speak for all religious denominations, but I would like to point out that philosophers generally agree (as per my philosophy professor, who is very involved in the “philosophy crowd” and is editing Dr. William Lane Craig’s anthology (or something like that)) that the burden of proof for the most properly basic idea to theism, that is, the existence of God, is on atheism right now. 

    Theistic proofs such as Craig’s Cosmological Argument and Plantiga’s Ontological Argument (as well as arguments such as the Argument from Morality and the Argument from Consciousness) are currently widely debated, but it seems no one has delivered a knock-out response to these arguments.

    If you have discovered a sure-fire way to disprove these arguments (because they are deductively valid, and if their premises are unchallenged/taken to be true, then their conclusion that God exists, must be true), then please e-mail Dr. Craig, Dr. Plantiga, Dr. Dawkins, Dr. Dennet or anyone else who might even be remotely interested in your thinking. 

    Once we can establish something as fundamental as the existence of God, then all things, including and specifically organized religion, become much more tangible. Belief in God is the fundamental belief upon which we must stand as Christians. 


  • February 15, 2012 8:13 am
      1:  I think all religions should be abolished.
      2:  Why?
      1:  Because religions are bigoted and so many crimes against humanity are done in religion's/God's name.
      2:  But religions generally preach love. People just pervert the teachings, usually out of ignorance, to fit their personal prejudices.
      1:  But if they had no religion, there would be nothing to pervert.
      2:  Well, if they're naturally cruel, I'm sure they could've found another reason. People could just as well persecute others for not believing in evolution.
      1:  But there is no proof for religion. They're doing evil for some imaginary god they blindly believe in without actually thinking about it.
      2:  What makes you think that all theists haven't thought about their beliefs?
      1:  Because they still believe in the absurdity!
      2:  Can you prove that you are in possession of the absolute truth then? Just because it doesn't make sense to you does not mean it is not true, and just because you cannot fathom the possibility does not mean that it does not exist. This may come as a surprise to you but some people come to the conclusion of the existence of God through rational means. Tell me, have you ever been in love?
      1:  What does that have to do with it?
      2:  Do you believe in love?
      1:  Yes.
      2:  Do you believe love, in its purest, is inherently good? And that it's not the fault of love per se when people do stupid things in its name?
      1:  Yes, of course.
      2:  Love is not tangible, cannot be tested empirically, and yet people do many things for the sake of love - things that are both good and bad. Many kill for love, but many also die for love. Just like religion. And so, if we follow your logic, then because many do evil for love's sake, albeit this is a minority vis-a-vis those who do good for love's sake, then we should believe that love is evil and strive to abolish love.
      1:  No, that's different...
      2:  How so?
      1:  ...
      2:  Regardless of whether you're an atheist or not, it's naive to deny the fact that religion serves a lot of purposes. There are, of course, the cultural reasons - such as the many scientific and philosophical discoveries attributed to the religious - as well as the social reasons - it forms the foundation of many relationships after all. Furthermore, as an existentialist, you believe that life and its meaning are what we make of it, right? So I don't see why you think you must deny others their choice to subscribe to a religion and their choice to make a deity the center of their lives. Please, enlighten me if you have any better arguments for the abolishing of religion because from the looks of it, your reasons - intolerance, restriction of people's choice, superiority complex with regard to the truth - can be thrown right back at you.