The Non-existence Of God

[Era Might]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1349394848' post='2490092']
My wife used to study theology and she was very distraught to realize that what she understood as "theology" was actually more like high school textbooks in relation to the rest of the field of theology. It was a bit of a rude awakening for her when she went to grad school. It took her a long time to accept that there was more to the story.

I'm not sure if I have much advice, except maybe keep reading. You're finding out that there's more to the story now, and that will actually always be true. What looks one way now might in fact seem different later on, if you keep reading...
[/quote]
I absolutely agree. That's why I say I haven't really abandoned Christianity, there is much to read. But for the first time in a long time I feel at peace acknowledging that my faith no longer exists. It's better than lying to myself.

[sixpence]

I dunno.... when I try to envision some glorious "humanity" beautifully struggling to learn and grow...to no apparent end point...destined to be destroyed by some act of nature in the future... well that is really just something interesting happening as living things evolve on this planet...i don't think it is this romanticized idea that you have in your head...

[4588686]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1349393079' post='2490077'] I thought you'd know better than to attack that strawman.[/QUOTE]


[img]http://helian.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/pot-kettle.jpg[/img]



[QUOTE] These are unchanging and universal moral teachings of the Church, and have nothing to do with "fantasies of bourgeois society," "American middle-class fixations," (Good grief! Drop the pretentious neo-Marxism already!) or " self-obsessed prejudices."
[/quote]

Those terms are not uniquely Marxist Nor is there anything about those terms that would identify them as being neo-Marxist as opposed to simply Marxist, even if they were uniquely Marxist phrases, which they aren't.

Not that I want to throw into question whether you've actually substantively read Marx or neo-Marxists.

Edited October 5, 2012 by Hasan

[Egidio]

Era Might, please look at this link.

[url="http://www.clairval.com/lettres/en/textes/preuves_en.htm"]http://www.clairval.com/lettres/en/textes/preuves_en.htm[/url]

It may be stuff you have heard before, but if you are seriously trying to find the one and unalterable truth, you [u][i]WILL[/i][/u] find it, and this might help the search.

Praying that you will have good hunting.

I am at your service if I can help in any other way.


[font=courier new,courier,monospace][size=5][color=#000080]AVE MARIA![/color][/size][/font]

[Tally Marx]

Hello, Era!
Thank you for sharing.
I really think that is it normal to "lose faith," to doubt what you have been taught or once thought to be factual. I think it is because we often get confused between reason and faith, and mistake knowing for believing. So, when we come to a point where what we know doesn't match up with what we believe, we do not know how to handle that, and say we have "lost faith". It has happened to me every few years or so since I was twelve; I doubt you and I are alone in this.

I do not know if I can answer any of your problems. I do not really understand exactly what you are struggling with. Are you confused as to the Catholic Church being what she claims to be--the only Church founded by Christ? Are you doubting what the Church is and she was meant to be? Are you doubting this one denomination or the existence of God Himself? Do you doubt the existence of God because you doubt the factuality of the claims of this one denomination?
I do not know if providing an answer would help. When I "lost faith" because I put too much emphasis on knowing, it took more than mere knowledge to drag me back. I eventually found my answers; I had to come to terms with the new knowledge I found (and I didn't always like it), sure, and that helped me a bit. But knowledge isn't faith, and pulling me out of the swamp that my disillusion had sent me to took more than a "restoration" of reason.

It is difficult to "lose faith," and to admit to others that you have lost it. Especially when they (supposedly) have all the knowledge and want to try to bring you back through the might of their reason. You're pretty brave to post here about it. I hope you can find your answers, and I hope that you "find your faith" again. I'll be praying for you, and I hope you keep praying even if you don't feel like it. I'm sure, whatever happens, that it'll be okay. If you want to PM me, I might be able to answer some of your questions...or just tell you what happened to me in similar circumstances if you think it'll be useful. If you want, feel free.

Pax et bonum!

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1349395050' post='2490095']
I absolutely agree. That's why I say I haven't really abandoned Christianity, there is much to read. But for the first time in a long time I feel at peace acknowledging that my faith no longer exists. It's better than lying to myself.
[/quote]Do you now find viewing the bulk of principles and values of Christianity as a Phlisophy, (sans the Religious Institution) comforting and more aggreable your conscience and your understanding of Natural Law?

