5 Arguments Atheists Make At Dinner Parties

Image by Jill Wellington from Pixabay 

It could be your uncle, brother, sister or distant cousin who makes these same old tired arguments about your faith so dearly held. Believe me; we have all been there at that wedding table, Christmas dinner or Aunt Betty’s 80th birthday party. The drinks are going down nicely, just enough to give the atheist uncle some intellectual courage to blurt out to you how much he hates your Church. 

I’ve often heard arguments like, “The Catholic Church is so hypocritical. Look at the Pope sitting there, preaching to the poor from his golden palace. How on earth could you ever think about being part of such a religion?” You’re a person of faith, but you’re well aware that you lack the intellectual capacity to respond. You either react with insults or don’t respond at all. A part of you even wants to agree with him. It’s a well-tailored argument he’s been wearing at every family gathering. Like his ugly outdated suit, the discussion has become worn and tattered; it’s time to help him take it to the trash.

Argument #1

Let’s get into addressing these arguments beginning with the first. Some of these arguments present themselves in different ways. 

“The Vatican shouldn’t be preaching to people about the curing of poverty when they live in a palace. If they sold everything they possess and all the gold in that castle on a hilltop of theirs, then may I’d be willing to take them seriously.”

Answer

The Vatican, it’s sacred treasures, and entire architecture was donated by its members rich and poor. The architecture speaks of mans talent in his efforts to glorify God not just with his heart, but his hands also. Selling our valuables and selling off treasures that were built to glorify God, will not cure poverty. Secondly, while maintaining its sacred treasures and grand palaces made for the Lord, it remains the biggest NGO statistically in the world. Examine what the Vatican has spent in the last 2000 years on the poor. It doesn’t even come close to what it’s sacred treasures and buildings are currently worth. If we want to look at the bad guy, look no further than the multi-billion profit made in the porn industry. Men are objectifying women for their pleasure, profiting from it and building themselves palaces that the poor dare not enter. 

Argument #2

The problem with some people who can’t respond to your answer is that they must come up with more arguments to justify themselves. We will now look at a few more cases they develop for their challenge against the Church. 

“Priests should be allowed to marry. It’s just not healthy for a man not to want to have sex with other women. If they were allowed to marry, then maybe all them paedophiles wouldn’t exist.” 

Answer

The concept that we should act upon a born instinct as natural is incredibly fallacious. Science has indicated people are born pyschopaths and others naturally inherit alcoholism. This instinct does not mean these persons should indulge in their passions simply because they’re “natural.” Humans are born natural, but because we are born feral, there is a need for us to tame the Lion within. Christians achieve this with the Grace of God. Sexuality practised within his supernatural plan for our salvation is something we live out either in marriage or a celibate lifestyle. When this occurs, we are no longer slaves to the natural but the supernatural, which is what our original state is. God didn’t make us sinful or wild; that’s something we did through our disobedience. 

Finally, statistics have proven that more paedophiles happen to be in same-sex households and heterosexual ones as opposed to the priesthood. 

Argument #3

“Adam and Eve are not real neither does God exist. Have you not seen these evolution theories? It’s all a big fairytale but hey, if it brings you comfort.”

Answer 3

Evolution does not explain the cause of the world, which is God. Neither do any of these theories have a shred of evidence that Adam and Eve were not a reality. The problem with evolution is that it has failed time and time again to come up with a succession of remains to prove it’s personal assertions we came from apes. The only plausible evolution theory is that our skeletons and skin evolved to adapt to their environments. This kind of method is consistent with the story of Adam and Eve, of which no scientific study has ever managed to contradict. The theory that we all came from an ape or evolved from a blob of tissue? That’s the most significant fairy tale of the century but hey, if it brings you comfort. 

Argument #4

“If God is so good, why does he permit evil?” 

Answer

Speaking of fairytales, Aladdin and his genie in the lamp is a perfect example here of a story that can sometimes mirror the truth. The genie can grant him three wishes, but one thing he cannot do is make someone fall in love with him. A woman has to do this of her own free will. 

