|
|
Post by franko on Apr 19, 2009 22:27:26 GMT -5
I find Roman Catholicism to be the one and only institution that makes complete and utter sense of both the universe and human life, and further had this opinon strengthened by the study of philosophy at U of T. I find the universe is explained in minute detail through science. This was strengthened through my engineering degree. I find human life is completely explained through interaction and respect. I had this principle strengthened by treating people like I want to be treated and going out of my way to help others..... and just being a friend. If the above doesn't get me into heaven .... then it isn't a place I want to be, and the guy ruling it has to start rewriting the rules or it is going to be a lonely place. Let ye without sin be the first ..... Well I don't go so far as the Ozark Mountain Daredevils [now there's a blast from the past]: if you want to get to heaven you got to raise a little hell . . . and I don't know a whole lot [OK, I don't know anything] about scientific minutiae . . . and it's probably obvious that I disagree that Roman Catholicism is the one and only institution that makes sense of anything . . . so Skilly, here is a little something the Bible says that I get in trouble for bringing up:
Romans 2 [where Paul writes that we will be judged by what we know] and Romans 6 [?] where Paul writes that if we live under the law we will be judged by the law and if we live under grace we will be judged by grace. [/sermon for the evening] |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Apr 19, 2009 22:46:57 GMT -5
I find Roman Catholicism to be the one and only institution that makes complete and utter sense of both the universe and human life, and further had this opinon strengthened by the study of philosophy at U of T. I find the universe is explained in minute detail through science. This was strengthened through my engineering degree. I find human life is completely explained through interaction and respect. I had this principle strengthened by treating people like I want to be treated and going out of my way to help others..... and just being a friend. If the above doesn't get me into heaven .... then it isn't a place I want to be, and the guy ruling it has to start rewriting the rules or it is going to be a lonely place. Let ye without sin be the first ..... Well Skilly Both of my uncles are engineers and both are Catholics, and I don't think that other than the prinicples leading Newton to his discoveries as developped actually from religous principles by the famous genius Buridan and his concept of motion that led to the modern idea of inertial, and perhaps butresesed by Father Gorges LeMaitre's discovery of the big bang, I am not one to knock science which developped under the scholastic conviction that the universe is both the work of Reason and to be studied independently of theolgy. In short your engineering studies are part of what Christianity bequeaths to you. But you raise what seems to me to be an odd conclusion. Do you really think the universe is anywhere near 'explained' by natural science?? I think physics for instance is wonderful, ...again, just look at Fr LeMaitre's Big Bang and the expanding universe, but he of worldwide fame would be the last to make such claims about science! And Einstein famously said that there are many scoundrels who will tell you that they 'know' what light is, ' but they are all spewing nonsense. Does the graph of motion and acceleration on paper give us the object in 'motion'? Of course not. It models mathematically objects and only insofar as they are quantifiable! In fact, it seem to me that the natural sciences in their limited study of material causes can never, in principle arrive at an 'explanation' for being. Such a view is I think completely unscientific. Is there anywhere a scientific experiment reducing all knowledge to science? The idea self- refutes it seems. This particular philosophical argument that you are espousing...is it scientific or proved by science? Of course not. Leave science to their respective disciplines, for even the definition of what is 'science' is is pretty debatable. Science as best I can tell is just ordinary human reasoning employing philosophical principles. No? |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Apr 19, 2009 23:18:27 GMT -5
I find the universe is explained in minute detail through science. This was strengthened through my engineering degree. I find human life is completely explained through interaction and respect. I had this principle strengthened by treating people like I want to be treated and going out of my way to help others..... and just being a friend. If the above doesn't get me into heaven .... then it isn't a place I want to be, and the guy ruling it has to start rewriting the rules or it is going to be a lonely place. Let ye without sin be the first ..... Well I don't go so far as the Ozark Mountain Daredevils [now there's a blast from the past]: if you want to get to heaven you got to raise a little hell . . . and I don't know a whole lot [OK, I don't know anything] about scientific minutiae . . . and it's probably obvious that I disagree that Roman Catholicism is the one and only institution that makes sense of anything . . . so Skilly, here is a little something the Bible says that I get in trouble for bringing up:
Romans 2 [where Paul writes that we will be judged by what we know] and Romans 6 [?] where Paul writes that if we live under the law we will be judged by the law and if we live under grace we will be judged by grace. [/sermon for the evening]Hi Franko I do of course know or at least reasonably presume we would disagree over my claim that the RC church is the only outfit on the planet with a reality and teaching completely consistent with what we know about reality including our self experience. Be consoled that I next follow up this evaluation with other Christian organizations. Consider; atheism makes no sense. I violates the most fundamental premise of causality. You don't get the greater from the lesser, and there is no good reason to believe one gets the intelligent (or the intelligible!) from mindless matter. So this leaves us with religious views. The Muslim faith is voluntaristic, e.g God is not constrained by reason. There is nothing in existence that confirms this notion, and indeed there seems an order and teleolgy to existence which is grounded in reasonable being. Buddism limits God to the ephemeral and contingent. The contingent does not have sufficient reason for its beginning and being. Only monotheism seems to fit the evidence of existence. Christianity professes eternal life consistent with natural human aspirations. We have free wills, as experienced, so something about us is not completely reducible to the merely physical. Also, along with the contingent, physical and dependent, there are necesssary things, e. g. the principles of geometry, infinite numbers and other natural entities that do not depend upon contingent realities. We desire to live and not die. We desire perfect happiness, indeed, the desire for happiness which no physical thing could or can ever satisty. Yet we are part of a mystery of being in which we die. We do not have the personal resources to jump out of death unassisted. Yet the desire is naturally there. In further considerations, I would address some specifically religious and organizational realities and principles, e.g. infallibility, which I think is necessary of the Church of Christ and his promises. At this point my position is that the Catholic church is the original real deal, and if as protestantism has generally claimed she was led into fundamental doctrinal or sacramental error then Christ did not deliver on His promises to her and was not divine. This of course, I hold not to be the case. There are further reasons why I am a Cathoilic (howsoever flawed) but they would probably not break new theological ground to say the least... One point, is that I cannot imagine a God who would make a doubtful or uncertain statement. A last and less controversial point would be, and contraception or divorce would be cases in point. Mutually exclusive propositions cannot both be true, so it would in this instance alone, come down to either part of a fullness or an incompleteness, irrespective of the answer. Only one answer can be true (a fact which of itself disproves atheistic materialim). |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Apr 19, 2009 23:22:40 GMT -5
I'm not getting your point here Skilly. Are you saying my statement was tautological? it wasn't in my opinion. What do you see as wrong with it? The statement says nothing. Basically boils down to "For us (all being) and God to exist, there needs to be a necessary, non physical being" ... there is no proof in the statement. You think an infinite regress of hierarchically related causes is possible in principle? This goes against reason. The buck has to stop somewhere. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 20, 2009 10:24:17 GMT -5
Not my definition - the Pope's. And I didn't say the Catholic faith is full of stick-in-the-muds. More that they're a stickler for details. They have rules, and they follow them to the letter. For example, I got married in Disney World (yes - I got married at Disney, no - Mickey Mouse didn't attend, yes - we did get a card from Cinderella, no - it wasn't terribly corny as the Disney theming was kept to a minimum). Both my wife and I were raised Catholic and although a Catholic mass was not an option we were really looking at (my wife has shifted to somewhere in the land between agnostic and atheist) we didn't really have an option anyways because it's a big no-no. If you get married, it has to be in a church. Done and done. And it's not just the Catholic priests in Florida - one of my wife's high school friends wanted to get married at the Wilds in Salmonier (a golf course country club about forty five minutes outside of St. John's, Newfoundland). No way, no how. And so they got married in a church. My sister-in-law wanted to have a particular song played at her wedding as an instrumental for the entrance of the bride's maids (or somesuch, I don't recall exactly what). Nope. The priest provided her with a list of acceptable music. If it aint on the list. I'm not saying Catholics are horrible. I was raised Catholic, went to Catholic school. I still cringe when I see a nun with a ruler. They have their rules and their ways and I respect