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1349275159' post='2489569']


I've lost my faith, and this thread is about the basic argument

Thoughts on my argument?
[/quote]
Everyone spends time in the wilderness. I think God lets us feel alone at times to contemplate what it would be like without him. How can there be a left if there is no right? An up if there is no down? Cold if there is no hot? How could the prodigal son and father experience the joy of the home coming if the son had never left? God will keep inviting you home. Prayers that you will answer the call soon.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1349393412' post='2490083']
hehe. You and I speak different languages. That's why I'm hesitant to even bring this topic up here...we're not speaking the same language, so a lot of what I say probably sounds like wild nonsense. It's probably a fault of mine because I don't have the patience to translate what I say in terms other people will understand...I speak with a lot of assumptions and premises, which I can't fault people for not catching, and I have a bad habit of taking literary license.[/quote]
Well, I speak English (or at least make an effort to). I'm really not sure what language you posted in, but would it be asking too much of you for you to translate it into English for me?

In English, your post does in fact come across as wild nonsense. The Church's moral teachings on matters such as abortion and marriage have nothing to do with economic class, so I think it's silly and nonsensical to dismiss them as "a fantasy of bourgeois society" or "middle class fixations."

Perhaps I'm misreading you, but that's why I thought your posting sounded "neo-Marxist," because it seems like you're trying to force everything into some kind of class-warfare narrative. (As if Catholic moral teachings are in fact nothing more than tools of the bourgeois to oppress the proletariat, or something.)

Nor are these Catholic moral teachings unique to or rooted in America.

Are the strong and persistent teachings, for instance, of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI regarding marriage and sexuality the result of American middle class fixations?

Or was Blessed Mother Theresa of Calcutta's strong opposition to abortion the product of her "self-obsessed prejudices"?
Or what about the teachings of St. Paul or St Augustine, for that matter?

While my language translation skills are admittedly poor, or perhaps I'm just unable to appreciate your fine literary flourishes, but it looks to me like you're trying to dismiss Catholic moral teachings because they're associated in your mind with conservative Republicans or other people you don't like, while disregarding the facts of the matter.

[quote]But then again, when it comes to topics such as this, I'm not sure any amount of writing can translate beliefs. You either believe one way or the other, and it's usually impossible to see the other side. 10 years ago I would have been aghast to see someone speaking as I speak now. I wouldn't have understood...how could I? There are moments in a person's life when the scales fall from their eyes, and they see things as they didn't see them before. St. Paul had such a moment. Malcolm X had such a moment. That's the main theme I was trying to get at in this thread, that the human experience is so diverse, yet follows predictable patterns. It's a beautiful thing, I think...though I guess if you buy into one particular narrative, it's hard to see other experiences as beautiful. If Christianity is the true religion, then everyone else is just deluded, stupid, or evil. I find it hard to dismiss the experience of billions of non-Christians in such a way. And even among Christians there is a wide range of experiences (it's no coincidence that the church took up ecumenism at the same time, in the 20th century, when the diversity of human experience was gaining acceptance...again, the church accommodating itself to the world around it).[/quote]
This sounds pretty relativistic, and seems to trivialize the whole issue of truth.

It stands to reason that contradictory claims cannot all be true. For instance, Christianity, Islam, and atheism cannot all be true. If one of these beliefs is true, then the other two are false, regardless of how "beautiful" one regards the falsehoods.

If Christ was not in fact God's Only Son, who died and was resurrected for the salvation of man, then the Christian Faith is in fact a lie and a fraud (what we Christians would call "evil") - and one that led to the needless suffering and death of many to perpetuate that fraud. Little beautiful about that.

And people can be wrong or mistaken without necessarily being evil or stupid. Intelligent people can be misled or fall into error.

And true ecumenism does not mean accepting all religions as equally true and valid, but dialogueing with people of other religions with the goal of bringing them to the One True Faith.

[Groo the Wanderer]

Era - you should go on a monastic retreat. 3-7 days or so to just clear your head, your heart, and just contemplate. Most of them are free and only take donations if you want to give.

If you do one though, don;t go Jesuit...hard to predict what you'll get. (srsly - did 2 myself)

[Socrates]

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1349394392' post='2490089']
I think you pin the nail on the head that, at root, this is an historical difficulty for me. I'm a literary man so it's not much of a leap for me to be comfortable with Christian legends and theology and spirituality. Even now I pray to my list of saints every morning...I don't have a problem doing that. The Gospel is a beautiful thing...I can believe in Christ like I believe in Shakespeare's plays.[/quote]
The difference is that Shakespeare did not intend everything in his plays to be understood as literal truth.
As far as I know, nobody has undergone torture and death on behalf of Hamlet or Puck.

