"Most deists saw the religions of their day as corruptions of an original, pure religion that was simple and rational. They felt that this original pure religion had become corrupted by "priests" who had manipulated it for personal gain and for the class interests of the priesthood in general.

According to this world view, over time "priests" had succeeded in encrusting the original simple, rational religion with all kinds of superstitions and "mysteries" – irrational theological doctrines. Laymen were told by the priests that only the priests really knew what was necessary for salvation and that laymen must accept the "mysteries" on faith and on the priests' authority. This kept the laity baffled by the nonsensical "mysteries", confused, and dependent on the priests for information about the requirements for salvation. The priests consequently enjoyed a position of considerable power over the laity, which they strove to maintain and increase. Deists referred to this kind of manipulation of religious doctrine as "priestcraft", a highly derogatory term."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

Upon reading this discussion, I'd like to ask a question:

Just what are "good works", and just who defines what "good works" are?

"Works" are the things we do in thought, (prayer) word and action. St.James 2 speaks of "good works"...."By works a man is justified, and not by faith alone." "Good works" are doing God's will for His sake. "Good works" is living a life in accordance with the teachings of Christ and obeying His commands. 

Good works prompted by purely natural motives though are not meaningful in the Christian life. Thus St.Paul says, "If I should give all my goods to feed the poor, but have not charity (love), it profiteth me nothing." 1Cor. 13:3, "Yet good works insp;ired by faith in Christ and love for Christ are necessary." ANd St.Matthew says that Jesus at the judgment "will render to every man according to his works."

Evil or bad works are sin, and the avoidance of sin as well as the performance of good works are necessary components of our salvation.

As far as I'm concerned the Catholic Church defines "works" for she alone was established by Christ and has the fullness of truth unmixed with error and even the Holy Bible itself declared that "the Chruch is the pillar and ground of truth". So, while Scripture and Tradition are inspired sources of Christian doctrine, the Chruch, a historical and visible entity dating back to St.Peter and the Apostles is an uninterrupted succession is the infallible teacher and interpreter of the complete rule of faith...Scripture and Tradition.

Why wouldn't it?

How does one know exactly what works are for the sake of god's will and which aren't?

Choose to do good (in thought, word and action) instead of evil.

As an addendum to my last response....

I know what works are for the sake of God's will by the teachings of the Church.

Pope Benedict explains St. Paul's teaching on justification to thousands 

Vatican City, November 19 2008.-On Wednesday morning, Pope Benedict XVI continued his weekly teachings on St. Paul while speaking to the thousands of pilgrims gathered in St. Peter's Square.  The Pontiff further explained the apostle's teaching that believers are justified by faith in Christ and by the acts that flow out of love for him.  

When Paul met the Risen One on the road to Damascus, the Pope began, "he was a successful man: blameless as to righteousness under the Law." Yet "the conversion of Damascus radically changed his life, and he began to consider all the gains of his honest religious career as 'rubbish' in the face of the sublimity of his knowledge of Jesus Christ."

Turning to St. Paul's Letter to the Philippians, Pope Benedict found that "Paul understood that until then, what seemed to him a gain, in reality, in front of God was a loss. He decided, therefore, to bet all his being on Jesus Christ." In other words, "The Risen Lord became the beginning and end of Paul's existence," the Pope taught.

With this understanding of Christ's resurrection in mind, Pope Benedict turned to the two possible ways of being made new in Christ.

"The Letter to the Philippians," the Pope said, "provides moving testimony of Paul's shift from a justice founded on the Law and achieved by observing certain prescribed actions, to a justice based upon faith in Jesus Christ. ... It is because of this personal experience of the relationship with Jesus Christ that Paul focuses his Gospel on a steadfast contrast between two alternative paths to justice: one based on the works of the Law, the other founded on the grace of faith in Christ."

In his Letter to the Galatians, Paul further explains that even Jews who have believed in Christ Jesus have done so because it is through faith in Christ and not by works of the law that they can be justified.  As St. Paul states, "by works of the law no one will be justified."

Pope Benedict then addressed the interpretation of this passage by Martin Luther, who translated it as "justified by faith alone."

"Before returning to this point it is necessary to clarify which is the 'Law' from which we have been freed and what are the works that do not justify us," Benedict XVI said.

"In the community of Corinth," the Holy Father explained, "there already existed an opinion, that crops up again throughout history, to the effect that it is the moral law, and that hence Christian freedom means freedom from ethics. ... Obviously this is an incorrect interpretation. Christian freedom is not debauchery, ... it is not freedom from doing good."

