How do we Know that the Catholic-Church is the True Church?

My conversion to the Catholic faith began in the world of Protestant fundamentalism. After being brought up in an independent Bible church, I attended the fundamentalist Bob Jones University. While there I became an Anglican; later, I went to England to become an Anglican priest.

My pilgrimage of faith came to a crisis in the early 1990s as the Anglican Church struggled over the question of the ordination of women. By instinct I was against the innovation, but I wanted to be positive and affirm new ideas rather than reject them just because they were new. I decided to put my prejudices to one side and listen as openly as possible to both sides of the debate.

As I listened I realized that from a human point of view, both the people in favor of women’s ordination and those against it had some good arguments. Both sides argued from Scripture, tradition, and reason. Both sides argued from practicality, compassion and justice. Both sides honestly considered their arguments to be persuasive. Furthermore, both sides were composed of prayerful, church-going, sincere Christians who genuinely believed the Holy Spirit was directing them. How could both be right?

From a human point of view, both arguments could be sustained. This led me to a real consideration of the question of authority in the Church. I realized that the divisions over women’s ordination in the Anglican Church were no different, in essence, than every other debate that has divided the thousands of Protestant denominations.

Some groups split over women’s ordination; others split over whether women should wear hats to church. Some split over doctrinal issues; others split over moral issues. Whatever the issue and whatever the split, the basic problem is one of authority. If Christians have a sincere disagreement, who decides?

Wobbly Three-Legged Stool

Evangelical Protestants say the Bible decides, but this begs the question when the two warring parties agree that the Bible is the final authority. They eventually split because they can’t agree about what the Bible actually teaches. I had moved away from the Protestant understanding that Scripture is the only authority, and as an Anglican, believed that authority rested in Scripture, tradition, and reason.

Anglicans call this the “three-legged stool.” By turning to Scripture, tradition, and human reason they hope to have a secure teaching authority. I came to realize, however, that this solution also begs the question. Just as we have to ask the Protestant who believes in sola scriptura, “Whose interpretation of Scripture?,” we have to ask the Anglican, “Whose reason and whose tradition?” In the debate over women’s ordination (and now in the debate over homosexuality), both sides appeal to human reason, Scripture and tradition, and they come up with wildly different conclusions.

In the end, the Anglican appeal to a three-legged stool relies on individual interpretation, just as the Protestant appeals to sola scriptura. The three-legged stool turns out to be a theological pogo stick.

A Son of Benedict Speaks

About this time I had a conversation with the Abbot of Quarr Abbey (a Catholic Benedictine monastery on the Isle of Wight). He listened to my situation with compassion and interest. I explained that I did not want to deny women’s ordination. I wanted to affirm all things that were good, and I could see some good arguments in favor of women’s ordination. He admired this desire to affirm all things but he said something that set me thinking further:

Sometimes we have to deny some lesser good in order to affirm the greater good. I think you have to deny women’s ordination in order to affirm the apostolic ministry. If the apostolic authority says no to women’s ordination, then to affirm the greater good of apostolic authority you will have to deny the lesser good of women’s ordination. Because if we deny the greater good, then eventually we will lose the lesser good as well.

He hit the nail on the head. His words led me to explore the basis for authority in the Catholic Church. I already had read and pretty much accepted the Scriptural support for the Petrine ministry in the Church. I also had come to understand and value the four-fold marks of the True Church—that it is “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.” As I studied and pondered the matter further, however, I saw twelve other traits of the church’s authority.

These twelve traits—in six paired sets—helped me to understand how comprehensive and complete the Catholic claims of authority are. I came to realize that other churches and ecclesial bodies might claim some of the traits, but only the Catholic Church demonstrated all twelve fully.

It Is Rooted in History . . .

What are the twelve traits of authority, and how do they work? We have to ask what a group of Christians who were deliberating a difficult matter would need to make their decision.

First of all, it seems clear that their decision would have to be made from a historical perspective. It was not good enough to decide complex moral, social, or doctrinal issues based on popularity polls or yesterday’s newspaper. To decide difficult questions, a valid authority has to be historical.

By this I mean not only does it has to have an understanding of history, but itself must be rooted in history. In addition, the authority has to show a real continuity with the historical experience of Christianity. The churches that have existed for four or five hundred years can demonstrate this to a degree, but only the Catholic (and Eastern Orthodox) Church has a living link with history that goes back to Roman times—and then, through Judaism, back to the beginning of human history.