The early Christians (as well as those Christians undergoing persecution for the Faith today) certainly did not regard their Faith as simply a pretty literary fantasy.

[quote]But the difficult thing for me is the difference between fantasy and reality, between history and faith. I think we all know what you mean by "EWTN accounts of history." The Catholic apologetics scene is an attempt to uphold the fortress Catholicism that is a product of the counter-reformation, of papal politics, etc. The usual apologetics is about gymnastic attempts to prove why the church was right at every step...it's the Catholic version of Protestants who can't accept the implications of evolutionary theory.[/quote]
Exactly what "EWTN account of history" do you find so false, and damning to the truth of the Faith?

Everyone will admit that Popes and other churchmen can and have made poor prudential or political decisions at times.

There is a lot of anti-Catholic prejudice and propaganda (from both Protestant and anti-religious) sources which infects much of popular history, which I don't buy, which tries to paint the Church as the villain at every turn, and I think has been rightly counteracted by Catholic historians. I don't think protestant or atheistic historians are inherently any more objective or truthful than those that are faithful Catholics. There are a lot of folks with very strongly anti-Catholic axes to grind, even if they do not admit their prejudices.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1349394392' post='2490089']
I think you pin the nail on the head that, at root, this is an historical difficulty for me. I'm a literary man so it's not much of a leap for me to be comfortable with Christian legends and theology and spirituality. Even now I pray to my list of saints every morning...I don't have a problem doing that. The Gospel is a beautiful thing...I can believe in Christ like I believe in Shakespeare's plays.[/quote]
The difference is that Shakespeare did not intend everything in his plays to be understood as literal truth.
As far as I know, nobody has undergone torture and death on behalf of Hamlet or Puck.

The early Christians (as well as those Christians undergoing persecution for the Faith today) certainly did not regard their Faith as simply a pretty literary fantasy.

[quote]But the difficult thing for me is the difference between fantasy and reality, between history and faith. I think we all know what you mean by "EWTN accounts of history." The Catholic apologetics scene is an attempt to uphold the fortress Catholicism that is a product of the counter-reformation, of papal politics, etc. The usual apologetics is about gymnastic attempts to prove why the church was right at every step...it's the Catholic version of Protestants who can't accept the implications of evolutionary theory.[/quote]
Exactly what "EWTN account of history" do you find so false, and damning to the truth of the Faith?

Everyone will admit that Popes and other churchmen can and have made poor prudential or political decisions at times.

There is a lot of anti-Catholic prejudice and propaganda (from both Protestant and anti-religious) sources which infects much of popular history, which I don't buy, which tries to paint the Church as the villain at every turn, and I think has been rightly counteracted by Catholic historians. I don't think protestant or atheistic historians are inherently any more objective or truthful than those that are faithful Catholics. There are a lot of folks with very strongly anti-Catholic axes to grind, even if they do not admit their prejudices.

[BarbTherese]

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1349275159' post='2489569']
Ok, so I'm starting this thread without intending to scandalize people who might be scandalized, so forgive me if that's the case.

I've lost my faith, and this thread is about the basic argument / discussion on my reason why.

..........edited.............

I am open to being wrong about the non-existence of God, and at this point, open to alternative ideas about God, though I am thoroughly formed in the Christian mindset and the idea of being an Apostate will always haunt me. I've come to accept that with peace, at least for now.

Thoughts on my argument?
[/quote]


