The one time he allows for a persons life experience, he gets it wrong.

"My mom is Catholic and she believes in hell" is absolutely NOT a valid response to "Catholics don't believe in hell". For someone who believes in data, that's a terrible response. It's a sample size of one out of over 1 billion. And if you were to dig up the canonical Catholic teaching on hell, that STILL wouldn't be the right data (the argument was "Catholics don't believe in hell", not "Catholicism does not teach the concept of hell". Even if you were to say "actually every Catholic I know believes in hell" that's still not a valid argument, unless you know thousands of Catholics.

I've lost a lot of respect for Sam Harris over the years and this just reinforces that.

Of course, data is important, especially when it comes to things like whether vaccines cause autism (they don't).

But if you're talking about things like how police treat black people or whether women are paid less in the workplace... the life experience of those people are a vital part of the data, especially when the data isn't clear cut.

FFS, I'm not trying to make an argument. As for watching the video, that wasn't a waste of my time, it was entertaining and informative unlike the article which was desperately trying to excuse an awful situation.

But fine, you want an argument? Let's do this.

"If one doesn't want the very small set of restrictions that go with some (not all) religiously affiliated hospitals, don't go there. One does have a choice."

You have that backwards. If you don't provide all the services required of a hospital, you don't get to call yourself a fucking hospital.

How would you feel if there was a Jehovahs Witness hospital that didn't do blood transfusions? Or a Christian Science hospital that refused to do medical treatment?
Both of those are real world examples where people died.

There's a big bloody difference between "not equipped" and "unwilling". In a local area, there might be several smaller medical facilities, but finding two major care centres across the road from each other is pretty rare.

And it's a bit fucking rich to bring up false equivalencies when you just compared unavailability of potential life-saving medical treatment to someone whinging over not getting a big mac at kfc.

As for the article:

"First, Bee ignores the fact that Catholic teaching on human life and reproduction is a fundamental, longstanding tradition of the Church, passed down from one generation to the next for centuries. "

Irrelevant. Next...

"But Catholic priests, bishops, and cardinals don’t give “reproductive advice”; they articulate the truth about human life and reproductive ethics in accord with Catholic teaching."

Really? They "articulate the truth"... as I said before, this is self-evidently complete and utter fucking bullshit.

"the claim that women will be without care if they are refused service at a Catholic hospital."
Er, even the article acknowledges that Bee understands this point and makes the point that in an emergency situation, you go to the nearest available centre that can treat you.

"This is another straw man. In most cases, when women want a particular reproductive service, they have ample time to locate and attend a non-Catholic hospital. "

Yes, and in most cases, people do. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE FUCKING TALKING ABOUT.

"Even in the few emergency situations — which Bee presents as if they are the vast majority of cases"

No, she really doesn't.

"Though it sometimes might be inconvenient for a woman to travel to a non-Catholic hospital, the inconvenience surely does not outweigh the importance of conscience rights, which demand that Catholic hospitals not be forced to provide procedures that Catholicism deems morally wrong."

Yes, "inconvenient" is exactly the right word for a woman who is probably in the middle of the worst day of her life.
I mean, she might end up "inconveniently" dead, but hey, we wouldn't want to stop catholics telling other people how to live, would we?

"In reality, a direct abortion (in which a doctor intentionally kills a child) is never medically necessary to save a mother’s life. If a woman is having a miscarriage, having her child killed in an abortion will do nothing to improve her health or save her life."

And here we come to strawman of all strawmen. The problem is NOT that a woman needs a "direct abortion", it's that she may a surgical procedure that kills the child inadvertently. And this isn't theoretical, women have died from this.

The fundamental point is that religion has no place in medicine. If a patient wishes to refuse certain treatments because of their beliefs, well, they're an idiot, but it's their choice to be an idiot.

But a hospital doesn't get to refuse treatment based on some bronze-age belief. If the treatment is legal in its jurisdiction and they have the capability to provide it, they must provide it. Businesses should not be allowed to refuse service on religious grounds ("I am religiously opposed to treating gay people or blacks!!")

As you said yourself "If you don't like it, go work somewhere else".

That is mostly quite interesting. Though, it's bizarre that he declares a belief in free will more hopeful than a belief in determinism. Of course determinists think that people can change, they do it all the time. When or why a particular person will change might be unknowable, the determist merely argues there was a cause.

