E-MAIL AND FEEDBACK RECEIVED

This is my second special feedback page. It will handle an ongoing conversation with one Francis Thomas D Ocoma, a Catholic in the Philippines. He seems absolutely incapable of keeping his letters under 10K, so I needed a separate page. This should not be construed to indicate that his arguments are anything more than sophomoric.

My email address is estle46224@yahoo.com



Red indicates Mr. Ocoma's writing.
Blue indicates my writing; editorial comments are in italics.
Final reply of the series (3 pgs.) sent on 01/02/02

QUICK LINKS TO THESE LETTERS:

Mr. Ocoma's Letters: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]
Read My Replies: [1][2][3 & 4][5 & 6][7] [8][9]

This conversation switched to a different thread, where Mr. Ocoma did actually manage to make some real (though terrible) arguments, found on this link and at the end of this page.

Received 09-29-01
From Francis Thomas D Ocoma, focoma@edsmail.com.ph
Subject: Re: Dear theist



Dear Estle,

Hi! My name is Francis Ocoma. I'm a high school student studying in the Philippines (that means english is not my native language; please bear with any grammatical or spelling errors). I have just visited your site and found it quite interesting. It's really nice finding someone who isn't afraid of showing what he really believes.

I am a Catholic. Wait! don't delete this message yet! Don't worry, I do not want to insult nor deride you in anyway. But still, please understand that I really need to answer some of your questions on religion. You did say that you wanted debates, right?

This is not the first time that I debated with an atheist. I have already debated with David Mills, author of "Science Shams and Bible Bloopers," and also with a guy named Cygnus (www.cygnus-studies.com). Mills stopped replying to my e-mails for some time now (I'm guessing that his ISP dropped him since even his website disappeared). As for Gygnus, he never replied at all. Before I state my arguments (which you shall recieve in my next e-mail), I want to ask you some questions:

- Sorry if I didn't read your "deconversiion story," but what was your religion before you became an atheist?

- You said that you have "studied" religiion, implying that you already "know" all arguments of every religion and have already refuted them. Have you ever read Thomas Aquinas' "Summa Theologica," where in its first part, he gave five proofs that God exists?

- Have you ever read any of Jacques Marittain's works?

- I noticed the phrase "Catholic flat earrth doctrine" somewhere in your website. Do you even know how the Catholic Church defines doctrines (or more properly, "dogmas")?

- Concerning the question above, have youu ever read the "Cathecism of the Catholic Church?" How about the Code of Canon Law?"

- It seems that you proclaim yourself as someone who believes in objectivism and rationalism. Why then do you promote sarcasm? And are you sure that these two principles are incompatible with theism?

- Are you sure that your journey towards atheism has been fueled by nothing else but thirst for truth, or was it also fuelled by impatient bias against religion itself? Or maybe it was fear of Hell? I hope that with these question answered, I could see a clearer picture of what you really believe so that we won't have any misunderstandings.

Thanks,
Francis

My Response:

Dear Francis:

I will try to answer all of your questions completely. By the way, your English is excellent, and far better than some of English I have seen as a result of this site.

--I was raised as a Southern Baptist, theen under what I would call a general Protestant version of Christianity.

--I have a copy of Summa Theologica, but I have never been able to completely get through it. I am afraid I find it to be as insufferably boring as the Bible. But I have read the first part you refer to, if you mean from Treatise on the Creation to Treatise on the Divine Government.

--No. I am familiar with his work, but tto be blunt, of all the types of writings on religious topics I could be reading, epistemology and metaphysics are not high on my list.

--I do not know the exact procedure. I wwould surmise, given its perceived importance, that the procedure is analogous to choosing a Pope, except that changes are proposed. Then they are debated, prayed on, whatever. I fail to see the importance of this topic though. Either it is the Church's official position or not. No procedural method would indicate divinity to me.

--I have not read the current Catechism. I assume it is no different from past Catechisms or other statements of faith from other denominations. The Code of Canon Law, however, I have read a bit of. It is hard to find modern Latin writings out there, so I read some for that reason alone. It is just an instruction manual, though, and my interest is minimal. I fail to see what relevance these things would have on a debate as well.

--I would say that rationalism and objecttivism appeal to me, but I don't see how this comes in conflict with my taste in humor. As to whether or not these principles are incompatible with theism, I would have to say no, only because objectivism and rationalism are subjective theories. I say I use them, but that is only my impression. Others would disagree completely. Discussion of whether or not these things are being applied is meaningless, since their very use is relative.

--Yes, I am perfectly sure that my transiition was in the search for truth, although it was not so explicit at the time. I don't believe bias or anger had anything to do with it. I did have an unsettling feeling that something was not right about what I was being taught, but I genuinely liked my religion up until I began to seriously think about it.

Nathan Estle

Note to reader: Mr. Ocoma's next letter refers to my conclusionary "Open Letter". I suggest you read it before starting on this one. (You might get a little lost otherwise.)

2nd Letter:

Dear Nathan,

Thank you for answering my questions. I'm really sorry that you find the Summa Theologica boring. I guess it's because humor wasn't part of intellectual work back in the Middle Ages. I wonder how you "refuted" the Five Ways. Actually, I already saw and answered many "refutations" of these proofs.

I see that you were once Protestant. Contrary to what you said, the Catholic Church is way different from these Protestant denominations. Maybe the single most important difference is that the Protestant churches do not have strong and concrete beliefs since they willingly change their doctrines whenever they want to (e.g. abortion, women ministers, etc.). On the other hand, there is no dogma in the Catholic Church that has ever been changed (try proving otherwise!).

You're right in saying that the current Catechism is not very different from the past Catechism ("Catechism" singular; there was only one past Catechism; the one formulated in the Council of Trent). The only difference is that the current Catechism is also made for the laity, not just for the priesthood. I suggest you read this current Catechism before you say that religion cannot be justified. Besides this Catechism is much more readable to the modern man than most other similar works (not to mention, more comprehensive). Also, I suggest that you read the works of the Apostolic Fathers (e.g. "Against Heresies" by St. Ignatius of Antioch).

The flat-earth doctrine is NOT dogma. Although I admit that some Church leaders in the Middle Ages wanted it to be. But the thing is that a dogma could only be concerned with spiritual and moral matters, while the "flat-earth" THEORY is concerned with Physics. Besides, it has never been mentioned in any ecumenical council of the Church (wherein dogmas and other stuff are proclaimed).

I guess humorous sarcasm would just be fine. It's just that some people I have debated with have used sarcasm to state ad homini statements. These are very insulting and unfair and I hope that we do not use this kind of sarcasm here.

Now I want to address the questions in your letter, "Dear Theist":

>Many beliefs are mutually exclusive, claiming that others are false. How am I supposed to know >which one is true? How do you know that yours is true? What makes the Christians or Jews or Moslems >or Hindus etc. wrong, while you are right? Wouldn't you most likely be of another faith if you were >born in a different household or country?

This is where apologetics comes in. I hope that you know what this term means. A good Catholic Apologetics website is Catholic Answers (www.catholic.com). Being born into a different religion is not an issue in Catholicism because it only condemns those who leave the Church, not those who are born within that apostasized new religion.

>Do you accept these people of other faiths? Do you respect those deep, personal beliefs held by >others who do not agree with you? Do you extend the same courtesy to me?

According to Catholic teaching, any disrespect to anyone, whether Catholic or not, is a direct violation to Jesus' second commandment: "Thou shalt loveth thine neighbors as thou loveth thineself." But this does not mean that we must give in to religious relativism, since the Hebrew Apostle has said, "Be prepared to account for the hope that is in you..." But he then continues, "but do it with love."