that. If you don't have rules than what do you have really? But even now, with Vactican II half a century behind us, they still cling to a lot of the old outdated ideas that don't really mean all that much in today's world. >> But even now, with Vactican II half a century behind us, they still cling to a lot of the old outdated ideas that don't really mean all that much in today's world<< Since you are describing me accidentally, in this post, I am curious. I find Roman Catholicism to be the one and only institution that makes complete and utter sense of both the universe and human life, and further had this opinon strengthened by the study of philosophy at U of T. Funny, eh? But don't worry about my sensibilities , waht outdated ideas do you think don't mean much in today's world. My take would be that today's world, and especially the amusing guys called the 'new atheists' are amongst the most incoherent people on the planet. Again, don't worry about my reaction to your frank opinions, for I do believe I'ver heard every last one and I won't bite your head off!  Geeze - I leave this thread alone for a weekend and it grows like a friggin' weed. What old and outdated ideas? Oh, there's about a million and one I could harp on I'm sure. But let's go with one of the easiest targets out there - the force celibcy of the clerical set. Now, I know this rule has some exceptions - if you're a priest who transfers in from one of the "near Catholic" churches and you're married they don't make you get a divorce - but by and large being a Priest of the Catholic faith means you get married to God or the Church or some nonsense (or maybe that's the nuns, but it's really immaterial what they call it) and you become celibate. Now, I realize this is a very old Catholic tradition (800 or so years IIRC) and I respect that. But if you're sticking to a tradition (without sciptural basis - no where in the Bible does it say priests don't get married) while at the same time that tradition is severely hampering your ability to carry on (unless things have changed dramatically in the last ten or so years the Catholic church still desperately needs new priests) - well, it's time to change that tradition. To say nothing of the fact that the reasons for the origin of the tradition (to prevent church property from being inherited by the children of the priests and not returned to the churches coffers) has been a non-issue for at least two centuries. But the Catholic church sticks to its traditions. It's shooting itself in the foot as it does so, but yeah - tradition. I can think of more off the top of my head, but that's the easiest one to throw out there without insulting anyone. Cheers! |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 20, 2009 12:40:54 GMT -5
So, who is the 'only one who shall judge" did you mean Christ? God. I do not believe the Bible to be an accurate account of anything ... to many ambiguous parts and as franko will tell you you can pick it up and justify just about anything. I also totally agree with Redscull, I don't believe in any book that is used to control people .... IMO, and it is my opinion, the Bible is not God's word. To that wit, I can not believe in Christ. I am against organized religion, I don't believe in the Bible, but I believe in God .... now I know, some see the trilogy (Father, Son, and holy ghost) as one in the same. That's fine. If my belief in God, and living my life according to what I consider strong morals isn't enough to get me into the kingdom of God, so be it. Murderers, rapists, scum of the earth get in by repenting before death, but I consider the Bible one big Aesop Fable and I am not allowed in .... if this is what the church wants to believe, wants to put forth, ... I'll stay away. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 20, 2009 18:15:18 GMT -5
Hey, you're always welcome to join me . . . even HA is [though I don't know how close to him you'd want to stand [actually, with me you'd all be OK ;D ]
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Apr 21, 2009 1:02:24 GMT -5
So, who is the 'only one who shall judge" did you mean Christ? God. I do not believe the Bible to be an accurate account of anything ... . Believe it or not, I have found accuracy in the bible. Most times I have read the bible, the pages are accurately numbered. No, I don't mean the Psalms.4 verse 3 which follows Genesis and precedes Deuteronomy in no logical order. I mean the page numbers on the bottom of the Bibles in Motel 6. They are almost always sequenced correctly. On the few occasions where I discovered a jump in page numbering, there were remnants of missing pages. Other than that there was no accuracy to any of the outrageous accounts of sushi and loaves of bread feeding multitudes or the age of the world or timetable of creation. This is an argument that is never won. Both sides (actually all 5 billion sides) are seldom swayed by the logic or beliefs of the others (witness of Jehova and Latter Day Saints missionaries included). The penalty for Muslim converting to Christianity or Judaism is quite severs. |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on May 7, 2009 17:14:23 GMT -5
