The Church "Fathers"....... losers.

[GarthP2000]

Mark,

My 'expertise' as regards Communism vis-a-vis atheism has largely come, more or less, from observation; 1) that of getting to know atheists/reading their deconversion stories/listening to their multi-spectral political views, and 2) rethinking and scrutinizing the oft-taught premises that endeavor to link atheism with Communism.

"The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo."

You will, I hope, take note of the last sentence, where he alludes to the fact that the criticism (and by implication the rejection) of religion is central to the struggle of the masses.

I have taken note of that last sentence, and it is a point of view that is very similar to those espoused/found agreeable to many writers, even before Marx. Particularly to many during the Enlightenment period. Such as the author of this piece, for example:

Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.

For 200 points and the game, can you name the author? Hint: Altho' he wasn't an orthodox Christian, he was neither an atheist, ... nor a Marxist for that matter.

I also find it rather ironic that you find criticism of religion implicative of its rejection. <_< Have ye no faith in religion itself, whereby it (ought to be) able to withstand criticism? Or is it indicative of the Catholic faith to reject any forms of criticism of religion outright because of that risk?

No doubt Marx was an atheist, and his atheist views did show some influence on his Marxist philosophy. Keep in mind tho' that Marxism wasn't born in a vacuum. Various similar socialist ideologies were being floated about at the time, and (as you also pointed out) a good number of them were practiced by religious people.

And because Marxism was practiced by various religious people means that the atheistic component that is supposedly a central piece to Marxism isn't so much a central piece as originally thought. It has been/is made a required component by those who want to trash atheism, and for no better reason than that it does not believe/submit to any god.

Regardless of your (out of context perhaps? ;) ) usage of Marx's quotes, it still stands that Marxism is nothing more and nothing less than an economic/political/social philosophy. Period. Nothing to do directly with the beliefs in religion, or the lack thereof. And any type of atheism that does go along with it is incidental at most. Not causal.

By the way, the view that religions are man made has been bandied about well before Marx was a gleam in his daddy's eye.

[WordWolf]

Hmmm, do you think one of the church fathers would have died for one of the heretics? That would be the love of God. Fat chance. <_<

Without a LOT of digging into the life of any one of them, I could not even make an

EDUCATED GUESS

whether they would or not.

I'd say the same of you. Your guess is not an educated one.

(And even an educated guess is no guarantee.)

I think it's a good question, though.

I also think it's a good question to wonder how many of the heretics would have died for a

more orthodox Christian.

Well I sure can. It never happened did it?

Is there any writing or record of one of the church fathers pleading with their fellow Catholics shouting, "No brothers, let this heretic be spared and take me in his place, for he knows not what he does!".

I'll bet. <_<

Why would any of the church fathers have given their lives for a heretic? As far as the Catholics were concerned, heretics were pawns of Satan to be exterminated.

That's how I know they never would have died for a heretic.

That's the logical fallacy "argument from silence", or "argumentum e silentio".

"Argument from Silence is an informal logical fallacy where a positive conclusion is drawn from someone's silence. For example, if one's opponent in a debate does not respond to an argument, it would be a fallacy to conclude that he or she cannot counter the argument."

"The argument from silence (also called argumentum a silentio in Latin) is generally a conclusion based on silence or lack of contrary evidence. In the field of classical studies, it often refers to the deduction from the lack of references to a subject in the available writings of an author to the conclusion that he was ignorant of it."

Under your reasoning, we can make an equally strong case that the church fathers never went to the

bathroom, since there's no writing or record of one of the church fathers doing so.

The rest of your argument is that none of them would ever die for a heretic,

because I see no reason for them to die for a heretic,

therefore they wouldn't see a reason to, either.

You're assuming they thought exactly like you think now.

You SUPPOSE they wouldn't because if you were them, YOU would not.

Which is a lot like saying

"I wouldn't abuse my offfice if I were in charge of a large group of Christians,

therefore that leader would never have done so!"

But a number have, because they're not you....

Edited May 6, 2007 by WordWolf

[markomalley]

Garth,

Again, for the nth time, try to understand. I'll type slow this time so you'll get it, maybe.

I said that communism is inherently atheist.

I did not say that atheism is inherently communist.

(As I alluded to in my prior post, we are talking on a philosophical basis

A->B # B->A in general terms.

In other words, just because A implies B does not necessarily mean that B automatically implies A.

If you go back to the original statement I made on the matter, you will find that I said, "The only places in the modern world where heresy is a crime is in some (not all) Muslim countries (just try importing a Bible or Rosary into Saudi Arabia if you doubt me) and in (officially atheist) communist countries."

That statement was not an attack on atheism. It was an attack on communist countries...that happen to be atheistic. Period.

I realize that you are an evangelist, Garth. But maybe you should evangelize on a different thread. I am not trying to undermine your faith and there is no need for you to be an apologist for it on this thread.

[GarthP2000]

Mark,

I realize that you are an evangelist, Garth. But maybe you should evangelize on a different thread.

First off, your presumption that I am 'evangelizing' for atheism is flawed. (I mean, I didn't give you the proverbial 'green card' to sign for a class to take, did I?)

Am I being an 'apologist' for atheism? Only in the sense of showing the discontinuity between atheism and Communism to counter arguments made that try to link the two. Now OK, you aren't doing that, as I see your formula of: A->B # B->A in general terms. But I also see that you use the word necessarily, as in "just because A implies B does not necessarily mean that B automatically implies A." ... Ie., atheism isn't inherently Communist at all. ... Just wanted to set that record straight for those who don't know better like you do.

I mean, you'd want to set the record straight about flawed statements re: the Catholic Church, right? ... Like how the Church Fathers really aren't a bunch of losers? ;)

Just thought of something. ... Your comparison of Muslim countries and Communist countries in regards to laws against heresy is also flawed. Muslim countries who do have laws against heresy directly deal with heresy in the true religious sense. Ie., in practice, the only god allowed in those countries is the Muslim one. In Communist countries, like any other form of dictatorship, those supposed 'anti-heresy' laws deal with any form of openly spoken/written opposing views of the government, be they from Christian sources or otherwise. ... Ie., believe anything you want in your church, ... just keep your mouth _shut_ as regards to any complaints about the government.

You'll find that tactic shared fully by many non-Communist dictatorships as well, even those supported by the U.S. in the name of 'fighting Communism'. ... perhaps there wouldn't be so much of the Vatican-condemned 'liberation theology' spread about if this wasn't so much the case, ya think? <_<

Anywho, back to our regularly scheduled topic about how the Church Fathers are supposedly a bunch of losers.

:B)

[markomalley]

OK Garth...whichever.

[Oakspear]

We had a quick back and forth a while back about the Church Fathers being largely responsible for bringing us Christianity as we know it (I'm paraphrasing, excuse me if I'm misrepresenting someone's position...correct me if needed )

Some folks look back and concentrate on perceived errors of the Church Fathers ("errors" of course being a relative term), but they were largely responsible for verbalizing the rough outlines of Christian doctrine as we know it. You think The Trinity makes no sense? How about the belief that Jesus was an apparition, that he switched places with Simon of Cyrene and laughed as Simon was crucified in his place, that the God of the OT was an evil God - different than the God of Jesus, and so many others that were eventually pushed out and declared "heresies" by the "orthodox"?

And regarding apostolic sucession: one of the reasons that it became important was that there were multiple versions of Christianity running around. One of the ways that was used to convince people that they were being taught the right version was to claim an unbroken chain backward from the current leader of a church back through their previous leaders back to one of the original apostles. Right or wrong it was a method of establishing legitimacy.