>I have examined your faith, most likely. I have studied, to varying degrees, Judaism, Christianity, >Islam, Mormonism and Scientology. Have you? Have you deeply examined the faith you currently hold?

I do not believe you. You only studied Christianity in general. How could you say that you have studied Catholicism without even reading the Catechism? Do you think that you could study Catholicism as if it were as simple as Protestantism? How could you know everything about the Church just by studying a few books when it required thousands of bishops, seven lengthy ecumenical councils, and hundreds of theologians to formulate everything that the Catholic Church is now?

About me, I have been in the verge of atheism once. But reason and logic forced me to admit that the Catholic Church is the solution to atheism. This is what Catholic apologetics can prove.

>Most religions have a "holy" book, and I am guessing that your religion is no different. Have you >read the entire thing? Have you seen and looked into criticism of your book from an outside source? >Is your book absolutely 100% true, or are there some errors or discrepancies or ambiguities? How do >you know which parts are true, and which are questionable? Have you examined historically the >claims about your book? Are you sure it was written the way it says it was?

You're implying that we treat our "holy book" the same way as other religions do. This is far from the truth. Other religions treat their holy book as some sort of "teach yourself how to go to heaven" book. Their "holy" book is their central authority, interpreted by, if not the individual, the church leaders.

The Catholic Scripture, the Holy Bible, is nothing but an extra witness to the truths of our religion. It is just the raw, uninterpreted Word of God. The central authority is the Church itself, through the bishops led by the pope. These truths have been passed down, either orally or scripturally, to them by their precursors. And we have History to back up this fact. It is in the Church that we find the truly interpreted Word of God.

Am I sure that my beliefs are true? Again, this is where apologetics comes in. Besides, there is an axiom that when something is completely logical, we can assume that it is true unless it is disproved. And all the doctrines of the Catholic Church are logical (I dare you to prove otherwise!).

>Have you ever seen any real action by your deity (like through prayer)? I thought that I did, but >have come to realize that I just really wanted to believe. Why would your god permit suffering and >injustice until someone asks him to change things? Is this real justice? If you are a true >follower, then why would your god allow bad things to happen to you? If your god rewards his >followers, then why weren't the world's problems solved a long time ago, especially in areas >dominated by your religion?

You implied four things here: that suffering is caused by God; that a loving God must not permit evil; that God rewards His followers in this lifetime; that a good and merciful God must be a "super-waiter," a sort of "genie" for his followers.

Suffering is caused by evil. And God DOES permit evil to exist, as I will answer in the next paragraphs.

To answer the second implication, I'll just quote what St. Augustine said on the matter:

"God is so good that He would not permit evil to exist... except if He were sufficiently all powerful AND good that He could create good out of evil."

You see, a God who is only good and nothing else would permit evil (in fact, He'd permit anything!). But a God who is good as well as all powerful and just could permit evil so that he could create good out of them, for he wants to give mankind as many good things as possible.

Divine reward, Divine justice, and Divine punishment could only be given after death, that is the Catholic teaching.

God is the King of Kings, the Lord of Lords. He only answers our prayers because He finds it right for us (if He doesn't, our prayers will be answered in a different way). But He is NOT our servant. He is not a wishing well. He is more like a loving father who would do favors for his children if he thinks it would be for the good of them.

>Not a single religion exists that tells a creation myth that is anything like the scientific facts. >How do you reconcile your doctrine with the facts? Many theists don't believe that their creation >story is literal truth. Where do you draw the line? How do you know when any of your stories are >literal or metaphorical? Do you believe these things until they are proven impossible?

You are implying that we should interpret biblical text by ourselves. But the truth is that only the Magisterium of the Church could infallibly interpret the Bible. You should remember that the Church's only concern is morality and spirituality. If then, It should use the Bible as Its witness, the Bible would only be interpreted in a spiritual sense. In other words, Natural Science is not the purpose of the Bible.

What, then, is my point? My point is that the book of Genesis does NOT teach the physical and natural creation. According to the Church, the first book of the Bible only taught of the beginning of Mankind's spiritual journey towards God. About the seemingly "creationist" view of the book, I could give you a better interpretation that concerns spirituality in a later e-mail

>If you believe your particular creation story, how do you know this is true? What evidence, other >than oral traditions and your religious book, do you have to support this? Why would your deity >create everything and then make it look like he didn't? Why wouldn't he make it abundantly clear? >Why wouldn't he make your book, your divine message, clear and unequivocal on all important issues?

As I said, we do not have a creation story! What the Church teaches is that God created everything. Anything else about physical creation other than that is not for the Church to decide since it is not concerned with Natural Science.

"Make it look like he didn't"? What in the world do you mean?!

"Clear" is a subjective word. An idea could be clear to someone but not for another. Do you expect a toddler to know what atoms are? But the idea of atoms is clear to you, isn't it?

We do not look at the Bible if we want clear and unequivocal truths. We look at the Church.

>Where are the miracles? Many religions, such as Christianity, claim that true followers are capable >of mighty supernatural deeds. Who and where are these people? Why is it that your powerful deity >restrains himself to small, questionable "miracles" that could be faked or misunderstood as such? >Why not do something large and well-documented (videotape) to prove his existence? Wouldn't this >earn many followers? Wouldn't this eliminate doubt? Do you view miracles pertaining to your faith >with the same skepticism you would use when viewing miracles of other faiths?

Question, how do you fake a miracle? Do you think that a miracle is a violation of natural law? "Magic" is not the same as "miracle" (magic and witchcraft was condemned by the Church). In fact, if you look at a real miracle, you see that it does not violate natural law since the phenomena itself could actually be explained (though its origin may not) by Science. God uses miracles to increase spirituality in situations where one's mere conscience might not be enough.

In other words, miracles are simply any natural, scientifically explainable, phenomenon that was used to increase faith.

>Does your religion have an eternal reward/punishment view of the afterlife? How can eternal >punishment for earthly sins be justice? Would Adolf Hitler really deserve to burn forever for his >crimes against humanity? Two billion years, perhaps? Two thousand years of excruciating, >unimaginable pain? What about someone who, after searching, honestly finds no compelling evidence >to believe in your particular god? How much unbearable torment should they receive?

You're implying that condemnation is imputed by God to his enemies. This is not so. It is God who freely gives sanctifying grace to every openhearted spirit. Now those spirits that do not want to receive this sanctifying grace, closing themselves in order not to receive it, will surely not receive it. It is not God's fault that they did not receive sanctifying grace for they themselves did not want to have any part of it. The problem is that the only spirits capable of entering the Omnipresence of God (heaven) are those filled with this sanctifying grace. Those who lack this grace would be destroyed into oblivion once they interact with this Omnipresence (which one does after death). And this is what hell is: the destruction of a spirit because of the overwhelming Omnipresence of God. God wanted to save these spirits. But since they did not want to be saved...

If you did not get this, I'll just give you a separate discussion in another e-mail.

>Is your deity all knowing and all-powerful? How can evil, sin, or anything your god disapproves of >exist in his universe? Why not eliminate these things? What is the fate of the billions of people >in human history who have died without ever hearing about your god? Are they punished for their own >ignorance, something they could not control? Are they rewarded? If so, why do they get a free ride >while the rest of us have to work for it? How could either of these options be justice?

I have already answered this. You erred by choosing only the extremes (all ignorants are condemned; all ignorants are saved). This is the real explanation:

Those who lived and died without knowing the Truth are shielded by ignorance against the condemnation of infidels. Now this shield of ignorance does not mean that they are already destined to heaven. They should live according to Moral Law, which is inherent to every individual. This is the only way that ignorant non-Catholics could be saved. Of course, without the sacraments of the Catholic Church to help them, non-Catholics would really find it harder to reach heaven (at least through the Purgatory).