The agreement God made with us at the beginning was similar. He endowed the angels and humans with free will to choose him or not over evil. Why didn’t he make us without free will so that we may never choose evil? The reason for this is because God wants people to love Him freely. He cannot bring Himself to force another to adore him, so he gave us free will. 

Our first parents abused that free will chose evil and so it is because of them and us that suffering exists in the world today. It is not, therefore, God who permits evil but humans. All God is doing is honouring his first agreement with us. Now we have to deal with an unchangeable reality that suffering is here to stay. Hey, if you don’t believe in God then how on earth can you ever ask such a question and not expect a supernatural answer?

Argument #5

“The Church discriminates against women; why doesn’t it allow women to be priests? They can do just an excellent job as male priests.”

Answer

The Church is not a place that celebrates only equality but also rejoices in inequality and the fact that God made us differently, calling us to different missions. Some women like Joan of Arc he entrusted with rescuing France. She became a martyr and example to all that wish to follow Christ. To other women, he revealed Himself and made doctors of the Church who challenged even Popes on the existing state of the Church at its time. 

Men have been chosen to act in persona Christi by Christ Himself. He gave them this theological role because that was his desire while he delegated to women other divine purposes. Power-grabbing in the house of God is not a usual practice at all. Only Jesus gets the best seat in the house while the rest of us, no matter where we go, are always at the lower end of the table. 

Conclusion

These arguments are designed to be long enough to give a sufficient answer. Although they are at the same time short, are only developed with short conversation in mind and the intellectual capacity of uncle Joe. It’s also a good idea for us to continually refine and hone our skills in debating our faith in the public. It’s always nice to have an answer for the hope that is in us even if such responses fall short. I do hope this article will be of use to you if not send you on a quest to pursue other ways in which people have responded to these arguments. 

Are there any arguments here that you’ve heard and I’ve missed? Let us know in the comments.

Consider liking my Facebook Page found on the sidebar of this blog >>>>> 

PAX 

57 thoughts on “5 Arguments Atheists Make At Dinner Parties

  1. Argument three is one that is a little flawed. Evolution has nothing to do with atheism, but is often dragged into debates about the religion v’s atheism. Secondly, Homo sapiens are apes, with whom we share a common ancestor. All modern apes, (such as ourselves, chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, etc) descended from somewhere in Africa. Many Christians do not take Genesis to be literal truth, but to be a poetic version of a creation story. And that Yahweh started life, but it has evolved over time.

    Like

    1. No it has nothing to do with atheism, but neither does the vatican and all its riches. However, generally speaking, atheists tend to raise these issues with believers as a reason not to believe in God or their existing religion. To address your challenge on humans being apes. Nope, humans are not apes, people can attach whatever names they want to early humans but calling them “apes” doesn’t make them so. Humans have always been as such since the dawn of mankind. Many Christians may not look at Genesis literally but I’m speaking from a Catholic perspective. Right now, independent of Catholic theologians and their musings on this, the official stance of the Catholic Church is open to discussion on evolution but only finds the theory that humans evolved and adapted to their environment throughout the centuries as the only plausible one. The Early church fathers were united on their literal interpretation of the creation story being literal. For this reason, the Church, unless proven otherwise must hold to that interpretation. There was only one or two other Church fathers with a different opinion but they’re considered an exception to the rule.

      Like

      1. If Yahweh is the sole creator of life, he’s not the most imaginative designer. What with every mammal having 4 limbs, a heart, kidneys, blood, brains, skin, hair, etc. You’d think he/she/it would come up with more variety. Even when you look at the skeleton across the animal kingdom, you will find similarities, the skeleton of a chicken and that of Homo sapiens have lots in common.

        But, I’m guessing neither of us will come round to being persuaded by the other. The idea that we (the current population of the earth) come from the same 8 members of the same family, will never work for me; nor that we are descendants of a common ancestor of primitive primates will hold for you.

        Like

      2. I find a lot of variety in Gods creation, who are we to criticize the potter of the clay? Seems a little far fetched. The idea that we share similarities with other animals does not mean we have come from them. Humans are unique and have been endowed with the ability to reason and a moral compass. Our bodies have developed over the thousands of years to our climates and environments. It’s as simple as that really.