Reading your opening post above (edited due to length and since I have not read all of this thread), it is a concept of God that has died or deconstructed - no proof at all that God Himself is dead, only specific concepts or ideas about Him and perhaps not before time either. Also, perhaps The Church (its members are The Church) are failing, but this is not "failed" FULL STOP AND END OF STORY, The Church, it seems and probably all of us truly hope, is taking a long hard look at itself and hopefully this will lead to renewal within The Church, thus its membership on all levels. This is a difficult time in The Church because always there are those who resist any sort of change and those who crave it - and those inbetween these two groups and their concepts and ideas. Attributed to St Augustine: "In necessities unity, in non necessities liberty - and in all things love".
Where once in our history The Church dictated relentlessly in all things what was true and untrue, nowadays The Church looks to science in all its branches to speak to our understanding of what God has created and how it works. True science and true theology MUST walk hand in had for both are in the search for Truth, and truth cannot contradict itself. If theology and science do not walk hand in hand in a complementary partnership, then something HAS to be wrong in the science or the theology.
Nothing proves that God Himself is dead, not at all. As it may be difficult to prove that God DOES exist alive and well, so equally it is difficult [b]if not impossible[/b] to prove that He is not living and affective and effective. We just do not understand His Ways in all its manifestations and often, and Scripture does point this out for us - and justly so since we are finite creations, creatures, of an Infinite and Divine God. How what God has created works in our world, we can have some understanding to varying degrees re the laws underpinning creation. Probably what can be proved from this is that underpinning creation are laws from The Divine Law Giver who spoke to Moses giving him the ten commandments and later The Divine Law Giver sent His Son to save mankind and also to teach us and reveal to us.
Christianity has had a remarkable affect on the history of mankind overall (and at times for positive and also negatrive effects) and interesting to reflect where we just might be as a race of human beings without it and without He who founded it on twelve very simple, humble and uneducated men and was crucified as a criminal for His efforts. It is a remarkable story.
(Apologies I have not read all posts.)

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1349575799' post='2490840']

The difference is that Shakespeare did not intend everything in his plays to be understood as literal truth.


Exactly what "EWTN account of history" do you find so false, and damning to the truth of the Faith?

Everyone will admit that Popes and other churchmen can and have made poor prudential or political decisions at times.

There is a lot of anti-Catholic prejudice and propaganda (from both Protestant and anti-religious) sources which infects much of popular history, which I don't buy, which tries to paint the Church as the villain at every turn, and I think has been rightly counteracted by Catholic historians. I don't think protestant or atheistic historians are inherently any more objective or truthful than those that are faithful Catholics. There are a lot of folks with very strongly anti-Catholic axes to grind, even if they do not admit their prejudices.
[/quote]Soc, it isn't just "propaganda" from anti Catholics that paint the Church as a villan in history. Have you ever read "A Concise history If The Catholic Church" by Bokenkotter? That was the book that began opening my eyes to be honest with myself and what I saw in the Church.

Much of history is written by people with an agenda to promote or an agenda to defend.

Catholicism's claims of moral purity, infallibilty, apostolic succession, superior virtues, and consistent behaviors don't survive an honest analisis.

[Groo the Wanderer]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1349578985' post='2490859']


Catholicism's claims of moral purity, infallibilty, apostolic succession, superior virtues, and consistent behaviors don't survive an honest analisis.
[/quote]

Not sure what you've been reading, but other than apostolic succession, I cannot find the other in the actual teachings of the Church, aka the CCC. Are you sure you are not one of the pholks Venerable Archbishop Fulton Sheen was talking about?

[color=#181818][font=georgia, serif]“There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.”[/font][/color]

[BarbTherese]

Mark Twain wrote that "The very ink with which [color=#000000]history[/color] is written is merely [color=#000000]fluid[/color] prejudice"? We are all, all of us, prejudiced in some way or another or somewhat bigoted or orientated towards certain beliefs, concepts etc - and all history is written by human beings with beliefs and concepts. And our beliefs and concepts very often come from other beliefs and concepts by equally prejudiced etc. human beings. Transcending all this is the actual truth of matters - but does the actual truth of matters find its way into our concepts etc.
Ultimate Truth is always going to be something of search for truth which points to Ultimate Truth - until the Beatific Vision in Heaven........hence "In essentials unity, in non essentials liberty - and in all things Love".

Edited October 7, 2012 by BarbaraTherese

[Anomaly]

Barb, I'm ex-catholic. I have 12 years of Catholic education, spent thousands to put my kids through Catholic school. My family are involved, serve on parish councils, teach, I spent years involved in the youth group and teaching CCD and confirmation classes. Please don't try to believe I completely misunderstand Catholicism or hold a hatred for it. I eventually came to the point I could no longer lie to myself or worship a religion.