>How do you explain the numerous wars and atrocities committed in the name of your god? Were these >people confused? How so?

You're implying that anyone who fights for a good cause is actually good. That is again not true. For example, human survival is a good thing. Now all crimes committed were rooted in the survival of the criminals. Does that mean that, since these criminals were just caring for their survival, criminals are good? Of course not!

>Do you believe that all morals, all right and wrong, are because of your god? How do you explain >actions by your god that are immoral, or approval by your god for heinous acts (as detailed in >"holy" books)? Has the morality taught in your book changed at all? Do you still follow >commandments for food, dress, and religious rituals? Do you follow the rules for slavery, >subjugation of women, and destruction of other cultures of a different faith?

Moral Law is inherent to all human beings. As the Guardian of the Universe, God instituted Laws so that order may be seen in the Spiritual Creation.

Again, the Holy Bible is only concerned with Spirituality and Morality. It was not compiled to be a historical textbook. The wars that were narrated in the Bible might not have happened at all. But even if it did, how could you blame the Hebrews if they wanted to expand their territories? Have you forgotten that they only did that for their survival, just like other cultures that conquered other lands?

Besides, Spirituality is the only thing that was inherited by the Christians from the Jews. Anything else about Judaism is not the concern of Christianity. The history of the Jews written in the OT was only used as a parable. Whether or not those things did happen is not relevant. The important thing is that we learn the moral story embedded between the lines.

Also, the Bible is not a cultural manual. The Church did not compile the Bible to teach us how to dress, eat, etc. The Hebrew culture and religious rituals, although somewhat similar to ours, has nothing to do with Christianity.

Let me repeat: The Bible is not our central authority. If you want to know what we believe concerning slavery, women, and war, then look at the Church's Catechism.

>Your deity has been credited with actions and rules that all objective people would deem unjust.

You said that objectivism is relative. I rest my case.

>In addition, I don't see why an omnipotent deity, who needs nothing, would want or demand >worship...especially from beings like us. I find this illogical.

Then I guess you also find compassion as illogical, since this is the reason that God wanted worship in the first place. Since God is so compassionate, He wanted to share this compassion (which is such a beautiful thing) to us who needed it. Now compassion is obviously not a one-way thing. We therefore must return this compassion to God. And the only worthy compassion for such a thing as God is worship.

>I think that your religion has done more harm than good. It has, in the past and present, caused >unnecessary wars and impeded significant scientific and cultural progress. I consider your religion >an obstacle, not an aid, on the road to true liberty and enlightenment.

And it was also because of religion that Science was born in the first place. Without the idea that we are more than organic flesh that will rot, would anyone want to learn? If we are nothing but an accident of a dead nature, why should we trouble ourselves knowing about the universe? In deed, why would we want to live at all? Is there liberty and enlightenment in uselessness? "Yes! I am nothing but a piece of organic machinery! Everything that I do is insignificant! What joy! What freedom! Oh! How I like to learn many more things after realizing that I am useless!"

Is that right?

I say that Science has everything to thank for in religion. Besides, those who were "obstacles" in scientific discovery simply did so because of their own scientific biases, not because of their religion.

>Personally, I find your beliefs lacking. I see no good reason to believe such things. Nonetheless, >I encourage you to find your own path, and I will treat your beliefs and practices the same way I >would expect mine to be treated: with absolute non-intervention. While I may state reasons why I >think you are wrong, I would never presume to impose my beliefs (or lack thereof) on you. Please >treat me the same way.

So! If something is lacking, there is not good reason to believe in it, is that right? Well then, why do you believe in Science? For that matter, why do you believe in anything? Could you please give me an example of something that is "not lacking" and is "worthy" of your belief?

***

I hope this letter wasn't too boring for you. I will wait for your response.

- Francis

My Response:

My Dearest Francis:

You're retort was delightfully saucy. You remind me of myself. And you would make a fine advocate for atheism (if you have not successfully done so already).

First of all, no, no, no! Catholicism is not different from its Protestant or Orthodox cognates. Yes, they use different tasting wines at the Passover ceremonies, but the basic principles are exactly the same. Do you honestly think that my big problem with Christianity is the small procedural differences? That once I find out, in excruciating detail, exactly how the Roman Catholics go through the motions I will change my opinion about it all? Come now!

I am not interested in the Catechism. You have missed the point and the overall theme of my site. (And by the way, did you actually read the site, or just the shorthand version at the end?) It is the larger theological problems, the very base issues underlying Christianity, Islam, and Judaism that I have a problem with, and I examined those problems on my site.

And you have passed over an issue I covered in my site in answering the question about the faith of your household. Is it therefore the position of the Catholic Church that proselytizing is wrong, since you are condemning people who have never heard of Christianity to now believe or burn?

Now, your dissatisfaction with my degree of study of Catholicism means nothing to me, but for a good reason. I have found that many theists would have me read every one of their pet apologetics books, along with their holy book in its original languages before I dare say I disagree. And my guess is that even if I could meet such criteria, it would still not be enough. In contrast, if a child of age seven proclaims that he knows in his heart that Jesus loves him and God is in heaven, such a statement would be applauded. No one would stand up and say,"Oh, don't be silly. You haven't read Malachi in the original Aramaic! How could you possibly know?" So when I see you giving me a list of you favorite pet apologetics resources...

No, no. I am not doing the work for you. Either you can make a case for your faith or not. I will not sift through volumes of agonizing text to be told that I must have read it wrong because I still consider it garbage.

When it comes to holy books, your ignorance is showing just a bit. You would write off other texts and religions, even though the Qur'an, for example, is far better than either biblical testament, and the most likely, in my outsider opinion, to be divinely inspired. Its tenets are absolute and unchanging, especially since the original language is still spoken. Is this religious xenophobia or what?

Quote: "You implied four things here: that suffering is caused by God; that a loving God must not permit evil; that God rewards His followers in this lifetime; that a good and merciful God must be a 'super-waiter,' a sort of 'genie' for his followers." Well, yes, but my site deals in more detail with these things. Please respond to my complete questions on these important, fundamental notions.

On the topic of the creation story, I have, and presumably most Christians would have, trouble with your answer. You indicate that individuals are not meant to understand the Bible. We should just wait for the conclusions to be handed down from some wise old men. What? To quote another part of my site which you clearly never read:"Genesis chapter one was treated as exact, literal, historical fact for thousands of years, from long before Jesus to the middle of the 19th century. Such belief is still quite common today. All of a sudden it no longer means what it clearly says?" And while your church has a reasonable stance on the issue, Adam and Eve are required for theological reasons. Without the explanation of Original Sin, the Jesus sacrifice did nothing. That was also in my site. You must have missed it.

Now, skipping past the "Grace" hogwash that I have heard a million times, we come to this jewel: "'Your deity has been credited with actions and rules that all objective people would deem unjust.' You said that objectivism is relative. I rest my case." Nicely done. When I next have the opportunity, I will change that to read "...which the average person would..." or something similar.