        Like

      3. Unless the potter is delusional, they are not magical beings that lay claim to making planets, life etc. And clay is just sediment. It has limitations. Liking god to a potter seems very simplistic.

        Like

      4. It’s God himself who uses this comparison in order to best describe such a situation. I think you’ll find God himself is more simplistic than you think, for He lives the simple life. There’s no fun in being complicated. “What sorrow awaits those who argue with their Creator. Does a clay pot argue with its maker? Does the clay dispute with the one who shapes it, saying, ‘Stop, you’re doing it wrong!’ Does the pot exclaim, ‘How clumsy can you be?’ (Is:45:9). What is required for a journey towards God is heart willing to let go of its complex view of him and willingness to be open to a simple explanation.

        Like

      5. That is a passage I’d forgotten about. Well if you want simple, then the West African creation story is much simpler than Genesis. Mbombo vomited once, and made the Earth and other planets. He vomited again, and created all life. None of this making everything over 6 days, and then needing a rest.

        It’s late here, I bid you peace. Like I mentioned before, we are unlikely to convince each other of our differences. Interesting blog though, thank you.

        Like

  2. atheists tend to raise these issues with believers as a reason not to believe in God or their existing religion” It’s really the fact that you all claim to know better. You have this unshaken, everlasting moral compass that is supposed to surpass all wisdom, yet the outcomes of faith have the world where it is today.

    Like

    1. There’s nothing wrong with knowing better Jim. It’s not a crime. It’s actually the outcome of Atheism that has the world where it is today. In the last 100 years communists have murdered more people under the banner of Atheism than all the religious wars in the last 2019 years. That’s a statistical fact not to be argued with.

      Like

      1. Oh my. Imagine a thousand years of forced conversions and indigenous genocide with today’s weaponry. That would be something to add to your monochromatic world.

        Like

      2. Sorry Jim but none of this address the factual statistics that Atheism murdered more people in the last 100 years than religion in the last 2019. That must be a difficult pill to swallow and pointing out the sins of Christians just isn’t a sufficient answer.

        Like

      3. communists have murdered more people under the banner of Atheism than all the religious wars in the last 2019 years

        Huh? I believe Stalin murdered people for political reasons, not under any banner of “atheism.” Atheism and Communism are not synonyms. The early church professed fundamental communist ideals.

        Like

      4. John you can go ahead and develop what ever self styled theories you have about Stalin not killing in the name of Atheism but it does not make it true. Stalin is an example of what we get when atheism reaches state level and enters politics.

        Like

      5. LOL! OK, so here’s a short list of just some openly atheist leaders:

        David Ben-Gurion, first Prime Minister of Israel 1948-1954: atheist
        Golda Meir, Prime Minister Israel 1969-1974: atheist
        Julia Gillard, Prime Minister of Australia 2010 to 2013: atheist.
        John Fredrik Reinfeldt, Prime Minister of Sweden 2006 to 2014: atheist.
        Dilma Rousseff, current President of Brazil: atheist.
        John Key, current Prime Minister of New Zealand: atheist.
        José Mujica, President Uruguay 2010 and 2015: atheist.
        Francois Hollande, president of France: atheist
        Jens Stolentberg, Prime Minister Norway, 2005-2013: atheist
        Aleksander Kwasneiwski, President, Poland, 1995-2005: atheist
        Zoran Milanovic, prime minister of Croatia: atheist
        Elio di Rupo, former Prime Minister of Belgium (2011-2014) : atheist
        Milos Zeman, president of the Czech Republic: atheist
        HC Hansen, Prime Minister Denmark, 1955-1960: atheist
        Hans Hedt oft, Prime Minsiter of Denmark 1950-1955: atheist
        Jens Otto Krag, Prime Minister Denmark 1962-1968: atheist
        Thorvald Strauning , Prime Minister Denmark, 1924-1926: atheist
        Vilhem Buhl, Prime Ministrer of Denamrk 1942: atheist
        Sandro Pertini, President Italy, 1978-1985: atheist
        Olof Palme Prime Minister of Sweden, 1969-1976: atheist
        Clement Attlee, Prime Minister, UK, 1945-1951: atheist
        James Callaghan, Prime Minister of UK 1976-1979: atheist

        Stephen, according to your “hypothesis,” we should see corresponding evidence of violent moral debauchery related to these world leaders and their periods in power.