This is vastly more hopeful than Catholicism, the central miracle of which relies on the pernicious belief in hereditary guilt.

Very, very interesting -- thanks for the sift!

I'd love to see more, specifically about the US / Cuba talks and the Pope's involvement. As an atheist, I tend to think of Catholicism / the Pope / organized religion in general as generally having a primarily negative influence on world affairs (Crusades, Inquisition, birth control, anti-condoms, molestation, homophobia, etc.), but negotiating peace and better relations between the US and Cuba is a pretty undeniably positive thing.

I knew Latin American countries were highly Catholic, but I kinda figured that some of the USSR anti-religious stance would have rubbed off on Cuba. I guess maybe it did, but the missile crisis and fall of the Berlin wall / end of the cold war was long enough ago that Cuba has greater freedom to make up their own minds on this sort of thing.

Enough so that perhaps the Pope's involvement was necessary, or at least very helpful, to act as a mediator between the two sides. Props where props are due.

Anyway, all quite interesting.

@ChaosEngine

Do you honestly believe that we can't oppose things like institutional rape without reference to this single recent ideology? This is equivalent with the idea that humanity only learned theft and murder were wrong when Moses turned up waving the ten commandments at the israelites. It's lucky God clued us in when he did or we'd all still be unabashedly robbing and killing each other today.

Feminists might use the definition you mentioned, when it suits them. Of course they do; they're the popular faction: ideologues always want to fold all notions of moral goodness into their particular cult. Catholicism was the same way when they were the only game in town.

You yourself don't even use that definition, you can't because no one can. Look at the first couple of comments you made on this video. It's impossible to read them as dealing with a basic concept rather than what feminism actually is, which is a complex modern movement that certainly postdates the suffragettes.

If feminism is strictly the concept of equality for women, then feminism has been around FOREVER and until in historical terms about five minutes ago, according to you, 'didn't have any noticeable effect'.

There may have been smart people, but they didn't have any noticeable effect.

Seriously, do you know when raping your wife became a crime in the UK (a relatively progressive country)? 1991. I was 14. I remember seeing it on the news and being shocked.

It is still legal to rape your wife in large parts of the world. (yes, some of that is disputed, point still stands).

Not sure what you mean by "the modern era"? Women were certainly working, and have been since the dawn of man. Ruling empires? Occasionally, but only ever because their fathers were kings/emperors. Victoria might have ruled over the British empire, but if she was a commoner, she couldn't even have voted. NZ was the first country to extend the vote to women in 1893. Suffragettes are still considered to be "first wave feminists" (although I dislike the whole "xth wave" terminology).

And no, I wouldn't accept that argument, because helping the poor, treating each other with understanding, etc are not uniquely Catholic concepts; they're not even the core concepts of Catholicism. In fact, Catholics have been historically pretty goddamn awful on the whole " treating each other with understanding" front.

OTOH, feminism is, again by definition, the concept of equality for women.

@SDGundamX

We can criticise religion generally - for it's falsehood, for it's stultifying effect on the mind, for the shadow the faithful cast over an enlightened world.

We can criticise religions individually - for the divine exhortations to genocide in each of the abrahamic canons, for the promise of infinite torture by a benevolent god in both christianity and islam, for their arbitrary or bigoted taboos, and particularly of the newer creeds - islam, mormonism, scientology - for what we know to be the bad character of their founders.

And, as you say, we can criticise the behaviours of individual believers, communities or sects - catholicism on condoms and the spread of aids, genital mutilation in africa (which you're quite right to point out has cultural roots that pre-date islam, though it would be disingenuous to claim religion has no reinforcing or propagating effect on that practice).

I wholly disagree that this last is the only or most meaningful critique to offer of religion. There are fundamental tenets of these ideologies on which all their denominations, however fractured, can be said to agree.

Allow these people their diversity, their specificity and their subtle variation of interpretation and you're in danger of chasing a thousand little fish at once, in a thousand different directions, while the religious school as a whole shifts, shimmers, dazzles and slips away. I prefer to play the dolphin pack: surrounding, corralling, squeezing and finally devouring the enemy entire.

Hitchens.

Watch the debate on Catholicism with Hitchens and Fry on one side and a bishop and an idiot politicians on the other. The pro-catholic side are so unbelievably outclassed it's not even a contest.

To everyone else... Gay Byrne deserves a lot of credit.

