My Brother is a Catholic priest who claims that atheism is just a belief that God does not exist. On more than one occasion I have tried to inform him that an atheist is someone who believes that a very specific kind of God does not exist. If he wishes to expand his definition of the word "God" to include, say, everything, then an atheist would not necessarily be asserting that God/everything does not exist. But he doesn’t like to play with nuances so we have to think more simply about the matter. Very well then.
As a Catholic priest, he is asserting a belief in the existence of something called "God," even though he cannot concretely define the thing he is claiming to believe exists. He then asserts that the atheist is simply choosing to believe that said "god" does not exist. Being a priest, he is therefore asserting that to believe in the existence of God trumps a belief that said god does not exist. By this standard, a belief in something is greater than non-belief in the same thing. Apply this same standard to anything else and he will deny such a thing exists. If I claim to believe that inside his own brain is a homunculus that makes him a child raping serial killer which he is only using his religion to prevent himself from engaging in such activities, he would natural deny both "beliefs" and then put the onus on me to prove either one. If I mention that I am only using his standard that a "belief" in something by default trumps a denial of a "belief" in that same thing, his homunculus becomes enraged.
My brother then offers the example of a unicorn, insisting that a belief that unicorns do not exist is simply a belief. But unicorns do exist, according to him, because a rhinoceros is in fact a unicorn. Notice here that he has decided to fill the abstract definition of "unicorn" with any animal that has a single horn. When I wanted to offer a definition of God that included everything, rather than a God that prefers watching his own son be tortured and murdered for his own gratification, he rejected such an idea as absurd. To believe in Christianity requires a blind devotion to moral double standards and an equal devotion to being blind to that double standard. Again, notice what happens if we simply apply the standard he uses to believe in his God and his religion to himself. Catholicism is a belief system that requires its faithful flock to "believe" that every child in the human species is born with the stain of original sin, whether they know it or not. Too bad such babies couldn't be born as any other species and be spared such guilt. Now let's apply a similar "belief" to Catholic priests. Doing so allows us to equally conclude that, because he has chosen to become a Catholic priest, he must therefore be a pedophile. (he definitely isn't, for the record - I'm just trying to illustrate a point.) Then, when he claims to not be a pedophile (because he isn't one),or insists that not all catholic priests are pedophiles (because they aren't), using his "belief" that all children are stained with sin and nothing those children can do can prove otherwise, I simply reply "that is merely your belief, but nothing you can do or say can ever disprove my "belief" that all Catholic priests are pedophiles, which now includes you." After all, if a child is guilty of original sin for simply joining the human race, why should we not also assume that any Catholic who joins the priesthood is likewise guilty of pedophilia, since we know some Catholic priests are guilty of the latter but have absolutely no evidence at all to support a belief that infants are guilty of the former.
Suddenly, the tables have turned, and now the priest who is accused of such horrible acts feels like an innocent victim wrongly accused, even though those same priests never felt so wrongly accused of murder when they were innocent little infants! Like his insistence that all children are born with the stain of original sin on their soul, even though he cannot prove this claim to be true and infants don't know they are born sinners and haven't actually committed any sins themselves, so now I accuse him of being a pedophile of those same children, even if he doesn't know it and has never actually raped a child himself.
According to his Catholic church, it is the child born with original sin that carries the full responsibility of proving either that they have no such sin or that there is no such God. And since the child is unable to disprove the existence of either their own original sin or the Catholic God, they must therefore be guilty as charged by the Catholic Church of having sinned against the Catholic God. Oddly enough, Catholics extend this idea of "original sin" to all non-Catholic children too. By that standard, should we extend the assumption that all priests are pedophiles, not just Catholic priests?
Now let us apply this same logic to my brother as a Catholic priest. Like the assumption that every child is born guilty for the stain of original sin, let's assume that every Catholic priest who teaches parents to teach their children they suffer from the stain of sin is in fact guilty of raping children. And like the child who is guilty until they can prove they do not have the stain of original sin on their soul, so too, we should assume that every Catholic priest is likewise guilty of raping children until they can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they have never raped a child. In fact, since Jesus said that we can even sin in our own mind (because to even look lustfully at a woman was a sin, according to him) so every priest should likewise have to prove that they have never even looked at a child with lust in their heart.