        Please provide data to support your ‘hypothesis.”

        Liked by 1 person

      6. John obviously not every atheist will have the power to do what Stalin did. You can be an open atheist leader but unless you’ve the power to do what Stalin did you wouldn’t succeed at over throwing a country. These people can’t do it because they’d be overthrown pretty quickly. Like Stalin the backing of the majority is needed. But that doenst mean these leaders have not sought to destroy religion in their countries by more so called peaceful means. In my country they’re atheist leaders but they’ve literally removed crucifixes from classrooms and taken away Christian holidays. They often develop tv shows that make fun of us. Again this is what happens when Atheism takes the lead.

        Like

      7. You said “Stalin is an example of what we get when atheism reaches state level and enters politics”

        That’s your hypothesis.

        I gave you a list of contemporary atheist leaders.

        Working off that list, please provide data to support your ‘hypothesis.”

        Liked by 1 person

      8. And I’ve offered clarification as to what I meant meaning that Atheism fully blown and in control of a country who like Stalin had it’s backing, this is what we get. The leaders you cite don’t have that backing but if they did nothing would stop them from over throwing their countries and destroying religion.

        Like

      9. No John criticising my last comment and argument isn’t an argument. Essentially what you’re saying is “I don’t know how to respond to that so I’ll criticise his argument, tell him he’s clueless about history and but him good night.” No John I’m afraid you’ve thrown in the towel with the last comment. Good night it is then.

        Like

      10. Of course, there is the fact that according to the Bible, Satan only killed 10 people, whereas god killed 2,400,000. Ethically speaking, Satan is a kinder deity. He’s just had a poor Public Relations team.

        Liked by 1 person

      11. The thou shalt not kill commandment is for me and you not for God who gives life and takes it away as he pleases. To bring God down to our human way of thinking assuming he takes life in an evil sinful angry manner is wrong. God is pure and His will is pure.

        Like

      12. Stephen, like so many Christians, choose to lie about atheists. Since atheists don’t all want to be murderous dictators, then atheism isn’t the reason that Stalin, etc killed a lot of people. It was because they were megalomaniacs. That’s the common factor.

        I guess the commandment against bearing false witness is ignored by a lot of Christians.

        Like

  3. That actually was your add on I responded to. The fact is unfettered Christianity led to torture and miserable tyranny in every town and hamlet. That is the outcome of faith. Certainly it is no crime to know better, but the results show the religion does not bring the promised peace. And to illustrate the outcome of faith, you are now willing to excuse 1000 years of forced conversions as insignificant. You defend it by invoking pol pot and Stalin, while your hitler was a Christian and doing gods work according to multiple bishops and cardinals. He had the blessing of the church.
    The fact is Christianity has destroyed countless lives and beautiful ways of being in the world. After a near monopoly for over 1000 years now, where is the peace? The fact is many other forms of being are better off without it.

    Like

    1. Again Jim pointing out the sins of Christians acting independent of the Gospel teaching and contradicting it isn’t going to change the fact that more people died under Atheism. I acknowledge the sins of members claiming to act in the name of God and prefer to look at the thousands of Saints we have who prove the Gospel, when put into practice works. You keep talking about these indigenous tribes whose way of life have been destroyed by us yet if it were not for us Christians these tribes would still be sacrificing their children today. If it were not for people like JP II communism and atheism would still reign over Poland and Slavic Europe. You’ve really no clue in my opinion.

      Like

      1. Those leaders weren’t acting in the name of atheism. Your comparison is void. “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword”? that sound familiar? Augustine authorized the use of force with the parable of the supper and “compelled them to come” Augustine, one of the heralded fathers of modern religion, from the top down compelled normal men to do atrocious things. Voltaire has it right. Anyone that can get you to believe absurdity can get you to commit atrocities. The church is still anti-anyone-but-Christian, and fight social equality at every turn, judging men because of their genetics. That’s the good of the Bible for you.