He was host of the Late Late Show in Ireland for decades and during that time he presided over some incredibly contentious debates on a number of issues in Irish society (contraception, homosexuality, divorce, abortion, child abuse, the north, political corruption, etc.). Looking back it was a slightly bizarre mix of Letterman, Bill Maher and Questions and Answers on the BBC. Despite the fact that Byrne himself would be a reasonably mainstream guy, he IMO hosted the debates fairly (and frankly, considerably better than most modern debate shows).

He's explained several times why he tends to focus on Muslim fundamentalist failings when arguing about good and bad with westerners. That's because if he were to bring up an example of a perhaps damaging dogma from Catholicism, there would be an argument if it were really bad, and that isn't the argument he wants to have. Instead, he talks about something absurd like the death penalty for apostasy, which we can usually accept as 'bad' and move on to the meat of his discussion.

If you consider him a racist, you're likely part of the left's overly active auto-immune disorder regarding racism, or you really haven't listened to or understood him. Criticising a world view is not exactly the same as racism. Especially if that world view is shared by several different races!

That's not what he's saying at all.

The bible, or the Quran, or many other texts, just like historical events as they were, or works of literature, or other even historical texts as complex as this often have contradictory ideas. The US constitution is founded on a set of beliefs and ideas that almost all of us subscribe to, yet there are Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Socialists, pragmatists, etc. all deriving very different ideas from the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and more. The reason this is true is because those values often come into conflict, and can outright contradict each other. Freedom vs security, equality vs prosperity, I could go on and on.

With the Bible, you have Catholics, Protestants, subdivided into a plethora of different religions in their own right under the umbrella of Christianity. You have the running joke even within Catholicism that American Catholics aren't really Catholics at all. Not only do different Christians interpret the bible differently, the amount they count on the bible varies between fundamentalists like Jehovah's Witnesses who take the bible extremely literally to extremely secular Christians who have absolutely no problem discarding any part of Christian doctrines when scientific evidence proves otherwise.

You have Christians who act as saintly as Mother Theresa to mobsters.

That's just Christianity. There are extremist Islamic groups that sound more like the Westboro Baptist Church than other Muslims.

But within Christianity, there's "honor thy mother and thy father" and "thou shall not kill". What if your parents are murderers?

That's a crude, and obvious example of conflicting values, but the 10 commandments are simple rules that don't completely resolve every situation.

What's stupid is to believe that you can know about a person's specific ideology just by their religion. Does their religion play a role in their ideology? Absolutely, but how it impacted their ideology has much more to do with their experiences, their natural tendancies, etc. than necessarily their religion. If you grew up in a mob family, honor thy mother and father was more likely the lesson you took from the Bible than thou shall not kill.

And if you look around you, this is plainly obvious. Even look within yourself. We're all a melting pot of lessons and ideas we've learned from school, personal life experiences, our religious beliefs, our parents, our socio-economic backgrounds, our friends, etc. That's why you are different from everyone of your religion, your friends, who you went to school with, your socioeconomic class, etc.

It would follow, therefore, that everyone would choose their religion according to their own temperament and there would be no regional grouping of belief.

Would you say, for example, that catholicism in ireland has had no effect on its prevailing culture and no part in the various atrocities that culture has inflicted on the people unfortunate enough to be born into it?

Islam is particularly poorly placed to distance itself from the actions of its adherents. It's a common, but not really excusable, error to generalise from christianity's 'contradictory mess' and necessity of invention in interpretation to what in reality is islam's lamentably direct instructions to its followers.

The difference between countries like turkey and saudi arabia, though turkey's hardly a shining beacon of freedom, is secularity and proximity to more enlightened neighbours. Arguing that some muslims are like this and some muslims are like that is preposterously mendacious when the mean truth is: the less religious people are, the more ethical they are.

Jesus loves you and I love you. This is an extremely long post and I apologize. I am writing for anyone who is interested in critically examining the arguments Sam Harris makes and contrasting it to the actual truth as presented by the scripture. Sam has distorted this truth and the entire video is basically one long strawman argument.. I think that is you are going to utterly condemn something you should at least make a cursory effort to understand it. That's just me. I invite you guys to learn more about the scripture so that you can know the truth for yourself:

http://www.amazon.com/How-Read-Bible-All-Worth/dp/0310246040/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1360718403&sr=1-2&keywords=how+to+understand+the+bible

I'll answer some points..