>> But even now, with Vactican II half a century behind us, they still cling to a lot of the old outdated ideas that don't really mean all that much in today's world<< Since you are describing me accidentally, in this post, I am curious. I find Roman Catholicism to be the one and only institution that makes complete and utter sense of both the universe and human life, and further had this opinon strengthened by the study of philosophy at U of T. Funny, eh? But don't worry about my sensibilities , waht outdated ideas do you think don't mean much in today's world. My take would be that today's world, and especially the amusing guys called the 'new atheists' are amongst the most incoherent people on the planet. Again, don't worry about my reaction to your frank opinions, for I do believe I'ver heard every last one and I won't bite your head off! Geeze - I leave this thread alone for a weekend and it grows like a friggin' weed. What old and outdated ideas? Oh, there's about a million and one I could harp on I'm sure. But let's go with one of the easiest targets out there - the force celibcy of the clerical set. Now, I know this rule has some exceptions - if you're a priest who transfers in from one of the "near Catholic" churches and you're married they don't make you get a divorce - but by and large being a Priest of the Catholic faith means you get married to God or the Church or some nonsense (or maybe that's the nuns, but it's really immaterial what they call it) and you become celibate. Now, I realize this is a very old Catholic tradition (800 or so years IIRC) and I respect that. But if you're sticking to a tradition (without sciptural basis - no where in the Bible does it say priests don't get married) while at the same time that tradition is severely hampering your ability to carry on (unless things have changed dramatically in the last ten or so years the Catholic church still desperately needs new priests) - well, it's time to change that tradition. To say nothing of the fact that the reasons for the origin of the tradition (to prevent church property from being inherited by the children of the priests and not returned to the churches coffers) has been a non-issue for at least two centuries. But the Catholic church sticks to its traditions. It's shooting itself in the foot as it does so, but yeah - tradition. I can think of more off the top of my head, but that's the easiest one to throw out there without insulting anyone. Cheers! Hi New guy In the gospels, Christ says specifically, blessed are those who give up everything, including natural marital rights for the kingdom of God. So it has a clear biblical context, but the Catholic bishops, received their authority from the apostles, and decided what was bible and what was not bible, though the scriptures are very reliable historically, and it would have been virtually impossible to suddenly introduce something new and weird. Celibacy is a sign of the spiritual. Spiritual ..in a human being, refers to one's human free will and the intellect which operations do not appear reducible to mere physics. We experince our freedom of will, even as we type words here. That's one of the key and obvious ways that I find attempts to reduce everything to accidental dust swirls, just utterly inadequate. Modern philosophy got lost with first Descartes and then Hume and finally Kant. Most peoplels ideas of what causes are and truth is are messed up with their mistakes. But back to the topic. If something about us has free will, and is not ultimately determined, then such a thing cannot be physical. If not physical, it is not subject to decomposition, hence eternal life. Material ends are not final, so a true religion would naturally and reasonably express that. It also shows a very powerful commitment to the truth and ideally to service, I for one, while I can certainly agree with some aspects of your point being quite reasonable, have a strong preference for celibacy as being the better road to travel. This incidentally, is not a matter of faith or infallibility either, but is a discipline that can be changed if the church were to feels so inclined, but I think the earlier experience of married clergy led to quite a few problems as you intimate. |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on May 7, 2009 17:41:40 GMT -5
So, who is the 'only one who shall judge" did you mean Christ? God. I do not believe the Bible to be an accurate account of anything ... to many ambiguous parts and as franko will tell you you can pick it up and justify just about anything. I also totally agree with Redscull, I don't believe in any book that is used to control people .... IMO, and it is my opinion, the Bible is not God's word. To that wit, I can not believe in Christ. I am against organized religion, I don't believe in the Bible, but I believe in God .... now I know, some see the trilogy (Father, Son, and holy ghost) as one in the same. That's fine. If my belief in God, and living my life according to what I consider strong morals isn't enough to get me into the kingdom of God, so be it. Murderers, rapists, scum of the earth get in by repenting before death, but I consider the Bible one big Aesop Fable and I am not allowed in .... if this is what the church wants to believe, wants to put forth, ... I'll stay away. Most scholars consider the