Ironically, apply the same assumption that a Catholic priest is guilty of pedophilia that a Catholic priest applies to a child of being guilty of an original sin that led to the torture and murder of a man-god, and suddenly the Catholic priest is deeply offended that anyone would ever dare to believe such a thing were true of himself. And he does this, even though he has no problem with the Catholic Church assuming that when he was born he was guilty of original sin, and thus contributed to the torture and death of a man-god named Jesus. And since the priest could not disprove the existence of said "God" or said "original sin," let alone a soul on which the stain of orig. sin can be found, he became a catholic priest in order to save himself from the hell he deserves for being born with his original sin stained soul, compliments of the God who wanted Jesus tortured and mutilated. Notice that there is no "free will" in being born with this sin-stained soul, by the way.
So what is the difference between presuming the guilt of an innocent child for the "original sin" that someone else is presumed to have committed, for which no evidence exists to support the charge (other than the fact that countless numbers of people have simply chosen to believe that it was true), and presuming the guilt of my brother as a Catholic priest for the sins that other Catholic priests have most definitely committed, for which the Catholic church has plenty of evidence to prove has occurred?
Answer: accepting one gave him a job and the other demonstrated he has more job security than a Communist.
But if the child can be said to be born guilty of original sin simply because Adam & Eve sinned, and by being so guilty that child can be said to have unknowingly contributed to the murder of Christ, then why can we not likewise say a priest is born guilty when they are ordained due to the guilt of other Catholic priests who have indeed raped children, and therefore contributed to the suffering of innocent children at the hands of other priests? Indeed, the priest who takes offense at the thought that they should be assumed to be a pedophile simply for becoming a priest, takes no such offense at the thought they were taught as as children that they are responsible for the torture and murder of an innocent man who also happened to be a god. In short, why does the priest take such offense at the idea that anyone should simply assume they are a pedophile when they take no such offense to everyone simply assuming they are a murderer of Jesus Christ?
Likewise, claiming that atheism is "just a belief" is like claiming that someone who denies they are an aardvark, a hamster, or Napoleon Bonaparte, is simply operating under the "belief" they are not, in fact, an aardvark, a hamster, or Napoleon Bonaparte.
It is to say that a person who believes in an imaginary god also believes they are somehow different from a 4 year old child who believes in Santa Claus. Indeed, it is to say that a person who fails to admit they are Jesus Christ - even under torture - is simply operating under a belief they are not, in fact, Jesus Christ. clearly such people who refuse to accept that they are Jesus Christ must be subjected to the Spanish Inquisition until they properly "believe" they ARE the big JC!
But you have about as much chance of convincing a Christian of any of this as you would be at convincing them they are simply a hand puppet for a corporation that sells salvation from the sin, and the hell, they alone invented.
As a Catholic priest, he is asserting a belief in the existence of something called "God," even though he cannot concretely define the thing he is claiming to believe exists. He then asserts that the atheist is simply choosing to believe that said "god" does not exist. Being a priest, he is therefore asserting that to believe in the existence of God trumps a belief that said god does not exist. By this standard, a belief in something is greater than non-belief in the same thing. Apply this same standard to anything else and he will deny such a thing exists. If I claim to believe that inside his own brain is a homunculus that makes him a child raping serial killer which he is only using his religion to prevent himself from engaging in such activities, he would natural deny both "beliefs" and then put the onus on me to prove either one. If I mention that I am only using his standard that a "belief" in something by default trumps a denial of a "belief" in that same thing, his homunculus becomes enraged.
My brother then offers the example of a unicorn, insisting that a belief that unicorns do not exist is simply a belief. But unicorns do exist, according to him, because a rhinoceros is in fact a unicorn. Notice here that he has decided to fill the abstract definition of "unicorn" with any animal that has a single horn. When I wanted to offer a definition of God that included everything, rather than a God that prefers watching his own son be tortured and murdered for his own gratification, he rejected such an idea as absurd. To believe in Christianity requires a blind devotion to moral double standards and an equal devotion to being blind to that double standard. Again, notice what happens if we simply apply the standard he uses to believe in his God and his religion to himself. Catholicism is a belief system that requires its faithful flock to "believe" that every child in the human species is born with the stain of original sin, whether they know it or not. Too bad such babies couldn't be born as any other species and be spared such guilt. Now let's apply a similar "belief" to Catholic priests. Doing so allows us to equally conclude that, because he has chosen to become a Catholic priest, he must therefore be a pedophile. (he definitely isn't, for the record - I'm just trying to illustrate a point.) Then, when he claims to not be a pedophile (because he isn't one),or insists that not all catholic priests are pedophiles (because they aren't), using his "belief" that all children are stained with sin and nothing those children can do can prove otherwise, I simply reply "that is merely your belief, but nothing you can do or say can ever disprove my "belief" that all Catholic priests are pedophiles, which now includes you." After all, if a child is guilty of original sin for simply joining the human race, why should we not also assume that any Catholic who joins the priesthood is likewise guilty of pedophilia, since we know some Catholic priests are guilty of the latter but have absolutely no evidence at all to support a belief that infants are guilty of the former.