. . . and Adaptable

The historical link is essential, but on its own is not sufficient. Historical authority has to be balanced with the ability to be up to date. An authority that is only historical becomes ossified. It never changes. An authority that cannot be up to date is not only rooted in history, it is bound by history. A valid authority structure needs to be flexible and adaptable. Christians face complex modern moral and doctrinal dilemmas. A valid authority system draws on the wisdom of the past to rule properly on the questions of the present.

It Is Objective . . .

A third quality of a valid authority system is that it needs to be objective. By this I mean it needs to be independent of any one person’s or group’s agenda, ideology, philosophy or self-interest. A valid authority transcends all political, economic, and cultural pressures. The objective quality of this authority system also allows it to make decisions that are unpopular or that go against the spirit of the times and majority opinion.

An objective authority is based on certain universal basic assumptions, immutable principles, and observable and undeniable premises. From these objective criteria the valid authority system builds its teaching.

. . . and Flexible

For the authority to be valid, however, it cannot rely on abstract principles and objective criteria alone. The valid authority is suitably subjective in applying objective principles. In other words, it understands that the complexities of real life and the pastoral exigencies of helping real people demand a flexible, practical, and down-to-earth application. The Catholic authority system does just that. Throughout the Code of Canon Law, for example, we are reminded that the law is there to serve the people of God in their quest for salvation.

Individual Christians, or particular Christian groups, often fall into one side of this pair or the other. The rigorists or legalists want everything to be objective and “black and white” all the time, while the liberals or sentimentalists want every decision to be relative, open-ended, and flexible according to the pastoral needs. Only the Catholic system can hold the two in tension, because only the Catholic system has an infallible authority which can keep the two sides balanced.

It Is Universal . . .

An authority that can speak to all situations can only do so if it comes from a universal source. This source of authority needs to be universal not only geographically, but also chronologically. In other words, it transcends national agendas and limitations, but it also transcends the cultural trends and intellectual fashions of any particular time. Every church or ecclesial structure other than the Catholic Church is limited, either by its historical foundations or by its cultural and national identity.

For example, the Eastern Orthodox find it very hard to transcend their national identity, while the churches of the Reformed tradition struggle to transcend the particular cultural issues that surround their foundation. The national, cultural, and chronological identities of other ecclesial bodies limit their ability to speak with a universal voice. When they do move away from their foundations they usually find themselves at sea amidst the fashions and trends of the present day. They also find that they lose their distinctive identities when they drift from their foundations. A universal authority system, on the other hand, transcends both chronological and geographical limitations.

. . . and Local

However, this universal authority needs to be applied in a particular and local way. An authority that is only universal remains vague, abstract, and disincarnate. For a universal authority system to be valid, it also must be expressed locally. Catholicism speaks with a universal voice, but it is also as local as St. Patrick’s Church and Fr. Magee on the corner of Chestnut Street. Not only does the universal Church have a local outlet, but that outlet has a certain autonomy which allows it to be flexible in its application of the universal authority. Catholicism travels well, and because of the universal authority structure, it can allow far more varieties of enculturation at the local level than churches which are more bound by the time and place of their foundations.

It Is Intellectually Challenging . . .

The fourth pair of characteristics that demonstrate the validity of the Catholic authority system include its intellectual satisfaction and its accessibility. If an authority system is to speak to the complexities of the human situation, then it must be able to hold its own with the philosophical and intellectual experts in every field of human endeavor. What other ecclesial system can marshal experts from every area of human expertise to speak authoritatively in matters of faith and morals? Time and again, the Catholic Church has been able to speak with authority about the spiritual dimension of economics, ethics, politics, diplomacy, the arts, and philosophy.

This authority must not only be able to hold its own with the intellectual experts in all fields, but it must be intellectually satisfying and coherent within itself. A unified and complete intellectual system must be able to explain the world as it is. Furthermore, this intellectual system must continually develop and be re-expressed—always interpreting ageless truth in a way that is accessible for the age in which it lives. This intellectual system must be an integral and vital part of the religion, while also being large enough to self-criticize. Only the Catholic faith has such an all-encompassing, impressive system of teaching.

. . . and Accessible to the Uneducated

Nonetheless, while the authority system must be intellectually top notch, the religious system must also be accessible to peasants and the illiterate. A religious system that is only intellectual or appeals merely to the literate can speak only for the intellectuals and literate.