Sam: The point of Christianity is to safeguard the eternal well being of eternal souls

You could perhaps categorize this as the main point, but there are many points to Christianity. I don't want to split hairs here; I am agreeing with Sam essentially but I just want to expand on it a bit. The main point of Christianity is to declare the gospel of Jesus Christ. That's what Jesus said when He began His ministry: "repent and believe the gospel". The gospel is that Jesus Christ, God in the flesh, came to Earth to live as one of us. Though He did not sin, He took all of our sins upon Himself on the cross so that we could be forgiven and have eternal life. The point of Christianity is Jesus, and having a personal relationship with Him. Everyone who comes to know Jesus will be born again and become a new person. There are many other points to this but I will stop here.

Sam: 9 million children die every year

Yes, this is true but most of these children, if not all of them, will be going to Heaven. Not one of them have been forgotten by God or will suffer an unjust fate. There is an age of accountability for every person, and it is different for every person. It all depends on the revelation God has given each particular person and their response to it. It is fairly certain though that most if not all children under the age of 12 will make it to Heaven automatically.

Sam in discussing the dying children brings up the problem of evil..which has been sufficiently answered by Plantigas free will defense:

http://videosift.com/video/Since-Evil-Suffering-Exist-A-Loving-God-Cannot

Sam mentions the grief of the parents and that their unanswered prayers are part of Gods plan..

First of all, God answers every prayer, He just doesn't always answer yes. An example of a prayer God answered no to was when Jesus was in the garden of gethsemane and was asking the Father to let Him bypass the cross. Though it surely grieved His heart, He answered no to that prayer. He answered no because He was esteeming us more than Himself, which is what sacrificial love looks like. A key part of the prayer of Jesus was "never the less, not my will, but your will".

Christians do not pray to the exclusion of Gods will. we don't necessarily know what is best for us, but we trust God that He knows, and so we always pray that His will be done, even above what may seem needful for me at that time.

--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------

I will also address the grief. The fact of the matter is, the scripture makes it very clear that Christians will suffer grief and loss on a constant basis:

Matthew 24:9

Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me.

1 Peter 4:12 Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened to you:

1 Peter 4:16 Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.

--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------

Look at Pauls testimony:

1 Corinthians 11:24-28

Are they servants of Christ? (I am out of my mind to talk like this.) I am more. I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again.

Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one.

Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea,

I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my own countrymen, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false brothers.

I have labored and toiled and have often gone without sleep; I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked.

Besides everything else, I face daily the pressure of my concern for all the churches.

If you read Foxes Book of the Martyrs (http://www.ccel.org/f/foxe/martyrs/home.html) you will see that Christians are no strangers to suffering and grief. It is clearly taught in His word it will happen, which makes this argument have no weight at all and is simply a strawman.

Sam said that any God who would allow pain either can do nothing or doesnt care to so He is either impotent or evil

This is simply a false dichotomy. God may allow pain for a good reason, which is for the greater good. I'll give you an example:

This is Nick Vujicic, a man with no arms and no legs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXlCeKBWfaA

He is a motivational speaker and he has traveled around the world and inspired millions. Pretty much anyone who has a problem can relate to this man because Nick has overcome his extreme adversity with grace and he finds joy in his daily life. If God had answered Nicks prayer to be healed, then millions of people would have been robbed of the fruit that overcoming his adversity bore in his life. This is an example of how God can use pain for a greater good.

Sam asks what about all those who are praying to the wrong God, through no fault of their own..that they missed the revelation

This is just simply false..Sam seems to think that there are no reasonable answer to these questions when the real problem is his ignorance of Christian theology.

Romans 1:18-21

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

The word of God states that every man coming into the world is given light, and that God makes it clear to them one way or the other that He exists. Every man, woman and child dying after the age of accountability and heading towards hell had received a personal revelation from God as to His existence. How they responded to that light determined what Gods next move was. If they had responded in the affirmitive, He could have then opened the door for them to know Jesus and be saved. Since they responded in the negative, they did not receive any further revelation and died in their sins.

So again Sam creates a strawman argument when he says that they missed the revelation through no fault of their own. The truth is that they received the revelation and rejected it. He also made it sound like people are just randomly born into the world when what the scripture says is that God appoints the times and places for every human being. There are no accidents about where you are born; it is simply that God is not limited by time and space. He is omnipresent and not limited to any particular locality.