"For St. Paul, as for his contemporaries, the word Law meant the Torah in its entirety, ... which imposed ... a series of actions ranging from an ethical core to ritual observances ... and substantially defined the identity of the just man, ... such as circumcision, dietary laws, etc. ... All these precepts - expressive of a social, cultural and religious identity - were very important" in the Hellenistic age when polytheism was rife and Israel felt threatened in its identity and feared "the loss of faith in the One God and in His promises."

At the moment of his encounter with the Risen Lord, Paul understood that "with Christ, the God of Israel, the one true God, became the God of all nations. The wall -so he says in the Letter to the Ephesians- between Israel and the pagans was no longer necessary: it is Christ who protects us against polytheism and all its deviations; it is Christ who unites us with and in the one God; it is Christ who guarantees our true identity in the diversity of cultures. The wall is no longer necessary, our common identity in the diversity of cultures is Christ, and it is he who makes us just," the Pope said.

Pope Benedict then offered the interesting insight that "Being just simply means being with Christ, being in Christ, that is all. The other precepts are no longer necessary. Luther's expression 'sola fide' is true, if faith is not against charity, against love. To believe is to see Christ, to trust in Christ, to become attached to Christ, to conform to Christ, to his life."

"Paul knows that in the twofold love of God and neighbor the Law is present and fulfilled. So in communion with Christ, in faith, which creates charity, the Law is realized. We become just by entering into communion with Christ, who is love. We will see the same thing in the Gospel of next Sunday, the Solemnity of Christ the King. Love is the only criteria of the Gospel of the judge," the Pope explained.

In closing, the Pope invited the faithful to "ask the Lord to help us believe, to truly believe, so belief becomes life, unity with Christ, a transformation of our lives. And so, transformed by his love, by love of God and neighbor, we can be truly just in the eyes of God."

Who is to say what is "good" and what is "evil"?   How can one take the word of the HRCC for it when the church is known to have done "evil" in it's time and in the minds of many continues to do so.  What is "good" charity and love and what is "evil" charity and love?  And who defines it?

Was he not the one true god of all nations from the beginning?

I would like to ask a question since you appear to be quite the expert on catholicism and I couldn't help but notice that you do this thing yourself as indicated in your last post.  Why do most if not all catholics quote St. Paul as having the defintive word on what one needs to do to save their soul and not the master himself, Jesus?  Has he somehow gotten lost in your religion and simply become god and a sacrificial lamb given  to save one's soul and take your sins as his own? 

Despite what Lula or KFC says, it's my observation that there is relativsm when it comes to morals (right/wrong). This is largely due to the numerous cultures, religions, inidivuals, et al. in society. It's just a fact that some don't understand.  I'm not saying that I personally favor doing whatever the hell I want, I have my parameters. Still though, the perceived "right and wrong" that societies or cultures or any massive group, is merely social pressure. It's what society (or faith, etc.) as a whole has decided is right. Does that make it universal? Yes and no. If one wants to confine and define themsevleves in their culture's/society's, etc. terms, then okay.

God.

Keep His commandments, especially the command to love your neighbor (who is anyone in the whole wide world) and you'll be doing good.

Yes, no doubt, there are people within the Church who have done evil but I no where have I ever defended the conduct of bad priests or bad people, nor would I. I say the CC is the one true Church even though not all of her individual members are true to her teachings which are Christ's teachings. No valid argument can be based upon the conduct of individuals.

As for the truth of the CC, it can be proved historically that Christ lived, that He was God, and that He founded an imperishable Church which was to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic. Find that Chruch and you will have the true religion of Christ.

First, all Scripture is inspired of God and so each writer's word is definitive.

Second, like the other Gospel writers who quoted Christ, St.Paul got his teaching from the Master Himself.

You mis-spoke or misunderstand. Jesus didn't take our sins as His own...if the meaning were that, then there would be no punishment for sin now that He has died. And there is punishment for sin..the wages of sin is death, both physical death and eternal death.

Is not the CC the body of it's members?  The church would surely not exist without them.  And if parts of the body are corrupt is not the whole body also?  It is after all the whole that allows the few to operate.

Where is the evidence that Jesus existed?  To my knowledge no such evidence exists.   The apostles also got their teachings from Jesus did they not?  And who's to say that St. Paul received his teachings directly from Jesus?  Were there witnesses to the event?

..

Yes, the CC is the Mystical Body of Christ. As to your last question, we don't condemn the whole family if one of its children went wrong. Believe me when I say that when any of the religious (priests, nuns, or deacons) go wrong, all Catholics are hurt...for we are one body see Eph. 4:4-6.

History itself and therefore history books would be evidence that Jesus Christ existed.

We have writings by 5 reputable historians, the 4 Evangelists and St.Paul. Their writings are just as historical as any others.

