Well
that's depressing.
Not at all. Every reward (or punishment) that you get comes from your own permission. I mean, what can be depressing about that?
There's nothing wrong with speculation. The problem is when someone declares that speculation to be immutable truth and is prepared to commit acts of violence to defend it.
Acts of violence, themselves, contradict the moral imperatives of the church. That your speculation of religion results in acts of violence says so much about the quality of speculation being done, no?
Theologians use reason, but only within the boundaries of their faith. They begin with certain assumptions, such as the truth of the Bible
Take note -- catholics believe that god's self-revelation is an ON-GOING process. It simply doesn't make any sense that god stopped bridging the gap to humanity 2000 years ago.
and the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent deity. The problem is that these assumptions are largely unfounded. They are what you call "axioms," and what I call "myths."
How can you call something mythical if you have not even provided any credible proof against the arguments provided?
Isn't that faith?
I'm sorry but I simply have not time speculating about how many angels can stand on a pinhead or some such nonsense that some catholics in the very distant past indulged in. I do not think that is at all necessary for my faith in the more logical dogma of catholicism.
I haven't had the opportunity to read all of it, though I'll try to get around to it. One argument I did notice was the First Cause Argument. I think the problem here is that God is left without a cause. If something is going to be uncaused, it may as well be the universe rather than a hypothetical intelligent entity.
If the entire universe has no cause, then parts of it have no cause as well, no? But we already know that everything follows cause and effect.
Take the thought experiment of democritus, for instance. At some point, matter becomes indivisible, since one cannot divide a finite thing into an infinitely many pieces of nothing. To say otherwise results in the banach-tarski paradox.
Some people seem to take those things awfully literally. Perhaps Catholicism doesn't actually teach that miracles can occur in cheese sandwiches, or that demonic possession is real, but the church doesn't seem to be making much effort to straighten people out.
Demonic possessions, undoubtedly, cause the church some embarassment. Certainly, it is cause for a huge amount of skepticism, even ridicule.
But, to reject the WHOLE BODY OF KNOWLEDGE the church has been accumulating for 2000 years on this ground alone, is BASELESS. It is supreme arrogance that can only come from a mind that is fundamentally ignorant.