THE TRUTH ABOUT RELIGION
BOOK 3
1000-WORD EXCERPT

CATHOLICS LIBERAL
At crucial times, at the crux of issues, at pivotal points, the liberal Catholic will simply deny plain and obvious scriptural passages that refute his whole line of reasoning, and will heedlessly assert that black is white, in order to keep his theological house of cards from falling down.

Example Sister Beverly says that she certainly doesn't think that non-Christians are dammed. But the Bible clearly says they are. Jesus says in John 3:18 that those who do not believe are condemned. How could the language be any plainer? How can you claim that what it says is not what it means? Then what the heck does it mean? The opposite? Anything you want? How can you say it means "white" when it says "black"?

Aaahhh, you claim that Jesus did not necessarily say those words, that it is more likely that the writer is saying that, pushing his own particular attitude and agenda, given the sociopolitical setting of his time.

Well, in that case, Jesus must have been an extraordinarily poor communicator, to not get such an important issue across clearly. He relentlessly preached tolerance, yet his spokesmen are preaching intolerance in his name? How strange.

What kind of divine guidance other than utterly useless divine guidance can it be that leads a biblical writer to put words into the mouth of Jesus that express the exact opposite of what you claim Jesus actually preached?

I think it is very clear that Jesus preached God's ultimate intolerance towards unbelievers. Mark 6:11 "And whoever will not receive you nor hear you [the apostles] it will be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city." The liberal has no justification whatsoever to claim Jesus didn't really say or mean that.

Another example of heedlessly asserting that black means white Sister Beverly accepts the infallibly taught doctrine of the Church that Mary was assumed bodily into Heaven. But she doesn't take it literally.

"Bodily" means literally! She is just ignoring what it says. She claims she doesn't have to accept anything the Church says as absolute, except the very rare infallible pronouncements, and then she turns around and says, in effect, she doesn't have to believe in those either! And yet she considers herself a Catholic. That is not intellectually honest in my view.

I agree with moderate Catholic philosopher Peter Kreeft, who says you are not a party member if you deny the essential planks of its platform.



EX-CATHOLICS
MIKE: And so being the very anal retentive type, especially as a kid, I figured, well, it had been like three or four years since my last confession, so I figured that's 1400 days. I'm going to have to have a lot of numbers to give this guy. And I went through all the commandments. I broke them all, I told him I committed adultery, I didn't know what adultery was, I committed adultery 600 times because I figured out of 1400 days I didn't know what I was saying. And you figure maybe he would be laughing at this, cause he was a fairly young priest, but he gave me holy hell. Pardon the pun.

So the final day, if you didn't choose someone to go have confession with on the last day, then you were assigned someone. It's almost like having a public defender assigned to you. So they gave me this old priest, he just celebrated his 99th birthday I think that week.

MICKEY: Now this is going to be your last confession?

MIKE: Yeah, of the retreat. And I went in reluctantly, and this is also the time when they were making the confessional experience more user friendly. You would sit in a chair and talk to the priest much like you and I are doing, rather than talking through the screen like they used to have in the confessionals years ago.

So he says, sit down. And I sat down, and he says, would you like me to hear your confession now? And I said, to be honest, Father, I wouldn't.



ATHEISTS
MICKEY: I was talking to a Catholic philosopher, and he was talking about a "great big Pascal's wager," where you have all the major religions, and you figure that with Hinduism and Buddhism and others you don't have that much to lose, because there is no Hell. So your best bet is to go with Christianity.

DAN BARKER: That kind of an argument is suggesting that you should pick the religion that has the worst Hell in it, because you have the most to lose. But I think the Islamic Hell is a bit worse than the Christian Hell.

But I mean, what a silly way to think. Suppose I invent a religion that has the worst possible Hell ever. Is everybody supposed to convert to my religion now because they have the most to lose?

MICKEY: Well, he said that in that case, if there is some small group of only 13 people that believe in the worst Hell, he is not going to give it much credibility.

DAN: Why not? There were only 13 when Jesus started.

MICKEY: Oh, yeah, that's right! Ha, ha. I should have come back with that. That's right.

DAN: If Pascal's wager is valid, and we should pick the religion that we have the most to lose from, not believing, then, at its core, isn't that really an argument from intimidation? I mean isn't that really an argument from violence? Like I take you out in the back alley, and I say, listen, you better join my religion or I'm going to beat you up. And you say, oh, well, I guess I better join.

Any ideology that has to make its point by threatening violence or by intimidating people is morally bankrupt. I ought not to believe in Christianity on the basis that it is morally bankrupt if it includes a concept such as Hell in it.

MICKEY: Yeah, good point.