Some denominations appeal to the simple and unlearned, but have trouble keeping the top minds. Others appeal to the educated elite, but lose the masses. Catholicism, on the other hand, is a religion of the greatest minds of history and the religion of ignorant peasants. It is a religion that is complex enough for St. Thomas Aquinas and simple enough for St. Joseph Cupertino. It has room at the manger for both the magi and the shepherds.

It Is Visible . . .

As a Protestant I was taught that the Church was invisible. That is, it consisted of all people everywhere who believed in Jesus, and that the true members of the Church were known to God alone. This is true, but there is more to it than that. Invisibility and visibility make up the fifth paired set of characteristics that mark the truly authoritative church.

The Church is made up of all people everywhere who trust in Christ. However, this characteristic alone is not satisfactory because human beings locked in the visible plane of reality also demand that the Church be visible. Even those who believe only in the invisible church belong to a particular church which they attend every Sunday. Those who believe only in the invisible church must conclude that the church they go to doesn’t really matter.

. . . and Invisible

The Catholic system of authority recognizes both the invisible dimension of the Church and the visible. The Church is greater than what we can observe, but the church we observe is also greater than we think. The invisible Church subsists in the Catholic Church, and while you may not be able to identify the extent of the invisible Church, you can with certainty point to the Catholic Church and say, “There is the Body of Christ.”

A few small Protestant denominations claim that their visible church is the true church, but their claims are ludicrous because they have none of the other twelve traits of true authority. Because it has all these traits, only the Catholic Church can claim to be the living, historical embodiment of the Body of Christ on earth.

It is Both Human and Divine

Finally, for the church to speak with authority it must be both human and divine. An authority that speaks only with a divine voice lacks the authenticity that comes with human experience. So Islam and Mormonism, which are both based on a book supposedly dictated by angels, are unsatisfactory because their authority is supernaturally imposed on the human condition.

On the other hand, a religion that is purely a construct of the human condition is merely a system of good works, religious techniques, or good ideas. Christian Science or Unitarianism, for example, is developed from human understandings and natural goodness. As such, both lack a supernatural voice of authority.

The Judeo-Christian story, however, is both human and divine. The voice of authority is always expressed through human experience and human history. Divine inspiration in the Judeo-Christian tradition is God’s word spoken through human words. This incarnated form of authority finds its fulfillment in Jesus Christ, who hands on his totally incarnated authority to Peter and his successors.

Built upon the Rock

Some Churches may exercise some of the twelve traits, but only the Catholic Church is able to field all twelve as a foundation for decision-making. When the Catholic Church pronounces on any difficult question, the response is historical, but up to date. It is based on objective principles but applies to specific needs. The Church’s authority transcends space and time, but it is relevant to a particular place and time. The response will be intellectually profound, but expressed in a way that is simple enough for anyone to apply. Finally, it will express truths that are embedded in the human experience, but spring from divine inspiration.

This authority works infallibly through the active ministry of the whole Church. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that it is Christ who is infallible, and he grants a measure of his infallibility to his body, the Church. That infallibility is worked out through these twelve traits, but it is expressed most majestically and fully through Christ’s minister of infallibility: one person—the Rock on which the Church is built, Peter and his successors.

Fr. Dwight Longenecker



  1. Patrick Gannon Reply

    “Sometimes we have to deny some lesser good in order to affirm the greater good. I think you have to deny women’s ordination in order to affirm the apostolic ministry. If the apostolic authority says no to women’s ordination, then to affirm the greater good of apostolic authority you will have to deny the lesser good of women’s ordination. Because if we deny the greater good, then eventually we will lose the lesser good as well.”

    Who gets to decide which is the lesser and greater good? Fr. Dwight Longenecker apparently decided, by selecting the Pope over his conscience. That’s certainly one way to absolve one’s self from making the difficult questions, I guess. If there really is a God, I wonder what He/She/It thinks of that abandonment of personal responsibility.

    Most of the biblical authority for treating women as second class citizens comes from the Epistle of Timothy, where a forger writing in the name of Paul, denigrated women, in contrast to Paul’s real writings that were much more woman-friendly.