Quote: "Then I guess you also find compassion as illogical, since this is the reason that God wanted worship in the first place. Since God is so compassionate, He wanted to share this compassion (which is such a beautiful thing) to us who needed it. Now compassion is obviously not a one-way thing. We therefore must return this compassion to God. And the only worthy compassion for such a thing as God is worship." Yes, I do find god-compassion to be illogical. A perfect being of unlimited knowledge and power would not have emotions, much less wants or needs or demands. And just for future reference, the "God is love, compassion, goodness, mercy...(ad infinitum)" emotional appeal stuff does nothing for me. It may work for you at mass, but I am looking for something a little more tangible than a warm fuzzy feeling. You would have me toss aside my own intellect and god-given reasoning on a promise of good god thoughts. Petty emotionalism only works on liberals and morons. I am neither.

I disagree about science. If you want to give credit to the religion of the society that invented modern science, Greek Mythology, then that's your business. I don't think the inspiration of Athena had much to do with it. (And wait, wasn't Socrates executed for denouncing the gods?!)

And your misunderstanding about atheism is complete. I can't believe I got the decorated equivalent of "Why don't you just kill yourself, if there's no point?" Because I still have things I want to do. I might as well use this consciousness while I have it. Or...how about filthy evil pleasure? I want to have fun while I'm still cognizant.

And please note: "Personally, I find your beliefs lacking." Stop. End of thought. "I see no good reason to believe such things." Separate sentence and thought, conveying something different. There is no "so" or "and therefore" connecting them. Two separate ideas.

Finally, "boring" would not be my word of choice to describe your letter. Perhaps "laborious" or "unoriginal" would work better.

Sincerely,

Nathan Estle

3rd Letter:

Dear Estle,

Sorry for the late response. Windows 98 acted funny (again; Microsoft products are rotten I tell ya!). I had to reinstall the damn thing.

I see that you did not get some of my points, so I'm just going to clarify them here:

- It seems that you are not comfortable wwith the idea that the laity does not have authority to interpret the Bible (typical of Protestants...). I think it is obvious that private interpretation won't work (just look at the 30,000 Protestant denominations, each with their own private interpretations; and the number's still growing!). Besides, technically, there was no "Bible" until about 700 A.D. And even way beyond that time, the majority were still illiterate. Also, a book would cost a big fortune in those times (considering that the rich were a minority). Where did the people hear of the Bible? From the priests, bishops, and popes, who taught them in the pulpit! Besides, as I said, the Bible is NOT the central authority of Catholics. Why do they need to interpret it? The only use of the Bible for the laity is as an inspirational book, or for the more learned, a reference to the Cathecism of the Catholic Church. Besides, poetic language (which largely contributes to biblical literature) is hardly useful for an authoritarian book.

- About the "creation story," yes, it wass "interpreted literally" by Christians and Jews for thousands of years. So... what? Remember, Nathan, that the only things that Catholics are required to believe are the dogmas. The private interpretation of an individual (even if he's a bishop; even if practically everyone has the same interpretation) is not dogma. And as long as these ideas and interpretations has nothing to do with spirituality, the Church doesn't give an iota whether that ideas are wrong or not for the simple reason that non-spiritual things are not the Church's forte. Why can't you understand this?

Trivia (this is real fun!): Did you know that the very first evolutionists (though they didn't call themselves as such) lived hundreds of years before Darwin? Guess who they were? They were Catholic scholars! The most famous of which is Thomas Aquinas!

- Yes, the Catholic Church requires the bbelief of Adam and Eve. This is to show that the human concupiscence to sin had an origin and that all human beings are but one family (one "communion of saints"). This principle is not the forte of natural science and it cannot prove nor disprove it.

- Have I studied other religions? Of courrse I did! How do you think I survived having a Protestant classmate who criticizes my beliefs almost every chance he gets?! By the way, to be specific, I studied Protestantism (its general beliefs and the beliefs of some of its denominations), Eastern Orthodox, Church of Christ (the Philippine one; founded by an ex-Catholic), Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Masonry, and many of the early Christian heretics.

- About your "plan" to change "objective"" to "average," I guess you believe that the average person has enough intelligence to criticize religion, huh? For one thing, the average person has a religion. Second, no, the average person has other priorities than theology (most of them doesn't even know what "theoogy" means!).

- I'm very, very sorry for a mistake in mmy past e-mail. Instead of "compassion" what I really meant was "love." Do you think that love is an emotion? Wrong! In fact, I'll give you the Catholic definition of love: "Love, or Divine Charity, is the act of giving of oneself." It is not the same as compassion.

- Why do we need to study the whole Catecchism? Why can't we just say "I believe in Jesus, he is God"? Because thousands of heretics out there believe the same thing! Why do you think the early Church decided to give itself a name other than "Christian" anyway? Because there were many heretics that claim to be Christian as well! For anyone who wants to study (or in your case, to criticize) the Catholic Church, he doesn't just browse over the details of general Christianity because if he does, he'll create a very distorted view of Catholicism. The Catholic Church is too complex to be placed with Protestantism or Orthodoxy in one textbook of religion. Besides, many books about general Christianity contains errors and misconceptions when it comes to analyzing the Catholic Church.

Imagine telling a creationist with no idea of evolutionism that evolution is the development of a more complex organism from a simpler organism, for example, a monkey developing into a human. Now, he understands evolutionism, right? Wrong! The creationist would still make a fallacy by exclaiming his confusion, "What?! A monkey turning into a human? That's ridiculous! How could a monkey turn into a human?!"

The problem is that you forgot to teach the creationist about genetics, cell mutations, heredity, and other complex sciences that actually prove evolution.

This is the same in Catholicism. One may have the knowledge of "basic" principles (just like you). But as long as they have enough education through the teaching of the Church (e.g. the Catechism), he would still imagine that Catholicism is as ridiculous as other religions.

- Is the Qu'ran "better" than the Bible? Visit this site: http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/

- Here are the similarities between Cathoolicism and Protestantism:

They both teach that Jesus is the Savior. They both have churches. Period.

In fact, after the formation of the Universal Unitarian denomination of Protestantism, the first similarity is practically extinguished!

Protestants have two "pillars of faith": Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. The former deals with their authority: The only central authority is the Bible (specifically, the individual's private interpretation of the Bible). The later deals with their salvation doctrine: Everyone (except, of course, the Catholics) who has accepted Christ as their "Lord and Savior" and has faith in him will already be destined to heaven whatever happens to him afterwards (read: salvation imputed by God). They also claim that after one is saved, all his sins (though still existent) will be "covered-up" by God himself so that the person could enter heaven.

Are these similar to the Catholic Church? Let's see: The Catholic Church believes that the central authority is the Magisterium of the Church (composed of the bishops and theologians with the pope as their infallible leader) that has not changed ever since it was established in the first century (read your history books!).

The Catholic Church believes that only the true forgiveness and cleansing (read: not covering-up) of sins could bring salvation. This forgiveness could only be recieved through sanctifying grace which is freely recieved (read: not imputed upon by God) by those who recieve the Sacraments.

Is the Catholic Church the same with Protestantism? Hmmm...

I have read you debate with Mr. Perry. Now I know why you refused to address the "grace hogwash." You have already talked about it with Jesse and you think that you already refuted it, huh? Well, all I can say is, if you want tough Christian debaters, stay away from Protestants. Here is my retort on your refutation:

You asked, "Are you saying that it is not at all possible for a universe to exist where everyone freely believes in God, even though they all have the option of turning away? That there can never be 100% adherence to Christianity in this or any other possible universe? Or are you instead indicating that no matter what the adherence percentage, the old bearded guy who set everything up is in no way responsible?"

It's just a matter of statistics. There are two options that man can: good and evil (okay, so some acts are neither good nor evil, but let's assume otherwise for simpliciy's sake). According to statistics, 50% of all men would probably choose good and the other 50%, evil. Yes, I know that there are so many factors in making decisions that mere statistics would be very inaccurate. But since as the number of people increases, the accuracy of statistics also increases, and since there are 6 billion people living on earth today, I find that statistics is just proper for our case.