Sam accused God creating the cultural isolation of the hindus - of orchaestrating their ignorance

The truth is that in the beginning all men knew God and that over time as men formed nations they moved farther and farther away from the truth about God and invented their own gods to worship. The hindus isolated themselves, though again this is not a limitation on God. He has reached out to every hindu who has ever lived and the ones who ended up in hell are the ones who rejected Him. You have to push past the love, grace and mercy of God to get to hell.

Sam mentions how a serial killer could get saved while an innocent perishes elsewhere:

What the bible says is this:

Romans 3:23

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

There aren't any innocents over the age of accountability. The man who has cheated on his wife is equally guilty in Gods eyes as the man who murdered his wife. What God calls good is not a relative standard like human beings use, as we compare ourselves to eachother and think we are good people because we haven't done the big two (rape, murder). What God calls good is moral perfection and what He calls evil is everything that falls short of that, even one sin. He also says that if you hate someone you have murdered them in your heart and you are a murderer at heart. Sam does not appear to understand what the bible says Gods standards actually are.

Sam said that there is absolutely nothing in Christianity to do with moral accountability

Again, this is false. What the bible says is that we're morally accountable to God for every sin we've ever committed, and your conscience will tell you that. It is not other people we have offended, it is God Almighty. What Sam seems to have a problem with is Gods absolute standard for moral accountability versus his relative standard (which conveniently excuses his sins against God)

Sam said there is a conflict between God being intrinsically good and what he describes as the "visitation of cruel unjust suffering on innocent people"

I've already answered this by point out there are no innocent people over the age of accountability. I would also like to add that God created a perfect world, and the reason there is sin in this world is because of mankind. The reason the world is the way it is today is exclusively because of the daily crimes of humanity (can you even begin to imagine the amount of evil that transpires on planet earth in one day?) and not because God wanted it that way.

Sam says it is a cop out to say God is mysterious and then use merely human understanding to establish goodness

Actually, what Sam has done here is create a distorted image of God by twisting or ignoring what the scripture says about Him, and the fate of human beings. Then he points to this grotesque image to condemn the true and living God who is in fact perfectly good. The truth is that His goodness is upheld entirely when you are looking at the true God through a sound understanding of scripture and not the distorted image Sam has created of Him.

Sam says its a cop out to be told God is mysterious to justify untold suffering

He is right here, it is a cop-out..and anyone making such an argument has a weak understanding of the bible. Gods will for us is actually no mystery; God makes it crystal clear what He expects from His creation, and kinds of things we will face. He is even gracious enough to tell us what will happen in the future, thousands of years in advance:

http://www.christadelphianals.org/bible_prophecy.htm

Sam says it is utter hubris and even reprehensible to think you're special because "God loves me don't you know"

Yet even little children understand that no one is worthy to be pardoned for their sins and no one can make it into Heaven on their own. There is absolutely no difference between me and anyone else except for one thing; I said yes to God, and some others say no. I am not worthy, in fact I am decidedly unworthy and I deserve the exact same punishment as everyone else does; the difference is that I accept the free gift of grace that Jesus offers upon the cross. God proved His love for all people on the cross, and He died for every single person, not just me. Jesus loves you more than you can understand.

Sam says it is morally reprehensible for Christians to drudge up some trivial circumstance God took care of while completely ignoring the suffering of other human beings

Sam is right about this and it is a complete shame to Christians everywhere that the western church is so materialistic and base in their feelings. Jesus called us to live a life of total sacrifice and to give up everything we have. I can tell you that God is even more appalled than Sam is about this issue.

Sam asserted that the bible supports slavery

This is false; the bible does not support slavery. Slavery as we understand it today is not the same as it was in the time this was written. In those times it was more of a profession and people would sell themselves into slavery so they could have food and shelter. The bible regulated these activities, but it also said that there was no difference between master and slave and that we are all equal in Christ Jesus. I will also point out that modern slavery was ended by Christians.

Sam says that the bible admonishes us to kill people for witchcraft

No, it does not admonish Christians to kill witches, or anyone else. There is no commandment for any Christians to murder anyone. It is true, however, that in the time of the Old Covenant, God set up laws for Israel which were very strictly enforced with the punishment of death. This was not anything that He ever imposed on the world, or any other people except the Jews. He also did not impose it on them: the Jews made a covenant with God to obey all of His laws, so that He would be their God, and they would be His people.