        Like

      2. Of course they were acting in the name of Atheism because atheism unlike the Gospel has no doctrine of love. There’s nothing set in stone just live life as you please and murder anyone along the way. No void in the comparison at all. St.Augustine just war doctrine is about self defence and there’s nothing wrong with that as everyone has their vocation in Christianity and some live out that vocation defending the public from harm. Ah Jim this isn’t going well for you.

        Like

      3. You’re research is limited to things that support your views. Not going well for me? How so? I see apologists use little insecurities like that all the time when they’re tired of defending the nonsense.

        Like

      4. No Jim my research is unlimited to the access of facts that you lack. Telling me my research is limited to support my views is itself an insecurity of yours. I see this often from people who can’t hold a discussion. They lose the will to respond and instead whinge and moan about little things that have nothing to do with the argument and pick at my comments where I let them know that it genuinely isn’t going well for them. And it still isn’t going well for you Jim. You’ve an inability to respond it’s time for you to throw in the towel and head back to the corner to consult your Dawkins handbook.

        Like

      5. I’ve never read dawkins or any other. I avoid the commentors. Maybe you missed this little list of the murderous European Christian dictators, like:

        Adolf Hitler
        Benito Mussolini
        Franco
        Napoleon
        Oliver Cromwell
        Maximilien Robespierre
        Miguel Primo de Rivera
        Vlad III
        Kaiser Wilhelm II
        Nicholas II
        Leopold II
        Romuald Traugutt
        Slobodan Milošević
        José Mendes Cabeçadas
        Lord John Russell

        To name just a few.

        And the many African, Central and South American Christian dictators like Simón Bolívar, Pinochet, Agustín de Iturbide, Antonio López de Santa Anna, Porfirio Díaz, Rafael Carrera, Efrain Rios Montt, Maximiliano Hernández Martínez, Jorge Ubico, Daniel Ortega, Manuel Noriega, José Gaspar Rodríguez de Francia y Velasco, Carlos Ibáñez del Campo, Getúlio Vargas, Juan Vicente Gómez…

        And let’s not forget the Christian (Baptist) Théodore Sindikubwabo
        who ordered the Rwandan genocide.

        Dictators? You must appreciate the wrongness of your limited view.

        Liked by 1 person

      6. All those people who committed murders and yet they still do not disprove the statistical fact that under only a few Atheist leaders more people died than under all these people. So Christian dictators acted outside the Gospel and murdered people proving they’re not even Christian what’s you’re point here exactly? You know what you are Jim? A time waster who keeps rehashing the same old argument and I’m tired of repeating myself so I’m shutting this conversation down.

        Like

      7. Who said there was ever nothing? You a scientist now too? There was never nothing. You my friend have fallen ill with the Jehovah Effect©. A little bit of misinterpreted spirituality and now the all imperative “must”. It happens to a lot of people. Jesus thought he was god, Muhammad thought he was the last… it happens. That’s why it’s important to ease into spiritual things. The all-at-once contact with the scourge energy makes people like Joseph Smith…all self important I AM. Now i must hear what you have to say and do what you say needs to be done—The Jehovah Effect© is a tricky thing.

        Liked by 1 person

  4. The ignorance of the blog post’s author is rather amazing.

    #1. “The Vatican, it’s sacred treasures, and entire architecture was donated by its members rich and poor.”
    Nope, not at all. They were donated by kings and queens who stole these riches from other peoples, including the civilizations from the Americas.

    The RCC may be technically the largest NGO, but it does its best to lie to people about condoms, disease, etc. And it still fails to follow what JC said about giving up all worldly wealth and following him. You offer the same excuse as any rich man does, that since we can’t completely cure poverty, then we can keep our money. That’s just a lie where you make the perfect the enemy of the good. You also indulge in quite a bit of “whataboutism” to excuse yourself.

