And I did, but expanded that explaining evil is opposition to God first and foremost. The Church's dogma only  teaches what Christ taught. She condemns as evil what He did...no more no less.

Now it's time to put up. Cite or quote actual Catholic doctrine or dogma that reveals the Church teaches hate. That should keep you busy for a long time because you'll find none. The one who is inclined to oppose the Church must do so on principle, and cannot logically rail at her for forming her doctrines or dogmas according to the principles Christ gave her.

.............................................................

The First Commandment summons man to believe in God, to hope in Him, and to love Him above all else. 

Atheism rejects or denies the existence of God, and therefore is a sin against the First Commandment.

In my discussions with Atheists, there are some who know exactly when, how, and why they don't believe God exists and there are others whose fear that there might  be a God is perhaps unconscious.

I've said before that our inner voice of conscience approves the right and condemns the wrong. So, within ourselves there is a recognition of a God to whom we are responsible Who will regard the good we do and punish the evil. 

Ps. 13:1, "Only the fool says in his heart, there is no God."

Atheists obstinately insist in denying the existence of God in spite of external and internal testimony. Of them Our Lord said, 

".....because seeing they do not see and hearing they do not hear, neither do they understand. ... For the heart of this people is grown gross, and with their ears they have been hard of hearing, and their eyes they have closed;  Lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their mind, and be converted, and I should heal them." St.Matt. 13:13-15.

Are Atheists morally evil? Of course, it's plain to see Atheism cannot exist without sin. If Atheists do not deny God in order to be free of moral restraints, they are at least guilty of neglect to examine the question as they should.

That God exists is certain for everyone with a right conscience.

.................................

Sin is a part of life and has been with us since Adam and Eve and will be with us until Christ comes again at the end of the world.

Sin is nothing new, but the way we handle it is. For example, committing fornication becomes "premarital relations", taking birth control becomes 'family planning", abortion is "disposing of a blob of tissue". King David called a spade a spade. He said, I have sinned and done what is evil in your sight."

The modern world is divided into 2 groups, one large; one small. The small group commits itself to obedience to God's commandments. Yet, in weakness, they sin and need God's mercy and forgiveness.  

The large group of worldlings have broken away from obedience to God and His commands and makes itself equal to God by making its own commands and rules for itself claiming that sin does not exist. They set themselves up as final arbiters of what is good, just and natural. The large group of worldlings are dedicated to a no fault moral code, and refuse to admit the reality of sin and the personal responsibility that accompanies it.

Before you start (continue) our discussions on moral issues, we first have to decide ‘how we decide’. It is evident when we don’t … we have chats like we have been having … useless for accomplishing anything constructive. Do we decide right and wrong based on majority opinion, based on what Congress thinks, based on what Saddam Husain thinks or what you or I think or what you think your God thinks? This creationism vs. evolution is central to our ability to tell right from wrong. Since we are on opposite sides of the fence here … how would you suggest we proceed amiably?

You make this difficult because of your one-sidedness. You insist you and yours are the last word in truth … period. That whatever you say has to be true also, just because I suppose, period. You have absolutely no regard for anyone’s culture, beliefs, history, religion, geographical location, etc., period. And it is not convert to Christianity no … it’s convert to Catholicism, period. There are so many other areas where you tack this ‘period’ onto the list of things you can do that I (we) can’t??? And somehow I am supposed to explain what to you (???) about anything??? You have no open receptors at all … just loud speakers … and that makes the world around you unfathomable … you have no mechanisms for any other source of input besides your own council. "We" (meaning you, hahaha), "won’t take no for an answer to anything" … and anything that is nugatory of RCCC is a Militant Atheists threat whose sole purpose is the destruction of the RCC … always!!!

Look, you can take or leave science or cannibalize it any way you want, so take your best shot … who cares? At least until you buy more Christian votes, you will not succeed. Whatever you believe makes no difference to me and has no effect on my life at all … besides some frustration. Here is the difference … I don’t pester people to become ‘like me’ for two reasons: 1. there can only be one me, and 2. they need to make their own decisions, who am I to make it for them? If asked, I can only respond with what I believe in … and that is not the bible.