[BarbTherese]

Oh dear, my comments were not meant to be addressed to any poster in particular. They have in the main been reflections on some comments I read without noting who actually posted them. Many of our greatest saints started at, or went through, a stage and 'good Catholics' would hold such people and their stages absolutely suspect - and these suspect people went on to become great saints

I think that we would be very wrong indeed to worship a religion, nor does The Church advocate this. Worship and Adoration is due to God alone and Faith which orientates the human being towards God transcends religion. Catholics hold The Church in esteem and valued ideally as that Church established by Christ which has continued with His Grace and blessings down the ages. As a Church in history, we havebeen guilty of terrible things and wrongful things. As this same Church we have repented and amended our ways and continue on our journey and it is a human journey insofar as The Church IS its membership.
I think also that history tells us that The Church is certainly not a paragon of moral purity, superior virtues nor consistent behaviours and I also think it would be wrongful to allow our children (as parents) to believe such inaccuracies. The Church on earth is the Mystical Body of Christ on earth (and The Church is ALL its membership), while assuredly it will grow towards the full stature of Christ finally effected in His Second Coming - until then, The Church is as good as its membership and as bad as its membership. Like any living organism it was and is in a process of growth (meaning change, for change IS growth - for either positive or the negative) and even purification insofar as its membership or members are in these processes. If an organism is not growing (meaning changing somehow) it is dying or dead, while dying and death are change or growth (from one status into another in a negative direction).

The CCC teaches on both infallibility and apostolic succession.
[b]892 [/b]Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a "definitive manner," they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent" which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

Re the above, we need to note this:
[b]890[/b] The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium's task to preserve God's people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church's shepherds with the charism of infallibility [u][b]in matters of faith and morals.[/b][/u] The exercise of this charism takes several forms:

In other words, infallibility is claimed by The Church under certain conditions LIMITED TO Faith and Morals alone.

[b]1209[/b] The criterion that assures unity amid the diversity of liturgical traditions is fidelity to apostolic Tradition, i.e., the communion in the faith and the sacraments received from the apostles, a communion that is both signified and guaranteed by [b]apostolic succession[/b].

These beliefs are binding on Catholics only. If as a Cathoic, I challenge one belief, then I am challenging all Catholic beliefs, opening all our beliefs to question for if one point or teaching is suspect, then logically, perhaps some or all are somewhere. A nun who taught me told me that a million difficulties cannot make one doubt. I have plenty of difficulties and 'wrestle with many angels' as it were, but to date and please God, no doubts. My Dad used to say "life is long and full of pitfalls".

I have to go now and will try to catch up with any comments and reflections in a day or two - I hope.

Edited October 7, 2012 by BarbaraTherese

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1349578985' post='2490859']

Much of history is written by people with an agenda to promote or an agenda to defend.
[/quote]
The Church does not represent the views of all people and the views of all people do not represent the Church.
If you are a sports coach and some of your team do not perform will give up and withdraw your team?


[quote]Catholicism's claims of moral purity, infallibilty, apostolic succession, superior virtues, and consistent behaviors don't survive an honest analisis.
[/quote]
Unfortunately I have to agree with you on this. What you say is true. It does not pass for what it wishes and does claim. The Church has been terribly wrong about many things in the past, but it can be seen to those who look that it is moving slowly toward the true teachings of Jesus Christ. Things like 'eating meat on Fridays will get you a ticket to hell' and 'the unbaptised are in limbo' belong in the ignorance of the past. Bear in mind this is a fallen world and EVERYTHING in it is fallen. All people are sinners. The Church is people. Therefore it is logical that the Church will fall into error. Christs statement that hell will not prevail does not mean that every battle will be a winner. It just means that the war will be won. Like you, I shy away from a lot of man made doctrine too, but I don't turn to darkness or give up to nothing. I seek the one and only truth. The truth of the doctrine of Jesus Christ. Have you ever tried to talk to God about your concerns? You can you know! And not only that you will get real truth in the answers.[i] I do not show My goodness by creating only what you call perfection all around you. I do not demonstrate my love by not allowing you to demonstrate yours[/i]. (God via Neale Walsch). What this means is if everything was perfect we could not express our love. We express our love by fixing that which is wrong, not by giving up on love. How can we feed the hungry if no-one is hungry. How can a doctor express his/her love for their patient if there are no patients? How can we express our love of God through the Church if we are not able to try to fix what is wrong with it?