gospels, carefully considered within the historical critical analyses appropriate, to be historical biography of high historical value. As to the identity of Christ, most historians considering the resurrection story come down on the side of it being an actual event. I personally find that other attempts at explaining away the events, history of the early church and the utterly transforming influence of Christianity in the world to be seriously deficient in argument. As to it being used to control people, I get a kick out of that. Do you think that anybody from the pope on down 'has' to be a Catholic? Why on earth would that be? From what I have seen of atheistic materialist regimes and other enlightenment inspired regimes, I'll take the religious one any day of the week for respecting my freedoms. I suspect you have an affection for the so-called black legends. As to the bible, with apologies to Franko, it is the book of the Catholic Church and comes from her tradition which began with Christ. Now you may think that some eleven of the initial apostles got themselves murdered for something they actually knew to be false and that there weren't a lot of witnesses to the resurrection, but this does not seem at all plausible to me. One wonders what kind of a 'God' revelation you would find convincing...an irrational number perhaps? An equation? A God who is NOT about forgiveness? Simple causal principles lead one to conclude that what has caused persons, must ultimately be personal, and so growing up in a community of persons makes perfect sense of the idea of trinity, a communion of persons. It's blind materialism that I find completely incoherent logically, as if all is just mindless physical purposeless stuff, then so are human thoughts as a product of them and logic itself could have no basis in reality. I also get a chuckle our of being 'against organized religion'. Is there anything in the life of rational creatures that is not by default, organized? Man is a social creature, and you would barely last a day were it not for the organized activity of mankind. And is your idea of God then 'not' the ultimate principle of order that provides a ground for moral principles? The apparent difference is that the ordering principle of your religion, is just you. I know myself a little to well to start my own religion based upon my insights, and besides, there is religious experience. This may sound a little odd to you given your procliviities, but I believe that, particularly in the sacraments of reconciliation and communion, I have actually experienced God directly. This of course cannot be conveyed to another, but I have to my great surprise and totally unexpectedly been the object of experiences, not too often mind you, but every now and then, ..that I identify immediately as some kind of very gentle, very personal loving presence. This of course is perhaps the primary reason people go to the sacraments. In closing, the literature on what constitutes and is intended to be fable is pretty clear, and there are not too many serious scholars I am aware of who hold such a line. Reading the gospels certainly doesn't present any such fabulous mythology to me. Quite the contrary. Too much realism. Incidentally Skilly, by virtually every criterion of fearfulness, most studies indicate that the more religious a person is (and I know this is a pretty maleable term) the less fearful one is. In fact religious observance generally tends towards embracing others, not running from them. Lastly it seems that you misunderstand Christianity as condemning those who don't "believe' . This has never been the case as formal doctrine although there is a natural human tendency to be fans of one's own side and to consider those opposed as opposition. Christ was quite clear about those who cry Lord , Lord but who ignore the suffering of those around us and the very earliest Christians suchas Justyn Martyr clearly spoke to the contradiction implicit in God condemning a just person. There is a tension in this doctrine, but it is not particularly difficult to resolve. |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on May 7, 2009 17:53:00 GMT -5
God. I do not believe the Bible to be an accurate account of anything ... . Believe it or not, I have found accuracy in the bible. Most times I have read the bible, the pages are accurately numbered. No, I don't mean the Psalms.4 verse 3 which follows Genesis and precedes Deuteronomy in no logical order. I mean the page numbers on the bottom of the Bibles in Motel 6. They are almost always sequenced correctly. On the few occasions where I discovered a jump in page numbering, there were remnants of missing pages. Other than that there was no accuracy to any of the outrageous accounts of sushi and loaves of bread feeding multitudes or the age of the world or timetable of creation. This is an argument that is never won. Both sides (actually all 5 billion sides) are seldom swayed by the logic or beliefs of the others (witness of Jehova and Latter Day Saints missionaries included). The penalty for Muslim converting to Christianity or Judaism is quite severs. The historicity of the bible is rests upon very strong principles of historical criticism. The earliest known fragment is estimated