Suggestion here: If you are chatting with another thumper … banter till you drop. As to communicating with “Freethinkers” like myself I would stay away from biblical quotes, saintly quotes, religious quotes … well almost all quotes. I am in a chat with you and you should be able to stand on your own two feet using your own chosen words to express what you so deeply believe in. I have no interest in what St. Whomever or Pope Whatever has to say … only what you have to say. If you stop trying to quote all your support, you might end up with more time.

Lula, please answer this question yourself and quit haggling me over it: “Why do you” (to me) “want to keep god(s) out of public schools?” Give me a brake woman!

A kind of atheist? My dear, you either believe there's a god of sorts or you don't. Of course there's the option of agnosticism.

stevendedalus, in the eyes of the RCC (always The Point with Lula), anyone who is not a believer in Catholicism is an atheist. They believe in other gods or none at all ... thus many different "kinds" of atheist. They go so far as to state that others who submit to their very own creation are still atheists standing outside of Catholicism. How self-serving can a cult get I wonder? This is a mess not of my making as I believe in the individual human while the Churches like to classify everyone into nice big groups where they don't have to deal with individuals ... just with a group mentality … no individuals allowed. Why do you suppose outsiders implicate most Christians when they are speaking to just one? I just don’t care to go through this over and over again with every Christian (or whatever) because it is nonsensical as you alluded to.

ATHEISM – My dictionary – disbelief in the existence of God or deities. PERIOD

ATHEISM – Catholic Dictionary – "Denial of a personal God who is totally distinct from the world he created. Modern atheism has become so varied and widespread that the Second Vatican Council identified no less than eight forms of disbelief under the single term atheismus: "Some people expressly deny the existence of God. Others maintain that man cannot make any assertion whatsoever about Him. Still others admit only such methods of investigation as would make it seem quite meaningless to ask questions about God. Many, trespassing beyond the boundaries of the positive sciences, either contend that everything can be explained by the reasoning process used in such sciences, or, on the contrary, hold that there is no such thing as absolute truth. With others it is their exaggerated idea of man that causes their faith to languish; they are more prone, it would seem, to affirm man than to deny God. Yet others have such a faulty notion of God that when they disown this product of the imagination their denial has no reference to the God of the Gospels. There are also those who never enquire about God; religion never seems to trouble or interest them at all, nor do they try to see why they should bother about it" (Church in the Modern World, I, 19). In the light of this array of infidelity, it was only logical for the council to declare that atheism is one of the greatest problems facing mankind in the world today. (Etym. Greek atheos, denying the gods, without a god.)"

It all depends on who you talk to, hahaha.

What I think of atheism will be found here ... The Religion of Atheism … Exposed

Nah, this isn't CC teaching on Atheism. A Protestant fundamentalist is someone who is not a believer in Catholicism and they are not Atheists.

Yes, there are different "kinds" of Atheists. It depends on the variation of Atheism they practice. For some Atheism is a way of life..practical Atheism. Marx's Atheism was scientific.  There is also speculative, militant, and theoretical forms of Atheism. 

True.

They all share the same error...namely, they deny the existence of God. 

Depends on the state of their soul at the time of their death.

I did answer it. Just becasue you don't like or accept the answer doesn't mean I didn't answer it. 

But I'll go into more detail although I think you could not really be any less interested.  

Protestantism as you know began in the 15th century. Whatever is true in Protestantism, the Protestant forefathers brought from the Church when they left. Whatever is peculiar to Protestantism is false. The Protestant today is without guile. He only repeats the contradictions of Protestantism which he has been programmed without let up since childhood.  And by saying this, I do not wish to impugn, even by implication, the Protestant's sincerity.   there are many sincere Protestants out there, but there is a difference between being sincere and being correct. 

The Catholic Church as far as our salvation is concerned, has the whole truth and those outside her do not. Catholic reality is primarily a spiritual and moral reality. Infallible Catholic truth is in matters of faith and morals. It's setting in a material, biological world is always secondary. Revelation is the whole truth of that which Almighty God has revealed to men. The Bible is written revelation, and Divine Tradition is unwritten Revelation. Only the CC has both. 

The Catholic knows his religion is in the Bible and the Protestant, with all charity, needs to know that his religion is not. 

The teaching of Christ clearly condemns Protestant doctrines (Justification by faith alone, assurance of salvation, once saved, always saved, the Bible only as the rule of Faith, etc.). These are inventions from the 15th century through today. 