Now, since approximately half of all mankind would probably choose to sin, is a 100% percent holy Mankind possible? Not!

You also mentioned that, since God was omniscient, He should have known all our actions and thus must have made the right decisions in order for us not to be able to sin. First of all, this idea of omniscience is very typical of Muslims and Protestants (especially Calvinists). In other words, they are flawed. This is another example of "since my favorite religions are wrong, atheism is right" approach of many atheists. How pitiful.

To address this flawed idea, I will explain the Catholic teaching on omniscience: God's omniscience is simply the perfect form of scientific knowledge. Just as science cannot examine things that are not observable, so does Divine omniscience cannot know the decision of any man beforehand, since future decisions are not observable. So that.

Thank you for your time and I hope to hear from you again.

- Francis

4th Letter:

Dear Estle,

I would like to address the rest of your retort of Mr. Perry (some of which I already addressed in my last e-mail).

You asked "Is there love in heaven? Can people in heaven choose to reject God? Are they free to do so? Is such a thing possible?" You used devils (which are "fallen angels") as an example to show that beings CAN sin in heaven. Nice one...

he, he... Not!:)

Let me give you a little lesson on metaphysics. There is an axiom stating that spirits, being free from space, and thus, free from change (which only happens in space), cannot change. Therefore, spirits cannot change anything about themselves after their creation. Spirits cannot change any decision they may have initially made. Please remember this as I go on further.

Another axiom (philosophical one) is that any being, to be considered as a rational being (in other words, a person), must have made at least one decision.

Still another axiom is that a spirit is a rational being. It is a person.

Can any person reach heaven without deciding to do so? No. The person's decision is important to whether he will reach heaven or not.

How could an angel sin in heaven and fall? Well, angels, being persons, must have made at least one decision. And being spirits, they cannot change that decision ever.

Is an angel initially heavenly? No, since one must decide to reach heaven before God could allow him to. And so, the angel, after being created, must decide whether he will go to heaven or not.

Now here is the finale:

What if the angel decides not to go to heaven?...

Voila! A devil!

Thank you very much!

About your statement: "The Jews did not have the concept of an Evil One until the Babylonian captivity." First of all, the Church doesn't care about the Jewish religion, a similar but completely different religion. Second, I'm not sure, but I think I saw an Evil One lurking around the garden of Eden somewhere in the book of Genesis. Ha!

You mentioned something about you surprize about God's lack of responsibility. Tell me about it. The "irresponsible God" is a fallacy made by people who believe that God is nothing but a stagnant, all encompassing blob of invisible matter. They think that God is kind of like a scientist watching bacteria in a microscope, patiently observing its life cycle and enjoying every minute of it.

This is a very erroneous idea. Although it is not God's fault that mankind is sinful, He still shows His responsibility through what Catholics call Divine Providence. This is not the same as the predestination doctrine of Muslims and Protestants (which is contrary to free will). Divine Providence, which is what most people would recognize as one's conscience (although it's more than that), is God's perpetual persuasion to mankind to do good and avoid evil (there is an article on Divine Providence in the Catholic Answers website [www.catholic.com]; don't give me your lousy excuse for not reading these apologetics stuff, since doing so would imply prejudice in you part; besides, I'd happily read any atheist works you'd refer to me, as long as I could have access to them).

C'mon, is that all you've got?

- Francis

My Response (to letters 3 and 4):

Dear Thomas:

Oh my Zeus! Is it at all possible for you to shorten these letters? There is way too much for me to adequately respond to.

But, on the bright side, there is not much worthy of a response. I'll just stick to the things that I find the least bit interesting.

The Qur'an is far better than the Bible, in my outside opinion. I thought the Bible was an irrelevant old bundle of paper anyway, wasn't it?

Catholicism and Protestantism both...

-profess a deity, called "God", that created all, oversees all, and offers man spiritual salvation.

-assert that this deity sent a human/divine creation, conceptualized as a son called "Jesus" (in English), to pave the way for man's salvation.

-claim that this deity not only wants, but demands prayer and worship.

-assert that and evil being, known by many names, tempts and deceives mortals and seeks the destruction of said deity.

-claim that the proper followers of "God" will be given paradise after death, while all others will be given something very undesirable.

-promote acts of charity and kindness to others, with varying importance in the spiritual scheme of things.

And Catholicism and almost every Protestant denomination teach that man is supremely responsible for his own actions and his final fate.

These simple things are the core of what I argue against, all my articles about Christianity deal with these basic issues. Other, more Biblical Literalism beliefs, are also dealt with, but these do not apply to Catholicism. I explicitly stated so in a writing on either Creation "Science" or the Flood...I don't recall.

Now, onto to other things. Half of mankind chooses evil? Law enforcement must be horribly underfunded.

In my dialogue with Mr. Perry, I never used devils as an example of sin in heaven. I don't know what you are arguing against there.

The serpent in the Garden of Eden has always been interpreted as an actual snake, which is why all snakes were cursed and etc. All good and evil is said to come from God in the early Jewish books, and God even admits to it in Isaiah 45:7, Amos 3:6, and Jeremiah 18:11 for example. But as we both agree, these old Jewish fables about creation and anything else are irrelevant. Right?

And finally, there is prejudice on my part about Christian apologetics. I thought I explained my reasoning for it sufficiently. Either you can convince me or not. I'll not attend a theology school for six years to satisfy someone else's standards. I am satisfied with my position.

Nathan Estle

5th Letter:

Dear Nathan,

I'm sorry for writing such a long letter (and, apparently, a very incomprehensible one). I'll try to be very brief here for the sake of this debate, not to mention your webspace.

You keep on reiterating that the Qu'ran is better than the Bible. I have read a Qu'ran a couple of times before and I think I may have a clue to what you mean... but I'm not sure. Could you please clarify? How is it better? In what area? I'm sorry if I haven't read all of your articles (if the answer to my question is found there). I'll try to browse through it when I get to save enough for an internet pre-paid card (I am currently using a 100% free ISP-independent e-mail service).

I agree that the Qu'ran is much better than the Bible... in a literary point of view, anyway. But since the Qu'ran has as many apparent impossibilities as the Bible (e.g. talking ants, contradicting stories about Jesus' life, inaccurate chain of historical events, etc.), maybe even more, and since the Muslims treat the Qu'ran literally, I'd still choose the Bible as the better "holy book."

Though the literal interpretation of biblical text IS very troublesome (though, not completely useless), everything that the Church has ever proclaimed and will ever proclaim as dogma would be found embedded somewhere in the Bible. In other words, the Bible is the storage room of God's Laws, whether or not these Laws are written in a literal way.

Though most of your comparisons about Catholicism and Protestantism is true to the majority of Protestants, you should consider two points: first, one cannot ascribe official teachings to Protestantism, since they do not have official teachings. All these teachings that they imagine are theirs are actually, for them, simple theories that they would probably dispose of as easily as they would their marriage contracts if ever they decide to. And guess what? No one would ever condemn them! Why? Because of their uncannilly enchanting (and incredibly stupid) principle of "I don't care what others believe, this is what I believe." Ah! The Protestant practice of religious relativism (except, of course, when if comes to the Whore of Babylon!).

The second point proves the first, and it is only one name: Unitarian Universalist.

Hmmm... It seems to me that you believe that the only evil is crime, huh? How about those evil acts that we do in secret? Or those very small misdeeds (but misdeeds as well)? And how about the little evil things that even the righteous would commit from time to time? Oh, I forgot, crime is the only thing you'd call evil...