Sam says that there is absolutely nothing anyone can say against Muslims if they prayed to the right God

The God of the bible is not morally inconsistant, whereas the god of the muslims is.

Sam said Christianity is what only lunatics could believe on their own

The bible says this:

1 Corinthians 1:18

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

The scripture itself says that unsaved people will find the message of the cross foolish. This is the evidence that you are perishing. The things of the Spirit of God are foolish to the natural man, neither can he understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Sam made a little quip about catholicism

While I am sure there are saved catholics, the church itself departed from the true teachings of Jesus a long time ago.. There is also no teaching in the scripture regarding the Eucharist.

Sam said its very strange salvation depends bad evidence

God gives everyone good evidence that He exists but they suppress the truth. God reveals Himself through personal revelation. You cannot know God otherwise.

Sam says Christianity is a cult of human sacrifice

Jesus wasn't sacrificed against His will:

John 10:18

No one can take my life from me. I sacrifice it voluntarily. For I have the authority to lay it down when I want to and also to take it up again. For this is what my Father has commanded."

He gave His life just as firemen have given their lives trying to save people from a burning building. Jesus didn't have to go to the cross but He did it out of love for us:

John 15:13

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

Sam says the bible doesnt repudiate human sacrifice, that it celebrates it

Actually, it does repudiate it in many locations. The practice of sacrificing humans was utterly condemned in scripture. Jesus voluntarily giving Himself for the sins of the world does not resemble what Sam is implying even superficially.

Sam states that people used to bury children under the foundation of buildings and then says "these are the sorts of people who wrote the bible"

The kind of people who wrote the bible were eye witnesses to the life death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. They did not bury children under foundations; they followed the true and living God.

Sam said that if there is a less moral moral framework he hadn't heard of it

As he has presented it, most certainly, but the problem is that he largely invented it from his misunderstanding of Christian theology and personal prejudices.

The true question is this: are you an honest or dishonest skeptic? If you're an honest skeptic you will investigate, but a dishonest skeptic doesn't want to know. You will have to admit that you do not know whether God answers prayer or not, so here is a possible clue to knowledge:

Pray this: God, I don't know if you're there or not, and I don't know if the bible is your word or not. I am asking you to reveal the truth to me, and if you do, I promise to follow it where ever it leads. If it leads to Jesus, I will give my life to Him and follow Him.

After praying this, read the gospel of John. Read it slowly, a little at a time, each time beforehand praying that God will give you revelation concerning what you're reading. If you do this, by the time you reach the end of the gospel your skepticism will have grown wings and flown away.

God bless.

Well Sluice, here is the problem. The catholic church teaches you that to follow God, you must do it through their church. In other words, they have made themselves the mediator between God and man. They have also supplanted the truth in the word of God with their traditions. They actually put the Pope, the traditions of the church, and the scripture on an equal level. So, to be a Catholic you must follow all of their traditions, agree with everything the pope says, do all of the sacraments, go to confession, etc etc etc. The issue is that none of this has anything to do salvation. You cannot come to know God by doing any of these things. So while you may have been talking to God, that doesn't mean you knew Him. To know God you have to be born again. This is what Jesus says about those seeking Him through traditions:

Mark 7:7

They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.'

It's like this. If you needed to get to Los Angeles, and you took a plane to New York, would you expect to arrive at Los Angeles? Of course not. Trying to know God through Catholicism is like trying to reach Los Angeles by flying to New York. There are some Catholics, who, having read the bible and understood it, may have come to know God, but this would be in spite of their religion, not because of it.

Now, you bring up the question of why do some ministers fall away? Well, anyone can go to seminary and get a degree and call themselves a pastor. That isn't what makes someone a Pastor. Pastors are not educated, they are called.

Yes, some people may come to know God and still fall away. Look at what Jesus said:

Rev 3:14 "And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: 'The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God's creation.'

Rev 3:15 "'I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot!

Rev 3:16 So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.

He promised the church in Laodicea that He would eject lukewarm believers from the faith. For those who know God and continually willfully sin, He says this:

Romans 1:21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

Basically, those who come to God but don't really want to serve Him and they refuse to change, He lets them fall back into unbelief. If they ever turn around and want to come back, He will take them back again.

Right now, if you truly wanted to know God, He would reveal Himself to you. Pride may be the only thing that is getting in the way. He is knocking on your door right now; that's why we're having this conversation. It's up to you to answer it.