    1. Michael W Reply

      Basic theology is priest represents Christ. Unfortunately for feminist and liberal Christians, Christ is masculine. He is a man. The priest represents Christ. Christ is the husband and the Church is wife. We should not remove the masculinity of the Priesthood because that’s Jesus want it to be. Jesus did not ordain any woman as priest. If he did want to, he should have done it during his time on earth. The priest is a spiritual father of the community. These liberal Christians don’t get it. They see woman and man as the same. They disregard the differences of being a man and being a woman. Yes, men and women are equal in dignity but not in characteristics. Instead of debating about this, they should be defending the unborn life being massacred in west for so called “woman right”. Instead of forcing the Church to change, they should be the one who change in with the True Christian ideals. Feminization of any organization such as Church and Military for example that historically masculine is not the solution. Giving additional burden to womanhood will not make woman happier. Actually, western woman are more sad today than before. Feminist are forcing woman to like things that are generally masculine. Feminist wants women not to take care children which is historically feminine. Anyways, men on the one hand does not even care if the fashion industry or nursing industry maintains its femininity.

      1. Patrick Gannon Reply

        You do a good job of describing the sexist male viewpoint, but I’m going to guess there are women who would disagree with the Church’s insistence that they are second class citizens and that a good and loving god would want it to be thus. At least they aren’t property as they were in the old days. That’s in spite of the Church, not because of it. If the Church had its way, women would still not be allowed to own property or vote.

        I think that a lot of the anti-woman portions of Christianity have to do with sex. The mythical Eve gave into the talking snake, so women are to blame for the so-called “fall from grace.” Sex is how the mythical original sin is passed along. Women can do something men can’t do – produce life – which makes men insecure at their inability to do something equally wonderful and amazing.

        What we can see is what happens when women are empowered. The standard of living goes up, crime goes down, overpopulation is reduced, disease and starvation is reduced, education goes up. Jobs increase. Just about anywhere in the world, where women have been empowered the situation has improved not just for them, but for the entire society. Religions like Catholicism are determined to keep women in the dark ages. I really can’t understand why any woman would belong to the Catholic Church, unless they’ve been so indoctrinated that they’ve lost sight of their own personal value as a human being.

        1. Yvonne Reply

          Woman are not second-class in the Catholic church.
          Mary has a profound feminine place in the Catholic Church; there are a number female Doctors of the Church and abbotesses and many other women are highly influential.
          Woman are not indoctrinated into believing they are second-class but are empowered in their role as women and not want-to-be-men.

          1. Patrick Gannon

            Mary is an example of women being second class citizens. Bible God did not consult with her; he did not ask her if she wished to be impregnated. She accepted it after the fact, but she was not afforded the decency of a request first. Bible God impregnated Mary with Himself, so He could be born as Himself, in order to sacrifice Himself to Himself, so that He could relieve us from a condition He put on us in the first place. Mary had no say in the matter. I know many women who feel that the Church makes them second class citizens. The religion is based on the OT where women were chattel – property. Don’t tell me women are the equals of men in the Abrahamic religions – that’s nonsense.

            I find it interesting that the tide may be turning. There are more women graduating from college in the US than men. They are going to start amassing power. It should be interesting to see how vindictive they are when and if they ever hold the reins for society. I suspect that they will do a better job than we men did (but don’t tell my girlfriend I said that!).

  2. Opinion Reply

    So do you decide on the matter then brother? If no one will decide then each will just part ways and continue on their own beliefs and ideas. You say forge other will say inspired who right and who’s wrong who decide? Do you think you’re the authority to do that. That’s why thre Peter and his successor.

  3. Teddy McLean Reply

    When I find I am at odds with the Church’s stance on issues such as were discussed I am reminded of what my RCIA teacher said: “Believe so that you will understand.” Your article has helped immensely on my journey. Thank you.

    1. Patrick Gannon Reply

      “Believe so that you will understand.” In other words, check your brain at the door. Believe in fairies and unicorns so you understand that they are real. Believe the world is the center of the universe so you can understand that the universe revolves around you.

      No, real life doesn’t work that way. You understand so that you can believe. As a result of understanding cosmology, gravity, physics, etc. you understand that the evidence indicates the earth goes around the sun, and that we are a mere outpost in a huge and desolate universe. You understand that the fossil record indicates no evidence for fairies or unicorns.

      To start with conclusions, is the worst way possible to obtain understanding, in my opinion. It’s understanding that should lead us to conclusions, not the other way around; but when there is absolutely no evidence for the beliefs you are trying to indoctrinate into others, then of course you have to do what that teacher told you to do. You have to LIE to yourself.