You misunderstood my point in my first retort. I did not mean to say that without religion, there would be no need (even vain ones) to live. What I meant is that without human dignity (which is ultimately fulfilled through religion), there is no reason for us to reason out. It is an integral philosophical principle that all living animals have growth, reproduction, and sense. The only difference between man and the rest of the animals, which is intellect and will, is only true if man is higher than beast. This is only achieved through the reality of religion (specifically, Christianity).

Yes, the Greek philosophers contributed more to science than Christianity itself. And it is also a fact that the greatest of these Greek philosophers were monotheists (thus, they were called "atheists" by their fellow Greeks). Plus, the majority of all Catholic theologians believe that these ancient philosophers actually made it to heaven... though, we honestly cannot know for sure.

What's the deal with proselytizing? Didn't you read my first retort carefully? I clearly stated that although violence if of a very low priority in the Church, this will not lead to religious indifference. This is the use of Catholic Apologetics, so that we could convert others in a relatively peaceful way. And guess what? Most of the American Protestants who converted to Catholicism did so because of Apologetics. Again, the Catholic Church does not condemn all non-Catholics. Why can't you get that?

Whoops! I think this is getting too long. I'll continue this in my next e-mail. Have a nice day!

- Francis

6th Letter:

Dear Nathan,

I'm sorry if I'm going to lengthen my response. Besides, every question must be answered, every argument addressed.

Okay, Okay... if you don't want to read apologetics, I'll just give you some slack. It's just a pity since I know many American Catholic Apologetics who know far more than I do (I'm only 15 years old). But if you're not too lazy, maybe you could at least read a few articles from the Catholic Answers website (www.catholic.com)... or maybe not.

Ummm... did I read it right, or did you say that Jesus was a human/divine creation? First of all, he is both human and divine (and completely both at that). Second, anything divine is not created. Divinity is synonymous to God.

Is Hell undesirable? For those who will go to it, it actually is desirable. Everyone worthy only of Hell chose Hell. Hell is what they want. Hell is what they get. As one theologian said, "There are two kinds of people, those who say 'Father, Thy will be done' and those who say 'Father, MY will be done.'" Hell is simply not the will of the Father, but the will of the...you know what I mean.

Does the majority of Protestants believe in their capability to choose their destiny. Hmmm... the majority of the Protestants are members of the Calvinist group (these include Baptist, the largest Protestant denomination in America) of denominations. The Calvinists believe in predestination. I rest my case. (Of course, some Calvinists [even some ministers] are not aware of this teaching of their own religion, but that's beside the point.)

Sorry, I am very, very sorry about my mistake concerning the Perry debate. As I was reading the debate, I came across a question that you submitted: "Could there be sin in heaven?" or something like that. Somehow, I saw a passage somewhere in your website (maybe from another article) about devils as falling angels (in other words, angels that have sinned). Somehow, a nerve connection formed in my brain connecting the first statement to the second. If I really was wrong (maybe both statements WERE in the Perry debate), again, I'm very sorry.

Was it me, or did I see a line saying "...believe that man is supremely responsible for his own actions and his final fate.." in the list of the things you were arguing against? In other words, are you saying that you're against that idea that man is responsible for his fate? (By the way, if the missing dash in front of that paragraph was not a typo, then you may dismiss that past argument of mine...)

Your claim about the serpent story being interpreted as literal is the same as the argument of the creation story as being literal. I have already answered the latter. I guess you should review my last e-mail. You'll discover more things that you'd find "the least bit interesting" that you have apparently missed.

Yeah, I have read those passages pointing to God as the creator of Evil. Apparently, many Protestants get really troubled by this idea. Let me repeat my quote from St. Augustine:

"God is so good that He would not permit evil to exist... except if He were sufficiently all powerful AND good that He could create good out of evil."

Now, does God literally create evil, since He uses it for good? Not if you define "creation" as I do. Evil is the lack of holiness. Every lack is inexistence of something. Creation is giving something existence. How, then, can one create inexistence? Can one give existence to inexistence? No! But then, one could PERMIT (not create) inexistence to exist.

"What?!" you may comment, "Are you saying that evil does not exist?!" No. What I'm saying is that evil is the inexistence of holiness in a certain person. But evil itself is existent (in otherwords, the existence of inexistence, or simply put, inexistence).

Evil, then, the Evil One, is simply permitted by God to exist. Also, the Evil One, being evil itself, does cause evil. Evil causes evil, lack causes lack.

To address your argument againt the existence of devils, the Evil One is simply evil itself. Since holiness, in its fullest being, is a person (God; actually, three persons), the lack of holiness, in its fullest being, must also be a person (or persons). This is what we call Devil, Satan, Beelzebul, SERPENT, etc. The serpent is simply a symbol of the Evil One, who is evil himself. Period.

- Francis Ocoma

My Response (to letters 5 and 6):

Dear Francis:

Well, there is very little for me to actually respond to. You are not arguing anything of importance, just bashing all non-Catholic interpretations and pimping for the pope. So to speak.

No, I do not consider acts to be evil, harmful, or in any way unlawful unless they directly harm or deceive another. That, quite frankly, is more of a political issue, but I do not think that evil in private (and affecting no one else) is evil in the first place.

And I am baffled as to why the teachings (inconsistent or not) of Protestantism are at issue. Please, try to understand: I have argued against basic Christianity. If my examination does not apply to a particular sect, I say so. For example, free will arguments do not apply to Protestant determinists (Calvinists, and that's about it. Baptists? Certainly not!).

When I used the term "proselytizing", I was referring only to the spreading of the salvation message--violence had nothing to do with it. It is logically inconsistent. Before, people who knew nothing of Christianity would be saved. After hearing the "true message" though, they will either believe and be saved, or reject it and be condemned. Soooooo... 100% were saved before, but after you spread the Word, some are condemned. That was my point.

The "supremely responsible" notion was given as an example of agreement between Catholics and most Protestants. I have not argued against that notion specifically. In fact, one of my favorite quotes is "EST VNVSQVISQVE FABER IPSAE SVAE FORTVNAE."

And finally, if the serpent represented the Evil One, then why did God curse all the poor snakes to crawl on their bellies and eat dust forever? Why were they the scapegoat?

Nathan

7th Letter:

Dear Nathan,

I'm very sorry if I was a little harsh on the Protestants. But then again, you missed the point entirely. You kept on saying that Catholics and Protestants are the same, that all the sects of Christianity could be generalized into one small list. What I simply did was to show that the very principles of these sects are not similar to each other (at least, not to my religion). They have different salvation doctrines. They have different authorities. Heck! They even have different notions of Deity. About Christ? Well, some believe that Christ was only a prophet. Some believe that Christ was both God and man. Some believe that He was just a man whose soul is Divine. Some believe that he was just a creation, others believe otherwise. And who knows what that new "christian" sect in the neighborhood believes?!

When one forgets about these very important notions, one sees a distorted image of religion: the distorted view of an illogical, mythical, untrue God.

Then it hit me: maybe that's the problem with atheists like you, atheists who came from Protestant denominations. After you realize that your religion was so not right, since other religions "seemed" similar, since you think you could generalize them, you concluded that all religions are wrong!

What a pity. Yes, I know that you hate referrals, but I suggest you at least browse the Coming Home Network (www.chnetwork.org). You'll find stories there of people just like you who realized how ridiculous Protestantism is. But instead of turning to atheism as the answer, they sincerely studied other alternatives. (Plus! You'll also find stories of converts who were once atheists.)