    #2. It’s great to see a Catholic try to run ot science to excuse his church’s failure. Funny how this god is so impotent when it comes to humans. This god, who supposedly killed all sorts of people for disobeying it, can’t kill these raping priests in its own “house”. We also have Catholics like the author here who want to claim that their god has a “plan” for sex, but doesn’t like to remember that this god wants *everyone* to be celibate but just failed to make that happen from the get go in Eden. This isn’t a very smart god who makes humans to do what he knows that they will do, and then either intentionally or from stupidity, allows Satan into the “garden”.
    Our author also appeals to statistics but can’t present them. That’s no surprise at all.
    Evolutionary theory isn’t cosmology or abiogenesis, and our author is evidently too lazy to actually learn about any of these, preferring willful ignorance. Evolutionary theory and genetics do show that there were not two people we all descended from. Our author has to remain willfully ignorant since knowing about evolutionary theory would show him that we didn’t descend from apes, we shared a common ancestor. Thee is nothing in the genesis story that says that Adam and Eve “adapted” to anything. Our author is trying to run to science to make his fairy stories sound more true. We didn’t evolve from a “blog of tissue” either. It’s sad that a Christian chooses to intentionally lie, ignoring his bible when it says that lies, even supposed “for” this god, are bad (Romans 3).
    #4. Our author also tries the excuse that we shouldn’t expect this god to work against evil and that his god isn’t a “genie”. Alas, for our author, the bible says that this god will prevent harm from coming to its followers. It also says that this god did not give anyone free will, but this god picks and chooses who can accept it and who cannot, damning those who cannot accept it for no fault of their own (Romans 9). This god repeatedly mind controls people, including the Pharoah, the Egyptian people, and forces humans to work with Satan (Revelation 17).
    There is nothing in the bible that says that this god gave us free will so we could love this god. It says that we are to obey this god, that’s all. And as above, we cannot love this god freely per Paul. Unfortunately for our author, like him, many Christians have no idea what is actually in the bible they claim to rever.
    Per the eden story, the cause of evil is because this god either intentionally let Satan in or wasn’t smart enough to keep it out. This god allowed the second most powerful being in the universe in to be around two humans who knew nothing at all, not even what good and evil were, and that it might be evil to disobey this god. No supernatural answer is needed, since god doesn’t exist and “evil” exists because humans aren’t perfect.
    #5. “The Church is not a place that celebrates only equality but also rejoices in inequality and the fact that God made us differently, calling us to different missions.” Yep, the Church celebrates how it attacks people who don’t agree with it, and its Bronze/Iron Age morality and laws. This Church revels in a set of books written by ignorant men who made up a god that agree with their ignorance. Of course, humans have consistently remade the parts of the Church they find inconvenient over the millenia, since their god evidently mumbles and they keep having to “reinterpret” what it really meant.

    Wow, if these are supposed to be great answers to atheists, this god needs to find better employees.

    Like

    1. Thanks for the comment Clubschadenfreude. You make a lot of new arguments that will require a new post to respond to. Statistics and studies don’t really need to be presented here because I considered intelligent people would be capable of understanding that it’s general knowledge. 150 million were murdered in the 20th century alone. 1.5 million were killed in the crusades most of which were soldiers on both sides not to mention those who died from diseas. Less than 5000 lives were lost prior to the inquisition which was over a span of 300 years. There are other wars here and there involving religion but when one adds them all up it’s plain to see that they come nowhere near as close as the 150 million killed in the name of Atheism in the 20th century. All your other responses add up to nothing but, for the benefit of my readers, it’s important I do another post at a later date responding to these false claims.

      Thanks for the comment, be sure to follow the blog and keep up to date with future posts and topics regarding the unintelligent choice of atheism.

      Like

      1. “Statistics and studies don’t really need to be presented here because I considered intelligent people would be capable of understanding that it’s general knowledge. ”
        It is not “general knowledge”, it is nonsense you’ve made up and are trying to pass off as the truth.

        Yep, lots of people were killed in the 20th century, thanks to more people and better weapons. Not because of atheism. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. And since most atheists dont’ want to commit genocide, your attempt to equate atheism with genocide is simply a lie. As I stated, the only commonality is that the leaders were megalomaniacs.

        I know that atheists frighten theists like you since we are evidence that your claims aren’t true at all. One doesn’t have to believe in your particular god to be happy or moral. We don’t have to have sadistic fantasies about heaven and hell. And my arguments are quite worthwhile but you have to claim tht they are “nothing” with no evidence to support that claim at all.

