So lets assume that Being a fundamentalist Christian is P=1, and being a fundamentalist atheist is P=0. Keeping in mind that I didn’t use the term P=1 originally, and even in context it was not set down as a binary equation (I was assuming that the 1 meant you were sure there is no god, not an immutable belief in the fact, while .75 meant you might lean heavily towards no god but had some doubts).
Yes, P = 1 is the theologically required Christian belief. However, and I’ve never even been Catholic, your post is rife with Atheist propaganda about Catholicism that shows you did not do your research before condemning an entire group of people. I’m not even sure how I ended up on the Xtian side of this debate, except I dislike fundamentalism of any stripe. I do take Atheists to task for their beliefs as often as I take Xtians to task for their beliefs. However, this is a site dedicated to Rationality. Which means if you’re going to say “yes I’m sure”, I expect you to have proof, no matter what side of the debate you’re on. If you’re not sure whether or not god exists, you’re an agnostic. If you are sure (G=0), then you are an athiest. If you believe God exists, you could be any religion, not just Xtian. But for some reaosn Xtian’s get picked on, because they’re not as scary as Muslims but just as fervent. But lets get to you statements.
To begin with, the type of 4000 year old Earth, 6 day creation, no evolution debate is a Protestant belief, not Catholic. In fact, in 1950 Pope Pius XII said it was fine to discuss Human Evolution: “The Church does not forbid that...research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter.” Source: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html
Whether or not god created the universe, according to the bible (Where he created it twice, read Genesis 1, or just accept that it was a book written by people.) He certainly didn’t create only two people. To answer the statement that only Adam and Eve were created by God AND that he resitricted himself Later to being god of just the Jewish nation, I bring you, Genesis 4:15-17
15 Then the LORD said to him, “Not so! If any one slays Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold.” And the LORD put a mark on Cain, lest any who came upon him should kill him. 16 Then Cain went away from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, east of Eden. 17 Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch; and he built a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his son, Enoch.
Now wait, Cain, brother of Abel, went to the land of Nod, and found a wife. That sure does imply that, biblically, there were more people on Earth than Adam and Eve. Dangerous people too, since Cain was worried about being killed by them enough to ask God for protection. So, biblically, even if God created Adam and Eve, not everyone is a child of God. Which is good, because part of the horrifying great commission is to convert nonbelievers. The Biblical God is the God of the descendants of Adam and those who follow him.
Flood tales are rife in any ancient theology, including being in Gilgamesh. What a surprise they’re in the bible too, mentioning that God protects his people. Shocking. There probably was a great flood at some point, but I’m linking to Wiki out of spite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_stories
Jesus still hasn’t been reconciled by the Abrahamic religions (Another reason why god chose to protect them. Abraham trusted God, biblically. Seeing as God also gave human free will, biblically, why would he protect people who didn’t trust him?)
There is nothing biblically about Jesus making Peter the pope. He did assign the apostles to the Great Commission of going forth and spreading his word, but even guys like Paul got in on that act later. The first official Pope was Anacletus.
Requires them to obey the pope? The Pope is only infallible sitting on his big chair. The pope is not God. Throught the history of Catholicism there have been hundreds of examples of not listening to the pope, especially when there were TWO popes. And if you think the church has problems now, read about the period between 860–1050. The pope is a man according to doctrine. Catholics can blame him all they like, and risk excommunication by disobeying him, but it’s still an option. He’s more like the king of an institution than a holy being.
However, thanks for proving my point. You listed a bunch of “facts” about Catholicism that either dealt with protestants, were folklore and tradition instead of doctrine, or were just incorrect. Don’t forget that both sides have propaganda mills. Go to the source, and see what Xtians are supposed to believe. Then Take them to task. And anyway, am I not supposed to take both sides to task for irrationality? If you are being irrational, you are not excused because you are a fundamentalist. Go do your research.
Yes, but the point of this paper was rational discussion. People who refuse to research their own religion are not rational, yes? So why are we including them as candidates for rational debate? Call me a cynic, but I would rather debate with a reasonable Xtian that has a solid theological grounding than argue with an unreasonable one who hasn’t bothered to learn his bible.
And rock is a metaphor, as well as a play on words for his name. Doesn’t make him the pope, could just be saying that his faith needed to be emulated. Jesus was sort of known for metaphor, but not for supporting rigid belief structures designed to bilk their followers.