to have been written within about forty years of the events described; the various fragments discovered over the centuries substantially agree with each other, and no one has ever presented a reasonable case suggesting how the earliest beliefs, sacraments and liturgies of the first churches could suddenly at some undefined time buy into some unrelated fantasy. The writing of early popes, like Clement just make this unlikely as hell, so to speak :-) As to it being an argument that is never won, this is self-evidently not so. People come to see things in new lights or fail to, all the time. You may think that there is nothing spiritual about human beings. I think , if there weren't and you were just accidental matter, then you couldn't be thinking at all, for you would not have the freedom to give intellectual assent to any propositions. Speaking of propositons, is logic physical? Do the principles of an isoceles triangle depend upon the time of day and where you are in the universe? Can you throw a thought? And how does one explain consciousness reductively? Blind materialsm just makes no sense of anything and is self-refuting. Materialists write long books with the purpose of changing my mind about whether the universe is purposeful and denying causality. And they do it as if it mattered; as if the universe has an ultimate moral purpose. So there we have the broad self-refutations, for atheistic philosophers are always forced into the corner of having to fess up, that the universe is ultimately exactly what most rational religious say it is, an ultimately moral purpose and destiny. There's no getting around it. C'es la vie. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 7, 2009 18:17:52 GMT -5
Heading out the door, and I just had to look. I shouldna. fwiw In the gospels, Christ says specifically, blessed are those who give up everything, including natural marital rights for the kingdom of God. That's where I stopped, because I don't have time to say "No He doesn't" -- if you're going to quote Him, quote Him, and quote Him correctly. But I don't have time to keep reading right now . . . by the time I get back the games'll be over and I'll try to see what is said in the rest of the thread . . . bound to be a point of agreement somewhere . . . just not here. |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on May 7, 2009 18:38:41 GMT -5
Heading out the door, and I just had to look. I shouldna. fwiw In the gospels, Christ says specifically, blessed are those who give up everything, including natural marital rights for the kingdom of God. That's where I stopped, because I don't have time to say "No He doesn't" -- if you're going to quote Him, quote Him, and quote Him correctly. But I don't have time to keep reading right now . . . by the time I get back the games'll be over and I'll try to see what is said in the rest of the thread . . . bound to be a point of agreement somewhere . . . just not here. I do suppose it's a pretty good principle to try to quote directly...if one is supposedly quoting.....gulp...God..! but I didn't use quotation marks but did indeed give the sense of a longstanding tradition within Christianity known as the 'evangelical counsels', not required but of particular value. I believe one of the lines was blessed are those who make a eunuch of themselves for the the sake of the gospels for ....etc.. no quotes... When I write a book I'll quote and cite more appropriately. Does anyone in fact , not know what I'm referrring to? |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on May 7, 2009 18:43:54 GMT -5
Evangelical counsels From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The three evangelical counsels or counsels of perfection in Christianity are chastity, poverty (or perfect charity), and obedience (see e.g. The Code of Canon Law, canons 599-601). As Jesus of Nazareth expressly stated (cf. Matthew 19:10-12; Matthew 19:16-22 = Mark 10:17-22 = Luke 18:18-23, see also Mark 10), they are counsels for those who desire to become "perfect" (ôåëåéïò, cf. Matthew 19:21, see also Strong's G5046 and Imitatio dei). This means that they are not binding upon all, hence not necessary conditions without which heaven (eternal life) cannot be attained. Rather they are "acts of supererogation" that exceed the minimum stipulated in the Commandments in the Bible.[1] Christians that have made a public profession to order their life by the evangelical counsels, and confirmed this by a public religious vow before their competent church authority (the act of religious commitment called "profession"), are recognised as members of the consecrated life. There are early precedents of religious vows in the Christian monastic traditions, for example the Rule of St Benedict (ch. 58.17) stipulates for its adherents what has come to be known as the "Benedictine vow" promising "stability, conversion of manners and obedience", which to this day is made by the candidates joining Benedictine communities. But specifically in the form of the three evangelical counsels of chastity, poverty and obedience religious vows were first made in the twelfth century by Francis of Assisi and his followers,[citation needed] the f en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelical_counsels |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on May 7, 2009 19:59:12 GMT -5