  4. May Sallerrace Reply

    Patrick Gannon, you really didn’t read the article with ANY comprehension. You are in my prayers. I am adding you to my family’s prayer journal. May God lift the scales from your eyes’

    1. Patrick Gannon Reply

      You’re going to pray for me? Great, have at it. Pray hard. I don’t understand the concept. I was told that God had a divine plan. Who am I to ask that He change it for little old me? It’s a good plan, He spent a lot of time on it; all but this one little part that he should change for you or me?
      Prayer doesn’t work – see the Templeton Foundation prayer experiment – a dismal failure. The answers to prayer to God are the same as answers for prayers to a milk jug – yes, no, maybe later, and statistically they come out the same regardless of whether one prays to a milk jug or God. Here’s a good comedic description of how prayer works:

  5. Ed Mulrenan Reply

    Protestant churches have turned into the Tower of Babel with 30-40 Thousand splintered sects Anglican epispl. etc. splitting apart again and again. What Pope Paul 6th said about Humane vitae and abortion drugs contraception and abortion promotion causing a catastrophic collapse of family and married life is So True. Just look at the dying west even Italy drowning in a cesspool of their own filth and breakdown of the family and society-AB Cafara told you as well.

  6. Enesi Reply

    Patrick Gannon, it’s going to be very difficult to reason with you on matters of faith because from what I’ve gathered from your comments, firstly you do not believe in God, or you are Gnostic at best. If the above article was about the existence of God, then some of your arguments would have been more robust on this thread, but it isn’t. It is therefore going to be difficult explaining to you why the Pope has authority in matters of faith if you do not believe in God.
    Secondly, you also seem like a feminist and the argument of feminism has never been compatible with faith and spiritual issues. Feminism seeks to confuse the roles of men and women, and the thinking of feminists, that the natural roles ascribed to women makes them second class citizens baffles me. In the church, men have their roles, as well as women. This does not make them less equal. The church even has as many women saints as there are men saints. Finally, just as someone said above, believe first, then you can understand.

    1. Patrick Gannon Reply

      That is the first time in my life someone has told me that I’m a feminist. My girlfriend will get a hoot out of that!
      It’s not a question of “believing in God.” There simply is no evidence for this god. There may be a god or an afterlife, but we don’t know. Living our lives as though we do know (faith = pretending to know things we don’t know) is the same as lying to ourselves, and this internal cognitive conflict cannot be healthy, and may explain why Christianity is becoming ever more hostile to the other, as the emergence of new evidence undercuts the foundations for the god of the bible. There may be a god, but the foundation for Yahweh rests on washed out pillars of salt and sand. No six day creation, no global flood, no mass Exodus from Egypt, no Conquest of Canaan – scholars know these things didn’t happen as written, and without them – there’s no basis for the god they created. Most of all, DNA evidence makes the original sin concept all but impossible. Paul and Jesus didn’t know about evolution – heck, Jesus didn’t even know about germs, otherwise he could have saved millions of lives from dreadful deaths.
      You are correct, that if there was some evidence for your god, then it might make sense to debate whether the Catholic Church is the one true church. Without that evidence, it’s like debating where unicorns live.
      Women are every bit as intelligent than men – maybe more so, given that there are now more women in college than men – but your church still does not allow them to preach; women are told what they can and can’t do with their bodies, that they must submit to their husbands – don’t tell me that women aren’t second class citizens in your church. I know good and well that women started off as chattel, as a man’s property, in the OT, and that those attitudes are still prevalent today. I’m not a woman, but I’m not blind, either.

      1. Enesi Reply

        Laughs. At least I’m right about something!
        How is it that believing in something or somebody always requires evidence? What is your idea of evidence in the first place? In this case, do you require that an old white-haired and bearded bearded man appears in the skies and declares to you in a booming voice that I am God? Then he follows this up by doing some mind boggling stuff like uproot the nearest mountain and plant it in the sea just by the wave of his hand? What other evidence of the existence of God do you need except the one presented by Jesus? At least I don’t hear you denying his existence. This is someone that walked this earth over two millennia ago. He is the Son of God, he is God made flesh, and he came to save the world from sin but had to become like us to save us. And to prove to you and I that he was everything like us except sin, and yet nothing like us (God), he wept, felt pain, felt joy, and even died, but also walked on water, calmed the sea, raised the dead and healed the sick, and to prove that he had power over death, rose from the dead. Who else can do this but he that created life? But you’ll rather he reveals himself to you in a dramatic way so you can have “evidence”.
        Look around you. Everything around us is a product of intelligence. The earth and all that is in it, the universe and all the laws that govern it. Intelligence does not exist by chance. Except you want to believe that a car or a vacuum cleaner can exist by chance.