Protestants have to serve God in this life doing what He commands and avoiding what He forbids. If they have not always done what He commands, or have not always avoided what He forbids, they must at least be sincerely repentant of their sins before they go from this life to meet their Maker and Eternal Judge. 

The same quote can be made only changing "Protestant" to "Catholic" and "the Church" to "Jesus's Teachings".

I don't think Jesus condoned the inquisition and release of depraved prisoners to ravage villages and houses of Christians who refused to pay a tithe to the Catholic church and acknowledge only their priests could intervene for a person's salvation with God.

I don't think Jesus instituted a system where by paying an "indulgence" one could sin repetitiously without true repentance merely by paying a fine.

I don't think Jesus laid out the theology of "Limbo" so the church could collect monies for prayer for the souls "temporarily detained" there.

These are the actions of men who claimed to be representing the infallible mandate of God--and they were wrong.

Foxe's Book of Martyrs was actually written by a student of the Catholic church to point out things such as this but had to be written to cover a span of centuries back to Roman times in order to prevent it's censure by the Catholic church.

Read about the church having criminals released from prisons to rape and pillage and do things like sew women's legs together during childbirth in order to "put the fear of God" in those practicing Christianity outside the Catholic church.

There is a big difference in arguing for Christ and Christianity and arguing for recognition of the organization representing the Catholic church as "Him".

In fact, Catholicism insists that religion directed by the bible alone is insufficient but must be accompanied by and submitted to the authority of Catholic doctrine.  This isn't exactly "biblical", it's "Catholic".

Lula, always the fictitious explanation but quite inconsistent with what you have said ... you said that if a human doesn’t convert to Catholicism, they cannot go to Heaven … so which is it? It was really a yes / no question?

Sinperium, good points … the prisoner thing was a bit over the top though. The nefarious RCC (not Lula!) has usurped the authority of god Himself … for the riches, the control and of course the POWER. He who “controls” the word of God wields the unlimited power. What could not be justified by such zealots in the name of their chosen one? This is exactly the mentality behind suicide bombers … they just march to a different drummer is all.  God beyond a personal savior is little more than submitting oneself to someone else’s representation of God. The conflict here is not with religion and science (God not included) … but between the RCC and the rest of mankind all of whom are their self-imposed enemies, go figure???

PS: You arn't going to keep me hanging on ... are you?

Actually Boobz, the "prisoner thing" is documented-- large part of it occurred during the persecution of Waldensians.  Accounts detail that payments were made to released prisoners to wreck havoc and bonuses were granted when they were able to depopulate particular regions of the heretics.  Often this financing was done by local nobles but it was the threat of excommunication or worse by the Catholic church that compelled them to act.  You can search about Waldensians and find quite a bit of material. 

In general. most Catholic theolgians defend the excesses of these and other times as "church discipline" towards heretics "within the church" (meaning they had the "authority" to punish them...to death).  in fact, in most regions of Europe, it was compulsory for people to be members of the Catholic church--meaning everyone could be "righteously" punished.

Find some of the accounts of what was done and then try to imagine Jesus presiding over the events.  It's sickening.

One doesn't have to be an atheist or Christian to be offended by such things--simply human.  but as a Christian I find it particularly offensive to be told to "submit" to such authority or "burn in hell".  I would prefer to follow my conscience and stand before God for that.

Indeed. Let's do it and we'll notice the first sentence governs the rest. 

Whatever is true in Catholicism, the Catholic forefathers brought from Jesus' Teachings. What ever is pecular to Catholiicism is not false but true because it was brought from Jesus' Teachings. (Whatever is pecular to Catholicism that was brought from Jesus' Teachings is Divine Tradition.). The Catholic today is without guile. He only repeats Catholicism which he has been programmed without let up since childhood. 

The last sentence is true, but being programmed with Christ's Teachings (Divine Truth) is what Salvation is all about. And that's exactly the Church's, Catholicism and Jesus' Teachings sole goal.

Sinpernium, 

I want to respond to the rest of your post #70, but that would be taking this post too much off topic.

Within the next few days, I'll establish a separate article to do that unless I hear from Stevendedalus that it is OK here.