        I will be following your blog, just to see if you keep on with your nonsense. Watching a Christian go out of his way to lie is always interesting.

        Like

      2. Of course it’s general knowledge, many historians back up the numbers. This is research at your fingertips and I suggest you investigate further as I’m not interested in doing the donkey work for you.

        Your arguments are worthwhile responding to but it will take another future blog post to respond to as I’m interested in a tit for tat debate in the comment section. My time would be better invested in developing a new post that would be of benefit to my readers.

        Atheists don’t frighten me at all. I assure you that I sleep soundly at night knowing that something, could never have come from nothing.

        I didn’t get notification you followed the blog. Are you sure you’re following? Only way to keep up on all the future topics regarding the unintelligent arguments of Atheism.

        Like

      3. You made the claims, the burden of proof is on you. You said this “Finally, statistics have proven that more paedophiles happen to be in same-sex households and heterosexual ones as opposed to the priesthood.”

        So where is the research?

        we have this research that shows your claims aren’t true at all:

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4478390/

        https://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

        https://www.patheos.com/blogs/tippling/2017/06/30/catholic-clergy-likely-paedophiles-general-public/ follow the links

        No one has to officially follow you to see what you post. Reality doesn’t work like that.

        Like

      4. These aren’t proofs that there’s more pedos in the Church than in the world. One article you site merely discusses paedophilia, the second discusses the relationship between homosexuality and paedophilia (I never argued that all homosexuals are pedos only that some turn out to be). The last article you site merely argues Pope Francis claims that only 2% of pedos are found in the Church. This is, of course, going to be contested by people who hate the Church. It is then up to people to choose who they’re going to listen to according to their conscience. Pope Francis chosen 2% is by many experts in the field, considered to be an accurate number because that’s the percentage for most institutions of large proportion.

        Nope, you’ve no proof there at all, just two irrelevant links and one link of a biased contest. Not much to go on there at all.

        Like

      5. Still no evidence from Steve. It’s no surprise, Steve, that you said this “Finally, statistics have proven that more paedophiles happen to be in same-sex households and heterosexual ones as opposed to the priesthood. ”

        and then when I gave you evidence that there are no more pedophiles in gay and straight housholds than in the church, you now try to lie about what showed you. It’s so cute to see a TrueChristian intentionally lie.

        You again make claims about “experts” but again you can’t show that anyone agrees with the 2% claim. Just more fantasies from Steve.

        Keep going Steve, you do a great job at showing that your god really needs better help these days.

        Like

    1. Rejoicing in the idea of inequality doesn’t mean you’re inferior to anyone only that we are different in many respects. The Church you went to that teaches women are inferior to men got it wrong. In my church we rejoice not only in our equality before God, but also in the different ways he made us both biologically and psychologically. Thanks for the comment.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. The book I have is the same, but the interpretation of that Book isn’t. It’s very easy for anyone to pick up the Bible and start shredding it with their inexperienced self interpretation whether they be believer of unbeleiver.

        Some people look at verses and assume them to be toxic but if not read within context over other passages or the Churches official interpretation, then of course they’re going to look toxic.

        I used to think like that also, until I read and investigated what my Church actually believes.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Finding truth requires humility and not looking at the scriptures in whichever way you desire. In my Catholic faith, the Bishops directly ordained by the apostles have interpretated the scriptures the way they should be. This unified interpreation becomes official. In order to accept that one must have faith and be willing to investigate throughly what they’re reading verses what the actual apostles and their successors taught.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. So if I have a group that throughly looks through stories of the Greek gods and say, finds stories that are consistent with each other, and they spend months or maybe years aground over how it should be interpreted, does that then make the story true?

        Also thank you for being willing to have this discussion with me, I know sometimes these things can be hard.

        Liked by 1 person

      4. No because the men I’m talking about saw the risen Christ, their successors who didn’t are directly trained by them. Therefore the source should be greatly trusted. The question for you is whether or not you have faith in Christ, his apostles and successors witness or not. If you don’t then it makes it more difficult to arrive to faith on the matter. It’s not an easy road, I’ve been there. If you look at my most recent post on the existence of God I talk about the intellect and the will. I really think this will help.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.