[Era Might]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1349574987' post='2490833']
Well, I speak English (or at least make an effort to). I'm really not sure what language you posted in, but would it be asking too much of you for you to translate it into English for me?
[/quote]
Sorry, but your responses to me just prove that we're having two different conversations. I know you believe what you believe, but it's not even your beliefs I'm questioning, it's the categories you believe in and the assumptions and premises you bring to those categories. The answers you come up with largely depends on the questions you start with, and you and I are asking very different questions. You're trying to convince me that your faith is reasonable and true. But that's not the conversation I'm having. My faith cannot be salvaged by Catholic apologetics. I guess there is something of the post-modern and relativistic in me, and the only way to change that is to live in a fantasy world of a past that's not coming back. That's the cognitive dissonance of being a Christian today, although played out in different ways, whether it's EWTN types trying to defend the reasonable "development of doctrine" and prove that everything has played out nice and orderly, whether it's the real traditionalists who refuse to abandon their fantasy of a pre-Vatican II church, whether it's the deluded liberals who believe that Christianity has been what they wish it was all along, etc.

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1349574987' post='2490833']Or was Blessed Mother Theresa of Calcutta's strong opposition to abortion the product of her "self-obsessed prejudices"? Or what about the teachings of St. Paul or St Augustine, for that matter?
[/quote]
Mother Teresa, St. Paul, St. Augustine...all of them have an historical context. I recommended by the book "Pagans and Christians" by Robin Lane Fox in my previous post. He does a lot of the work of putting the Christian mind in historical context. For example, examining the Christian conception of martyrdom and and how it is tied up in things like textual accounts of martyrdom, social make-ups, etc. One example that Fox examines is Constantine's "vision" and how claims to visions usually followed patterns. In the early church there was no real iconography, and christian "visions" reflected this lack of mental image (e.g., in the book of Revelation the vision of Christ with seven horns and seven eyes is not at all realistic, whereas modern visions are: e.g., St. Faustina's depiction). Previous pagan visions were also influenced by pre-existing expectations (through depictions of the gods, Homer, etc.) In other words, in visions people generally see 1) What they know, and 2) What they want to see.

After Constantine, as the church has more room to develop art and a christian culture, the visions become more specific, and the legends of saints pick up into the medieval age. One could study modern "visions" in the same way. And one can study beliefs in the same way. It's not an attack upon Christians to put them into historical, social, etc. context, though, naturally, Christians aren't very open to that since they have to preserve their faith narrative, which I understand and sympathize with, but can't go along with anymore.

I'm not against things such as legends of the saints, heroes, etc. but I can't confuse them with reality either. It's a convenient belief to imagine that Constantine saw a vision, conquered by the power of Christ, and the hand of Providence guided Christianity into power. But when you read an actual analysis of history, such as Fox's book, you see how complex things are, and above all, you see that the legends can be explored rationally.

Edited October 7, 2012 by Era Might

[Era Might]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1349575799' post='2490840']There is a lot of anti-Catholic prejudice and propaganda (from both Protestant and anti-religious) sources which infects much of popular history, which I don't buy, which tries to paint the Church as the villain at every turn, and I think has been rightly counteracted by Catholic historians. I don't think protestant or atheistic historians are inherently any more objective or truthful than those that are faithful Catholics. There are a lot of folks with very strongly anti-Catholic axes to grind, even if they do not admit their prejudices.
[/quote]
I don't think Catholicism is a "villain" in history. Just the opposite, I'm claiming that Catholicism is remarkably like all other characters in history: it follows identifiable patterns of sociology, development, myth, etc.

My problems with Christianity qua Christianity is not on an historical level but on a spiritual level...I see Christian history as the gradual corruption of a beautiful thing (the Gospel of Christ). I don't see history as either the ascent or decline of Christianity, but as its corruption and transmogrification.

As far as bias in history, of course there is bias...but Christian historians are also biased. To cite Fox's book "Pagans and Christians" again, he closes the book looking at Eusebius and Lactantius and their intentions as historians in the Constantinian age. The eschatological expectation of Christianity had faded, and Christians were now facing an unexpected turn of events: not the end of the world, but the beginning of a christian world. Fox explores how Eusebius and Lactantius, as Christian historians, were trying to come to grips with that, and Fox has an extended analysis of Constantine's own speech on Good Friday in 324 and how Constantine was trying to define that new age in history by, for example, using pre-Christian pagan sources such as Virgil to suggest that Christianity is an unfolding historical prophecy. But Constantine's use of Virgil has some very embarrassing mistakes, as Fox examines.

Christians accept the early Christian texts uncritically, because they accept those texts through the lens of faith. But when one puts the texts and authors into context, the plot thickens.

Edited October 7, 2012 by Era Might