Tacticus, the Roman historian who wrote about 70 years after His death mentions Him...as does Josephus, the Jewish historian. 

And it's no answer to speculate that the Gospels are fable...as Tennyson said, Jesus' personality was His greatest miracle. Try making up a character that men will die for, not just today, but hundreds of years from now.

Jesus can be denied, blasphemed, reduced to jokes, whatever, but after 2000 some years, even though Christ never wrote a word, His words retain the power to convert. 

St.Paul certainly had an encounter with the Risen Christ...remember He asked St.Paul, "Why do you persecute Me?" when all the time St.Paul (then Saul) was persecuting the Church.

We have the details of Scripture and we know about St. Paul's life more than any other of the Apostles even of St.Peter or St.John. Acts 7 recalls the matyrdom of St.Stephen whom the Chruch regards as the first Christian martyr. v. 58 has it that after he was stoned to death, his clothes were laid at the feet of Saul.

Like Jesus, St.Stephen dies commending his soul to God and praying for his persecutors..one of whom was Saul who consented to his death (chapter 8).  We see later that Saul soon experiences the benefit of St.Stephen's intercession. St.Augustine wrote that if St.Stephen would not have prayed for Saul, then the Chruch would not have had St.Paul.

Acts 9 is the account of Saul's conversion. V.15-16 Our Lord calls St.Paul his chosen instrument and tell Ananias how much he will have to suffer on His account. V. 18 Saul is baptized by Ananias and teaches him the Christian faith. We know that in Baptism, the Holy Ghost confers sanctifying grace upon our soul and in Acts we read that St. Paul fulfills his mission.

There is an objective way to figure out what is right and wrong.

There are different cultures with different views of what is right and wrong. But those cultures can be compared by various objective standards.

I myself use "stones". The fewer stones used by the culture to kill women who did something "wrong", the better the culture. Whichever cultures use the fewest stones to kill women are closest to the true definition of what is right and what is wrong and the world should listen to them and not the others.

Quite simple really.

So while moral relativism exists, there is absolutely no reason to pay attention to it.

Just count the stones you used last to punish a woman who did something you considered wrong. If the number is zero, congratulate yourself: you know what's right and wrong. Everything else can be discussed.

Mmm, well that's your choice. Personally I choose to look at the cultures in their terms, not an ethnocentric one.

What about cultures that practice female circumcision?

look around, the real world reveals its appalling results of evil and sin...we see destroyed lives all around us and its moral relativism that says in spite of what evil one does to himself or to another, they are still OK....lighten up can't we just move on?

We must pay attention to it or otherwise we are doomed.

Take the list of public officials who have thrown away their family for the pleasure of sin of sexual infidelity...and then there is drunkeness, drug addiction, pornography, killing our own progeny by abortion, and the list goes on...and on and on.

I think lulapilgrim should be lulapuritan.

Any rules or laws in the OT were intended for Jews.

How do you know all of those things aren't part of God's plan? How do you know things aren't turning out the way he knew they would from the beginning?

What does fear or slippery slopes have to do with any of this lula? I agree, I don't personally agree with some of the things you mentioned, but does that mean that such things as getting drunk completely wrong according to joe blow down the street? To you yes, to him, not necessarily.

Moral relativism doesn't imply that things are okay, or right. That comes down to the individual. Moral relativism simply means that moral/ethical propositions do not come down to objective and/or universal truths, but instead are claims/make claims based on cultural, social, historical, etc. circumstances.

So, it's simply an acknowledgement that each person has their own - different - set of values. What we see as "right" in the United States may not be "right" in, say, China or Russia. It simply just is the way things are.

Never mind. Deletable post.

lula posts:

I'm not talking about occasionally getting drunk. I'm talking about drinking purposely to get drunk and that being a habitual occurence. It causes pain, suffering and disease to the individual actually do the drinking and to those close to him as well as to the greater society.

Infidel posts:

Oh for Pete's sake...who of you would say that any of these items I mentioned is actually good? In your heart of hearts you all know it's only common sense.

The 10 Commandments may have first been given to the Isrealites, but they were written in stone for a good reason...they are universal and meant for all time. Everyone of those sins I mentioned above is a committment to sin and breaks one of the 10 Commandments. Committment to sin turns the hardened sinner away from God and aversion to God is not natural at all. We all have the natural law (Moral law--our conscience or intuition) written upon our hearts.

AldericJ posts:

Have we gone so far off the track that we can make up for ourselves what is right and what is wrong?

For whose sake? Do you worship someone named Pete more than you worship God? Is Pete someone you made up in your head?

This is just a sign of my frustration...is this the first time you've heard that saying?

No. Do you ever say "for Christ's sake" or "for God's sake"?