"Soooooo... 100% were saved before, but after you spread the Word, some are condemned." Ummm... where did you get this? To make everything clear to you, I'll paraphrase the Cathecism:

Those who, by ignorance, never realized the Truth of the Church, are not bound to the sin of heresy. Still, they must adhere to the Moral Law inherent to every person in order to get a chance to enter heaven. But then, every non-Catholic fortunate enough to pass the earthly test must still undergo Purgatory, where all the graces that he lacked, being a non-Catholic, will be given to him. Through this, he will be worthy of heaven as part of the Church Triumphant.

This is another example of the distorted image of Christianity. You assumed that all Christian sects have a problem about this salvation to non-Christians. Please stop this generalization right now.

"And finally, if the serpent represented the Evil One, then why did God curse all the poor snakes to crawl on their bellies and eat dust forever?" Oh, quit it! You're making me laugh! The only Divine punishment is given to persons, specifically, persons who have already died. Snakes are not persons. You're smart enough to know that this was just a symbol of God's sentence upon Satan.

Scapegoat? What scapegoat? The devil is not a scapegoat.

Pimping for the pope? I barely mentioned his name! Well, I'm about to... but it's not pimping.

I agree to you when you said that any act that is not concerned with others could be called a sin. In fact, I'll quote a similar sentence by the pope:

"There is no sin, not even the most intimate and secret one, the most strictly individual one, the exclusively concerns the person commiting it."

He, he! Yes, there's a twist in it! What I'm trying to say is that those acts that you thought are not concerned with others actually are! Give me an example of a "private" sin and I'll show you how it relates with others.

You forgot to tell me why you thought the Qu'ran as "better" than the Bible. I'll just follow up on that.

Have a nice day.

- Francis Ocoma

My Response:

Dear Francis:

You keep insisting that Protestants and Catholics are vastly different. I gave you a list of the very basic ideals that they both hold, and stated that my top arguments are based on only those simple things. (And that with other things, like biblical literalism, I explicitly state whom it applies to.)

My point stands unchallenged. Yes, there are some small groups with vastly different interpretations. Who gives a damn? I am not arguing against the dumb offshoots, I keep it general. (I did take one shot at the Mormons, but that's practically another religion.)

I don't know what you are arguing here. If you wish to challenge one of my articles, then do it. If you want to claim that they simply don't apply to your religion, fine. What difference does that make to me? Let's say you even manage to prove it to me. I would still be an atheist. I would still have no religion. Your only option then would be to try to convince me that your religion is true, which ain't going to happen. I've heard it all before.

So my real question to you, as it has been since the beginning, is: Where are you going with this? I have tried to figure it out, but I am lost. You are not countering my theological arguments because, presumably, you don't think they apply. You haven't offered anything of your own, other than standard redemption talk. Yawn. Sooooooooooo..... What are we doing here?

I guess I might as well counter some of your more foolish statements.

Quote: "Those who, by ignorance, never realized the Truth of the Church, are not bound to the sin of heresy. Still, they must adhere to the Moral Law inherent to every person in order to get a chance to enter heaven. But then, every non-Catholic fortunate enough to pass the earthly test must still undergo Purgatory, where all the graces that he lacked, being a non-Catholic, will be given to him. Through this, he will be worthy of heaven as part of the Church Triumphant."

You have agreed. An ignorant man who lives a good and moral life will be given the chance to enter heaven. But if this man is given the message of the Church and rejects it, he will no longer have that possibility, no matter how good and moral he is.

I don't know why you are trying to argue from the Bible. You don't know what you are talking about. I said that was not a Jewish idea, and that they got it from the Babylonians. Then you tried quite unsuccessfully to argue that the serpent in the Garden of Eden was Satan. Here's a little mythology lesson for you: Creation stories, primarily, explain why things are they way they are.

The Fall in Genesis had very real, tangible effects, like: painful childbirth for humans, difficulty in growing crops, human recognition of nakedness, and, among other things, snakes were condemned to crawl on their bellies and "eat dust" (which of course, they do not). The story explains why these things are. It explains why snakes move with no legs (a difficult concept to the ancient Jews), and why women have pain in childbirth while that is not visible in other creatures. If the "serpent" was actually Satan, then why were the innocent snakes condemned for his actions? This would only make sense if every snake was an incarnation of the Devil.

And you asked me to name one sin that affects no one else. I can name five off of the top of my head. They are the first four and the last of the Ten Commandments. I expect you to be able to tell me how each one affects someone else (or, I expect a declaration that John Paul II was wrong):
1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain.
4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
5. Thou shalt not covet any thing that is thy neighbour's.

Finally, I think I'll decline to comment on the Qur'an. Since you only think of the Bible as inspiration which changes in meaning whenever the wise old men decree, I don't see what relevance any "holy" text has to this conversation.

Nathan

8th Letter:

Dear Nathan,

Sorry for keeping you waiting. I had too much school work yesterday (Oh! Summer vacation! Where have thou left me!). I think I now know how to pin you down.

Let me get this straight: I AM countering your arguments! How do I counter them? I prove that they do not apply! Let me give you an analogy: If a woman tries to insult the masculine gender just because she have heard of someone raping his own daughter, you'd probably scold her by saying "Well, that's unfair. Just because there are men out there who do horrid things doen't mean that men are horrible beings! That accusation cannot apply to the masculine gender."

Now, what if the woman answers, "What do I care if some men are good?! One of them does an evil thing, all of them must be evil!" What would you think of that woman?

I mean, even if the majority of men somehow become horrible perverts, one still cannot dismiss the dignity of that gender. That would still be unfair because there will always be a good gentleman somewhere out there. The accusation still cannot be applied.

That is the same thing as with your arguments. You keep on pointing at these stupidities of the majority of Christians (which I would prefer calling "heretics") all the while ignoring the fact that something out there DOES make sense. In fact, I will prove to you in this debate that the Catholic Church is the true Christian religion. Besides, it is the religion headed by the pope that is the original Christianity.

About your examples of "private" sins. They do affect others here's how:

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

First of all: influence. After influence, possible condemnation (if god exists). If God does not exist, influence could lead to scandal. Scandal always hurts somebody. Also, scandal leads to disorder. Even if you do not influence nor commit scandal, you could still affect others, for a possible cause of disorder, even without actually causing disorder, as long as it exists, already hurts the dignity of the system. In this case, that system is Mankind itself.

In a more spiritual tone (though, I'll bet you'd ignore this; but what the heck!), every man is a part of the community of saints. Anyone who commits sin hurts everybody else, for we are but one body.

2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.

All of the above. Also, worship of graven images is an incredible stupidity. Stupidity breeds more stupidity.

3. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain.

All of the first. Also, immorality breeds immorality. Even if one does not believe in God, he cannot reject the fact that those who "take's the name of God in vain" are almost always not-respectable, at least in a social point of view.

4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

All of the first. Also, failure to follow laws made for order will always harm the system for which the laws were made.

5. Thou shalt not covet any thing that is thy neighbour's.

All of the first. Also if the person whom you are jealous of realizes your jealousy, that would affect him much.

You've heard it all before? And you said that you're not familiar with the Cathecism. I rest my case.

Let's see how logical you are. You were saying something like this: "There are some things in 'general Christianity' that seems stupid and illogical to me. These stupid things do not apply, though, in certain religions. But I don't give a damn."

Hmmm... if a religion does not have the stupidity seen in other religions, why in the world do you insist that it's wrong?!

