Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?

 


You don't really want the Catholic Church to be true ...
 
Religion has too many errors for anybody who knows it well to trust it. They only trick themselves into thinking they trust in it out of selfishness and bigotry and out of jealousy and spite they try to make others the same way. If the Catholic Church is a man-made religion and does not have any commission from God and cares about truth then why do so few priests and nuns leave the faith? They are hypocrites if it is as good as certain that the Catholic faith is untrue and so many must see it. That tells us to be suspicious of other religions as well.

The real Catholic for example will have a reasonable faith, one that he can give sound reasons for. He will also believe everything the Church says and for these reasons. You could count the number of Catholics then on one hand who do this. Yet this does not stop young men from becoming priests to serve fake Catholics. This is criminal considering the harm this religion, like every religion, does.

 

It is unfair when Catholics complain about when their beliefs are insulted when all the time they insult reason and honesty themselves. They should look at themselves.
 
The Church has sinister teachings. This is not generally noticed because of the charm of the priests and nuns and because most Catholics disobey the evil doctrines and are not shocked by them anymore. They may hear an evil doctrine and think they have misunderstood it. The Catholicism they have in their hearts is not real Catholicism.
 
Who would want to believe in Catholicism?

 

They (the Catholics) deny that feeling that everything will always be okay eventually is better and more important than believing in God but assert the opposite. Belief in God is intrinsically fundamentalist. It is based on a hard attitude - it will evolve into religious violence and intolerance.

 

They claim that faith is knowledge - it is not just an opinion. They say that faith coupled with doubt is just an opinion not faith. Roman Catholicism teaches that faith is supernatural - God opens your mind to see that the Church teaches only the truth. So it is more than faith. It is a miracle. It is knowledge. Many conservative Evangelicals don't go that far and despite calling themselves fundamentalists say they would change their beliefs if they were proved wrong. Roman Catholicism is a dangerous form of Christian fundamentalism. It is more extreme than the evangelicals.

 

They claim that putting yourself at risk of doubting the faith and doubting the faith is sinful. In other words, if the Church is wrong you are not allowed to let yourself see it.

 

They claim that faith is a supernatural gift from God - meaning God gives you light to see that what the Church claims is true. This insults other religions which believe God tells them things that contradict Catholic doctrine. Its sectarian.

 

They claim that the Eucharist is physically changed into Jesus though no physical change can be detected.

 

They claim that babies are born without God and need baptism to put God into them - God has to forgive the baby in baptism for non-existent sin but we are expected to accuse them of sin nonetheless.

 

They claim that baptised babies are better than unbaptised babies. That is worse than racism.

 

They claim that forced conversion has no value and they engage in forced conversion of children baptised into their faith. This is the prime example of forced conversion. An adult who is forced to convert is an adult and so they must at some point have let themselves be forced. A child is different.

 

They claim the right to believe that some people are so bad that they divorce themselves from God forever and prefer everlasting sorrow! It doesn't bother them that you need serious evidence to accuse people of being able to be so bad.

 

They claim that birth control is wrong because it is unnatural and would oppose it even if it was 100% effective and protected everybody against AIDS.

 

They claim the right to revere the Bible as God's infallible word despite God explicitly commanding violence against adulteresses and genocide and inciting attacks against nations that were not harming Israel at all.

 

They claim that a separated husband and wife who hate each other are still married. If any law calls them married that law is lying about them.


They say loving a person does not mean loving all that they do and it says we must love. We are very changeable. We can hate a person and love them the next. Loving the sinner is loving the sin for the sinner in a sense is the sin. The sin is not real apart from the sinner.  The Church admits the teaching is very difficult which obviously is as good as an admission that the religion in fact is to blame for hatred.  It is virtually claiming that if your sin is bad enough and you are hated that it is your fault.  The condemnations of hate against persons but not sins are mere window dressing and as Jesus said we have to watch out for people who say nice things that they would say anyway.  The Church would say it to look clean and as a survival thing openly advocating hate against persons can easily backfire.  Claiming non-sins are sins, claiming sin deserves everlasting suffering, claiming that sins that are none of your business must be hated all these are obvious examples of thinly veiled hate for the sinner.  The religion even says that one reason sin is so bad is that it leads to others hating.  That is a major reason for condemning sins such as defrauding labourers of their wages and adultery.  If love the sinner and hate the sin makes sense then you could not say that sin leads to hate.  If hate follows sin it does not necessarily mean the sin leads to hate.  Hating the sin if it could be legitimate is dangerous even then for you can think you hate the sin until you realise one day you hate the sinner.  Outright hate would be less toxic and corrupting for at least then you can see the problem.

 

We tell ourselves that others disliking us is fair enough but it is one of the things we say that we do not mean.  Others liking us is necessary for our wellbeing.  Christianity however says that God does not care about our feelings but about the wellbeing of our souls and feelings are never holy or sacred as feelings.  That is a major thing and a major reason why we should wonder what anybody is doing in the religion!  How sincere are they?

 

The Church claims that the ideal state is the state that makes its laws based on Catholic doctrine. In other words, Catholics should strive to vote in such a way that the power of the Catholic faith is promoted. And when it is in power, it has to be kept in power.

 

They claim that secularism is sinful for saying that the state should be neutral in religious matters for whatever is not for God is against him. God says we must him above our neighbour. Jesus said we must love God with all our hearts and powers. He denied we should love any person that much and said we should love them as ourselves instead. Religion would say that God gives the true religion the right to expect obedience to it from the state.

 

They claim to be honest in their faith. How can they be? They start with what they want to prove or have evidence for. They assume that it is true and they bend the evidence to fit it. They start with what they want the answer to be and then they dredge through new information as it becomes available to try and find validation or seeming validation in it. This is not the open-minded unbiased attitude we would expect. It is anti-scientific and anti-truth. And the Catholic religion makes very serious claims - claims for which a lot of evidence would be required to justify believing in them. For example, Hell, original sin and the resurrection of Jesus. Even if you have the truth and use the approach religion uses, you adhere to the truth not because it is the truth or because you care but because what you adhere to could be anything as long as you feel like it.

 

They claim that you need religion and that we are obligated to worship God in the true religion, Catholicism. We do not need religion though we do need some kind of a faith. We need to find reasons to think that life is not so bad and won't be so bad and that we will overcome challenges. Religion is a system that claims the right to put limits on what you may believe. It cares more for the system than for you needs. Some people are happier casting spells than praying. A religion cannot satisfy all the needs of its members. Religion is intrinsically arrogant and controlling and limiting. This is true of religions that claim to be striving for the truth. And the extreme form of bigotry is when a religion claims to be right and everybody else is wrong.


CONCLUSION

 

Membership of the Catholic Church is invalid and null and void.  It is only outward for it is not what any normal person would believe or want to believe.  Whatever is going on with the Church it is not authentic commitment.  No adult can really become a Catholic even if in principle membership is possible.  The treacherous doctrines block true joining up.  Still less can a baby become Catholic by baptism.  An external religion that is packed with lies has to be held to account for the harm it does.  The good it does is not its good but the goodness of human nature so it is not religious good.