I should think it’s of fair importance considering it’s how you identify!

What can you tell me about what you believe and why?

Mike

Thanks for the reference. I found it interesting how the dowry offered to the second husband of an Athenian divorced wife had to be increased to reflect the jewelry she received from her first husband (who also had to be repaid for the jewelry) and subsequently the sisters of the divorce wife had to have her dowry increased as well to match the older sister's dowry. That's double dipping on a trade in. Maybe an additional reason the Hellenized Jews didn't appreciate Jesus teachings on divorce.

The dissertation author was from Ghana which reminded me of marvelous restaurant I used to go to in undergrad that served waakye and fried plantains.

The Enlightenment contributed. But a survey of all of history to prove whether or not Christianity (or Judaism) is a unique source of good values is too big for me to take on. I merely repeat the veiled suggestion that Theophilus study things in history in addition to The Way, if he has not done so very much.

The status of widows, for example, has been a concern to many cultures outside the sphere of Christianity's influence. E.g. http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2012/2012-02-22.html

I am certainly glad that differences can be discussed without malice! I am always open to conversation and learning.

I hope that you continue growing in knowledge and wisdom! It's been good Mike.

P.S. Though it is of little importance, I am considered Wesleyan, not Catholic. Just felt a need to clarify :)

I'm not sure how much you have studied outside Christian history and tradition, but there is much more. There is more "inequality, violence, hate, and competition" within the history of Christianity than you acknowledge, and more love and justice outside it than you acknowledge.

I'll re-post something I found from another post from a interlocutor I respect as a response to this argument:

From what I've seen, an argument can beg the question either by containing its conclusion in one of its premises or by using an undemonstrated and thus suspect principle as grounds for drawing a conclusion. Cf. S. Morris Engel, “Understanding, Finally, What it is to ‘Beg the Question’” Metaphilosophy 22.3 (1991) 251-264

Your premise is that he hasn't read "enough" non-christian history to understand the Christian history and tradition unbiased. Then you insert non-Christian principles into Christian history and Christian principles into non-Christian history when drawing your conclusion which I infer (correct me if I'm wrong): "Understanding unbiased the history of the Catholic faith will reveal something about your presuppositions on love." I think you may be hinting that atheism has a logical solution to this, idk. I don't want to read too far into your argument and really idk how you value "a life well lived" as this is a personal and subjective thing for atheists.

Maybe the better question (rather than the ambiguous term love) is where do we get the values (you used) of equality, non-violence, power balance, and justice in Western society? Does it come from from relationship and action like you posit love does; and if so which relationships and which actions and why did they become our values? I think I've read enough history to make an informed opinion on the subject. I guess I'm open to a history lesson from an atheist on how these values are not the subject of religiosity. Edit done.

My first thoughts are that here is an atheist and a Catholic engaging in honest discussion replete with differences for both of us. This is something that would have likely been unthinkable for our ancestors.

My second thoughts lead me to think about your adjectives: outpouring love, creative, selfless. While I certainly do not share your spiritual views, I do appreciate what you personally value.

Mike

I suppose the "why" behind the presupposition of God, or at least, a god, stems from all that I have learned from science. The origin of the first living cell is unknown, and as research continues on the most basic of cells, cells are extraordinarily more complex than we first thought. Several scientists say that the first cell was made on the back of a crystal. Some even suggest that the first cell came to Earth from aliens.

Considering the fine-tuning of the universe (the basic, universal standards of gravity, light, time, etc.), it seems that the odds of life are infinitely small. This leads me to believe that there must be a god. Not only must I believe in a god, but I must believe in an outpouring, creative God of Love. A god that is static and not "love" would never create--for there would be no desire for the god to do so. Rather, a God of selflessness would eternally be giving of Himself, leading to the creation of all things.

If God is eternal, then surely, this dynamic nature that I described above would have been eternally present, as opposed to condensed in the creation of our world. This is what leads me to believe in the Trinitarian God, that is, Father, Son, and Spirit, who have all three always been eternally. The Father begetting the Son, the Spirit coming forth from the Father and Son both. Without this nature of God, no thing could be in existence outside of the god itself.

I went on a bit of a rabbit trail... Nonetheless, does this make sense? What are your thoughts?

These are great questions and considerations, it’s good to see them. Why? Because it will make for conversation. Logic is a foundational presupposition. Both atheists, theists and polytheista accept that presupposition. We have evidence for its reliability in mapping truth findings to reality. It sounds like you want to add one more presupposition: a god.

Why?

Mike

I am a follower of Jesus Christ and have been studying The Way for quite some time.

I'm not sure how much you have studied outside Christian history and tradition, but there is much more. There is more "inequality, violence, hate, and competition" within the history of Christianity than you acknowledge, and more love and justice outside it than you acknowledge.

A start of an answer to your ultimate question is, to love is necessary for a life well lived. People come to know this in relationships and action.

"Humanism flourishes with free inquiry at the expense of dogma. We thrive on love, equality, and compassion."

How does humanism thrive on love, equality, and compassion without any sort of core truths (dogma)? Science says that people are not made equally--physically, intellectually, etc. Compassion and love were neglected in order for humans to thrive as a population. Inequality, violence, hate, and competition are the innate nature of humanity, which is why there are even country borders. It was not until Jesus came where women were considered equals, people loved those who hated them, and morality was emphasized in government. Even in the Old Testament, Yahweh was the first God to ban child sacrifice. Religion has never been focused on morality, until the Judeao-Christian God was made famous.

All that being said, I suppose my ultimate question is: what logical foundation is there for love, without the influence of my Lord and God?