Creation stories WERE used by the primitive cultures as some sort of explanation of natural phenomena. They were sort of "science text-books" of those cultures. Now get this: The Catholic Magisterium is NOT concerned with natural phenomena! The Magisterium's interpretation of the Genesis is purely spiritual. In fact, if you want me to give a passage in the book of Genesis that at least talks about something physical, it would be one passage: Genesis 1:9. This is interpreted as the actual creation of the material universe. In fact, it doesn't even talk about any details, just the statement that God created the material realm after the spiritual realm.

The Catholic Magisterium does not care about what anyone would believe when it comes to creation. As John Paul said, "Science and Religion CANNOT contradict each other." In fact, it actually complements each other. The pope once said (I'm just paraphrasing), "Science purges religion of superstition. Religion purges science from un-godly biases and religious apathy."

Here is another confusing statement of yours. It goes something like: "Since those who lived before the Church had a chance of going to heaven if they act morally, the religious service becomes useless because we also should be able to enter heaven just by being moral."

Hmmm... why can't we go to heaven if we freely leave the Church? Well, it's because leaving the Church is an immoral thing to do! And besides, the "curse" of apostasy only applies to those who freely and willingly leave the Church. Those who never wanted to leave the Church but, by some reason, had to leave Her cannot be in an immoral state. Those people would be one with the rest of the ignorant ancients.

No. Those who leave the Church could at least be good people. There is a big difference between being good and being moral. It is only the religious relativism that is being propagated today that tries to blurr that difference.

You insult bible-believing Christians by stating that the Bible is inferior to the Qu'ran. And you dare ignore a challeng for you to prove it. That's very, very sick.

- Francis Ocoma

Note: This last letter seemed intended to get a rise out of me. And it was successful.

My Response:

Dear Francis:

Your supposed counter to my five examples was a sad, sad display.

1. You argue that it can cause some sort of bad influence on others. Aren't people responsible for their own actions? Because someone, somewhere might do something bad, it affects others? This doesn't work. You have failed, and His Holiness is proven wrong. If I, in my own head, put Zeus ahead of your god, I have harmed no one, and no one will even know. This is a private action, and it affects no one.

2. Same as above, plus: stupidity is not a sin.

3. Same as above. Generalizations do not make fact.

4. Same as above. Any government with restrictive laws about the Sabbath (other than secular, cultural traditions) is horribly unjust.

5. Same as above. And what if someone finds out about your jealousy? Too bad. He might feel a bit uncomfortable. There is still no harm done.

And now let's see how logical you are, or at the very least, check you memory and comprehension skills. I have said, countless times, "My arguments against Christianity still apply to Catholicism, with a few exceptions like biblical literalism." Since you have not bothered to read my arguments in the first place, I don't know what tell you.

Now, if the Church is not concerned with physical creation, and neither are you, I would presume, then why the hell were you even bothering to argue about snakes? Your knowledge of the actual biblical text is faulty at best, and in any event, you are not interested in a literal interpretation of creation or anything else. Then why did you waste my time, along with the time of everyone else who will read this, by arguing something you know nothing about and don't care about to begin with? That wasn't just asinine, it was downright rude.

And you have lost the argument about proselytizing. You have confused yourself, I believe. I'll end that argument now, since you managed to unwittingly argue my point and then go off on an irrelevant tangent.

And finally, I stated a very good reason for not discussing my opinion about the Qur'an. If you have some counter to that, then make it.

Nathan

9th Letter:

Dear Nathan,

I'm back! Sorry for keeping you waiting. Anyways, let's get on with it...

You asked me why I keep on arguing about things that does not affect my religion. You've got a good logic there: Why would someone argue about non-applicable things instead of the important ones?

Let me give you a history of our debate:

- In your third e-mail, you gave me your general arguments against Christianity... including those that did not apply.

- I answered those arguments, both those that applied and those that did not apply.

You're wondering why I argued against your arguments that did not apply? Here'a a short list of reasons:

- Because you argued them in the first pllace! I have always believed that a good debater will counter all the arguments of his opponents, whether or not some of his opponent's arguments are downright misleading (e.g. non-applicable arguments).

- Because by throwing away those argumentts in the trash, you will end up with a much shorter list of arguments to use on me. That's a good thing... for me. he, he.

- Because I want you to see a clearer piccture of Catholicism, not the one you blindly formulated by yourself using your puny anti-Catholic Baptist format.

I guess that should be enough. Off to the next issue!

Your retort concerning your five examples was quite unfair and useless. But I guess I cannot blame you for that. You do not believe in the communiun of saints in the first place, and I understand that. I cannot prove the evils of your arguments without you believing in this simple principle.

In order for you to believe in the communion of saints, you must first believe in God; then, in the Trinity; Finally, in Jesus Christ. Only then can I make you believe in the communion of saints.

In other words, I'll just continue on this topic after I prove the basic Christian Catholic dogmas. Though, of course, I'll have to address some of you statements:

- Sin is a totally religious matter, not political. Maybe you're reffering to crime or something, that's political. You are ineligible to discuss what sin is simply because you do not believe in religion in the first place! Crime is anything that Political Law defines as illegal. Sin, on the other hand, is what a religious authority of the Moral Law call illegal. As long as I haven't tackled on the problem of authority yet, I suggest we stay out of this for a while.

- Stupidity is not intrinsically evil. Buut since stupidity is the denial of truth, when it comes to religious truth, denial of religious truth is certainly a sin (e.g. heresy). Of course, at this point, we cannot know yet which religion is the true one (since you did not accept my arguments on that matter; I'll talk about that later).

- When it comes to very important things,, stupidity can really cause damage. For example, a person who doesn't know how to drive a car, though he can be called "stupid" in that sense (of course, we cannot take that generally), he could still be pardoned at this point. But if he tries to drive a bus filled with schoolchildren in it, if the bus crashes, isn't it because of his stupidity?

I stopped arguing about proselytizing because of two things: you did not mention it anymore in your past e-mail; I thought I already succeeded in that point. I guess I was wrong about the later "thing." I will just repeat my argument (hope it would be clearer):

Proselytizing is the act of willful persuation for the purpose of getting someone to believe your ideas. This could be in the form of friendly conversation with the prospect or violence (either verbally or physically). According to the Catholic Church, violence is in itself a sin (though, there are a few justified exceptions). In other words, it is a sin to use violence to proselytize someone (besides, there were few Catholics in history who used thsi kind of proselytizing). Now. is it all clear already?

Why do you have to explain your stance on the Qu'ran? Because you mentioned it in the debate, silly. You have to take account for what you say in a debate. Besides, you said it in such a way as to insult the Written Word (the Bible). That statement would only be fair if you could prove it. Otherwise, take it back.

Whoops. This is taking too long. I'll finish this off later. Bye!

- Francis

My Response:

Dear Francis:

First off, in my third reply I listed those things common to Catholicism and Protestantism and asserted that my arguments were based on those things. I offered no arguments. As I have said, they are already posted on my site. So no, you have not responded to them.

I suppose the five examples was indeed a bad tangent. But you threw down the gauntlet. If you need me to believe in the magical communion in order to agree, then that is simply poor foresight on your part. A long-winded explanation of how all that quackery is organized is even more irrelevant. Thank you for taking thirty seconds of my life.

Finally, you have managed to become even more confused about proselytizing. Violence has nothing to do with it. That would be "forced conversion" and I thought I dismissed that as an issue from the start. I only referred to spreading the "Truth" with persuasion, not coercion. Once again, you obliviously argued my point earlier and went off on a tangent. Which you have done again.

Nathan

This conversation switched to a different thread, where Mr. Ocoma did actually manage to make some real (though terrible) arguments, found on this link.
Return to first Feedback page.
Go to second Feedback page.
Return to main page.