        One fundamental problem with your view of creation in the book of Genesis, is that you take it literally. For me, and as the church teaches, that aspect of the Bible should not be taken literally. However inspired it was, it was written by someone whose view of the world was more or less a reflection of the traditions and teachings of the time. But for the reason that the traditions and teachings of his time is remote, it does not mean that the message is devoid of truth.

        As for what you said about evolution, please read this:
        I just wonder why you believe so much in evolution, a process you have not witnessed, yet you do not see evidence of God’s existence.

        I agree that women are every bit as intelligent as men if not more. But that does not mean they are second class citizens. Yes, The Bible says they should submit to their husbands but it also says that men should love their wives as Christ loves the church. That speaks volumes about equality, and does not in any way indicate that they are being told what to do with their bodies. You’ll agree with me that love in itself encompasses respect.

        1. Patrick Gannon Reply

          We have to start be defining what “believing” means. Clearly, believing in something does not necessarily require evidence. I can believe in unicorns and fairies and Zeus or any number of things without the slightest bit of evidence, but that doesn’t make any of those beliefs true. What makes them true is evidence, and particularly objective evidence. Believing something because someone else believes it (subjective evidence) is of no value unless that person has objective evidence upon which he/she bases his/her belief. For example if a mountain climber tells me he believes that the best passage to the top of the mountain is “N,” then based on the objective evidence that he has experience climbing this or similar mountains, I can give more credence to his belief than to someone who tells me he believes Jesus is going to return sometime in the next 50 years, but who has not a shred of objective evidence to support this claim.
          I don’t know what evidence it would take to convince me of a god, but a booming voice out of the heavens would be a start – though I would likely assume that to be the product of some superior alien intelligence to begin with. Yeah, picking up and moving a mountain with the wave of a hand – that would help too; after all didn’t Jesus say that all we needed to do was believe we could do this and we could? Obviously that’s not true, but if it could be demonstrated that belief will let you move mountains, then we’d have some objective evidence to work with. Equally as clear is the fact that no amount of faith, belief and prayer has grown back an amputated limb. There are apparently some things even Yahweh can’t do!
          What evidence do I need except that presented by Jesus? What evidence was presented by Jesus? We don’t have any evidence of his miracles – none of them left anything for future study. Jesus didn’t write a word that we’re aware of. None of the gospel writers claims to be an eye witness, and none of them state their sources. It’s written as mythology, not history – see Richard Carrier’s book about the historicity of Jesus to understand the difference in the two writing styles. Carrier started out thinking Jesus was probably a real man (but not a god), and was commissioned to do the most extensive research I think anyone has done on the subject, working with every shred of evidence available. He changed his views by the time he finished, proposing that the odds were zero to 30% that Jesus was historical, and 50 – 100% that he was mythological. It’s highly probable (but not impossible) that Jesus was not a real man. Paul offers what is perhaps the most damning evidence for this, as he never, ever, not even once, refers to anything Jesus did in his ministry as an example to his congregations, in response to the questions they raised. If he knew of Jesus’ supposed ministry, his baptism by John, his disciples, his sermon on the mount, his miracles, any details about his crucifixion, wouldn’t he have used those as examples? Wouldn’t he have mentioned at least one event in Jesus’ life? Wouldn’t he have answered questions from his congregants with statements like: “When confronted with this issue, Jesus illustrated in the parable of blah, blah, blah, …” But no, we don’t have anything like that from Paul, not a word. It’s bizarre and very telling. Paul wrote about 20 years after Jesus supposedly died, and it seems the author of Mark turned Jesus into a person with a family, a ministry, disciples, miracles, etc. some 20 years after that. For Paul, Jesus was a cosmic god who was crucified by Satan in outer space because that’s where they believed Hell and the 7 heavens were at that time.
          I don’t deny Jesus’ human existence. “Jesus” was one of the most popular names of the time, so there were a lot of men named Jesus and surely a number of them were crucified. We simply don’t know. It’s possible that there was a man with a ministry who railed against the clergy (most people seem not to notice that Jesus’ greatest enemies were always the clergy). You speak of Jesus’ miracles, but none of them left any evidence, and they are the sorts of things all the other pagan gods did at the time. Indeed, we have to ask, if Jesus could turn water into wine, why didn’t he turn lead into gold so he could feed the poor? Why did he tell his followers they didn’t have to wash their hands before eating, when a little teaching about germs and sanitation could have prevented the horrific deaths of millions of people? Jesus, if he was a real human being, clearly didn’t know any more of a technical nature, than anyone else at the time.