Suddenly, the tables have turned, and now the priest who is accused of such horrible acts feels like an innocent victim wrongly accused, even though those same priests never felt so wrongly accused of murder when they were innocent little infants! Like his insistence that all children are born with the stain of original sin on their soul, even though he cannot prove this claim to be true and infants don't know they are born sinners and haven't actually committed any sins themselves, so now I accuse him of being a pedophile of those same children, even if he doesn't know it and has never actually raped a child himself.
According to his Catholic church, it is the child born with original sin that carries the full responsibility of proving either that they have no such sin or that there is no such God. And since the child is unable to disprove the existence of either their own original sin or the Catholic God, they must therefore be guilty as charged by the Catholic Church of having sinned against the Catholic God. Oddly enough, Catholics extend this idea of "original sin" to all non-Catholic children too. By that standard, should we extend the assumption that all priests are pedophiles, not just Catholic priests?
Now let us apply this same logic to my brother as a Catholic priest. Like the assumption that every child is born guilty for the stain of original sin, let's assume that every Catholic priest who teaches parents to teach their children they suffer from the stain of sin is in fact guilty of raping children. And like the child who is guilty until they can prove they do not have the stain of original sin on their soul, so too, we should assume that every Catholic priest is likewise guilty of raping children until they can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they have never raped a child. In fact, since Jesus said that we can even sin in our own mind (because to even look lustfully at a woman was a sin, according to him) so every priest should likewise have to prove that they have never even looked at a child with lust in their heart.
Ironically, apply the same assumption that a Catholic priest is guilty of pedophilia that a Catholic priest applies to a child of being guilty of an original sin that led to the torture and murder of a man-god, and suddenly the Catholic priest is deeply offended that anyone would ever dare to believe such a thing were true of himself. And he does this, even though he has no problem with the Catholic Church assuming that when he was born he was guilty of original sin, and thus contributed to the torture and death of a man-god named Jesus. And since the priest could not disprove the existence of said "God" or said "original sin," let alone a soul on which the stain of orig. sin can be found, he became a catholic priest in order to save himself from the hell he deserves for being born with his original sin stained soul, compliments of the God who wanted Jesus tortured and mutilated. Notice that there is no "free will" in being born with this sin-stained soul, by the way.
So what is the difference between presuming the guilt of an innocent child for the "original sin" that someone else is presumed to have committed, for which no evidence exists to support the charge (other than the fact that countless numbers of people have simply chosen to believe that it was true), and presuming the guilt of my brother as a Catholic priest for the sins that other Catholic priests have most definitely committed, for which the Catholic church has plenty of evidence to prove has occurred?
Answer: accepting one gave him a job and the other demonstrated he has more job security than a Communist.
But if the child can be said to be born guilty of original sin simply because Adam & Eve sinned, and by being so guilty that child can be said to have unknowingly contributed to the murder of Christ, then why can we not likewise say a priest is born guilty when they are ordained due to the guilt of other Catholic priests who have indeed raped children, and therefore contributed to the suffering of innocent children at the hands of other priests? Indeed, the priest who takes offense at the thought that they should be assumed to be a pedophile simply for becoming a priest, takes no such offense at the thought they were taught as as children that they are responsible for the torture and murder of an innocent man who also happened to be a god. In short, why does the priest take such offense at the idea that anyone should simply assume they are a pedophile when they take no such offense to everyone simply assuming they are a murderer of Jesus Christ?
Likewise, claiming that atheism is "just a belief" is like claiming that someone who denies they are an aardvark, a hamster, or Napoleon Bonaparte, is simply operating under the "belief" they are not, in fact, an aardvark, a hamster, or Napoleon Bonaparte.
It is to say that a person who believes in an imaginary god also believes they are somehow different from a 4 year old child who believes in Santa Claus. Indeed, it is to say that a person who fails to admit they are Jesus Christ - even under torture - is simply operating under a belief they are not, in fact, Jesus Christ. clearly such people who refuse to accept that they are Jesus Christ must be subjected to the Spanish Inquisition until they properly "believe" they ARE the big JC!
But you have about as much chance of convincing a Christian of any of this as you would be at convincing them they are simply a hand puppet for a corporation that sells salvation from the sin, and the hell, they alone invented.
Comments
Post a Comment