          Please don’t put words in my mouth – vacuum cleaners do not come into existence by chance. You are illustrating a lack of understanding about evolution. We are here as a result of evolution, but evolution is not based on chance – it is based on natural selection, and intelligence increased in our species because natural selection gave a survival benefit to those who had it, and passed it on to their descendents. Intelligence does not exist by chance – that is correct – it exists as a result of natural selection. Initially scientists thought that the minor changes that came about in organisms were the result of random mutations caused by the environment, gamma radiation, etc., but that view has changed somewhat, and it’s the mixing and diversification of genetic material that seems to create the opportunities for natural selection to work. A recombination of genetic material can kill an organism, or it can provide it with a survival advantage it may pass on.
          You are saying that I take Genesis literally, and that’s absurd. It’s surely a campfire story told for generations before being put in writing. Of course it’s not literal. Based on my research, you are incorrect in saying that the Church (I assume you refer to the RCC in this case), says Genesis should not be taken literally. That’s not true as I understand it. The RCC “allows” you to believe in evolution or a literal Genesis as I understand it, and as the essay you posted largely confirms. They don’t care about the actual truth of the matter. As long as you do what they tell you to do, you can believe in either Genesis or evolution, just as you are “allowed” to believe that aborted and miscarried babies go to Limbo instead of Hell – even though they know that Limbo was an invention of a man – Augustine.
          We have witnessed evolution countless times, and of course almost everyone, including fundagelicals believes in micro-evolution. We can watch that in real time. Macroevolution is simply micro-evolution over geological timeframes. I browsed through the essay you linked to and it is full of misinformation, whether intentional or otherwise I won’t venture to say. For example, the essay says what matters is truth, but then you are not “allowed” to believe that humans descended from a pool of individuals, despite the very strong, if not irrefutable DNA evidence to the contrary. The RCC is not in the least bit concerned with what’s true – only that you believe the right things according to their dogma. Aside from a handful of paid scientists working for Ken Ham at Answers In Genesis, practically every scientist in the world accepts evolution, and particularly those in the field of biology. Like you said, intelligence did not just happen – so why do all these intelligent scientists accept evolution? Answer: because the objective evidence is overwhelming. The exact mechanics of all the processes involved are not fully understood, but that evolution explains our existence is accepted as fact, by all but uneducated or willfully ignorant people.
          The bible says a lot more than that women should submit to their husbands! Have you actually read the entire book, as I have several times? As I understand it, in the RCC, women are not permitted to turn down their husbands for sex other than if they are ill or have similar issues, so basically the RCC says it’s OK to rape your wife – it’s part of her marital “duty.” Therefore it’s clear that women are not permitted to do what they want with their bodies in this and other respects such as contraception and abortion. The bible says women are worth less than a man, their testimony is worth less, fathers can sell their daughters into slavery, and if a woman is injured by a man and miscarries, the man is not penalized for what he did to the woman, but for what he did to the man’s property. Even Mary was not asked to give her consent before supposedly being impregnated. The bible is probably superseded only by the Qur’an as one of the most sexist texts in history. It’s similar to Muslims who insist that covering a woman in black bag and beating her half to death if she doesn’t wear it is something that makes her special.
          Hmm – you say I’ll agree with you that love in itself encompasses respect.. I’ll have to think about that. I see love as that condition in which the happiness of another is essential to one’s own – but can you then love someone who has decided to never be happy? I think the answer is yes – but I don’t think it means I must respect them or their choices. Speaking of love, it’s said that the two greatest commandments are that you should love God and obey the golden rule. Why would a good god ever have to command that He be loved? How many good parents command that their children must love them? It sounds like the abusive spouse who insists the mate must love them – or else, in other words, extortion. Besides – it’s impossible to command love. It’s not something you turn on and off. How do you love something for which there is no evidence? Must I love unicorns and fairies too?

Leave a Reply