Most scholars consider the gospels, carefully considered within the historical critical analyses appropriate, to be historical biography of high historical value. As to the identity of Christ, most historians considering the resurrection story come down on the side of it being an actual event. I personally find that other attempts at explaining away the events, history of the early church and the utterly transforming influence of Christianity in the world to be seriously deficient in argument. As to it being used to control people, I get a kick out of that. Do you think that anybody from the pope on down 'has' to be a Catholic? Why on earth would that be? From what I have seen of atheistic materialist regimes and other enlightenment inspired regimes, I'll take the religious one any day of the week for respecting my freedoms. I suspect you have an affection for the so-called black legends. As to the bible, with apologies to Franko, it is the book of the Catholic Church and comes from her tradition which began with Christ. Now you may think that some eleven of the initial apostles got themselves murdered for something they actually knew to be false and that there weren't a lot of witnesses to the resurrection, but this does not seem at all plausible to me. The Bible is full of too many contradictions to be considered a "historical" account for my liking. The church would have us all believe that it is a error-free book, with no contradictions. You talk to me as if I am a poor misguided , uneducated soul ... I have studied the Bible. And IMO it was solely lacking. For staters, Genesis 32:30 states ".for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." Yet, in the New Testament John 1:18 states "No man hath seen God at any time." So which is it? Both those passages can not be true. And that's just one example of errors in the Bible. You can say there is an error of translation ... either way there is an error, whether it be of fact or translation, so there are errors in the Bible, it is not an error-free book, and therefore NOT the word of God, for God is infallible. You see I believe that a man can hold a conversation with God no matter where he is ... my prayer at home is no more, nor no less, significant as your prayer in church. The church, which I termed "organized religion" (maybe incorrectly) would have you believe that you should attend regularly to achieve salvation .... which I disagree with. I have no religion ... just a rule I try to live my life by - the Golden Rule. And for me, it works. Too many errors of fact and contradictions for me ... not realism. And therefore the Bible is not infallible. That's just Pascal's Wager. I don't believe anybody is condemning anyone. And for the record, I think you misunderstand me when you say I have an "affection for the blask legends". I am not talking Knight's Templar here ... I am saying the Bible is fallible and therefore not God's word. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 7, 2009 21:30:31 GMT -5
I do suppose it's a pretty good principle to try to quote directly I’ll say! But when you say “Christ says specifically” then imo you are quoting – whether or not you try to couch it by “not using quotes”. Otoh, if you are and then you are not “saying specifically” – you are offering a second-hand interpretation by a council. Don’t say “the Bible says” or “Christ says” when neither do – this is where I draw the line. [OK, mods, I’ll accept the rebuke] |
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 7, 2009 21:40:04 GMT -5
Most scholars consider the gospels, carefully considered within the historical critical analyses appropriate, to be historical biography of high historical value. As to the identity of Christ, most historians considering the resurrection story come down on the side of it being an actual event. THab – don’t make me do this – I’m kinda on your side . . . most scholars? most historians? Um . . . no. Apologize all you want, you are out and out wrong here. The Bible is the Book of the Christian Church. The Catholic Church may think she has first dibs on Jesus [actually, the Jews do!] , but she does not have exclusive rights to Him . . . we may be considered the departed brethren, but we are still brethren, still children of God, still His people. We’ll accept the superior attitude knowing all are equal. Sigh. To both comments: David Koresh. Jim Jones. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 7, 2009 21:43:14 GMT -5
no one has ever presented a reasonable case suggesting how the earliest beliefs, sacraments and liturgies of the first churches could suddenly at some undefined time buy into some unrelated fantasy. You've got to stop being so definitive/. John Marco Allegro. A nutbar, yes . . . but his case can be considered somewhat reasonable if you are searching for something away from the traditional. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 7, 2009 21:52:45 GMT -5
The Bible is full of too many contradictions to be considered a "historical" account for my liking. The church would have us all believe that it is a error-free book, with no contradictions. Can't say "the Church", Skilly . . . too inclusive. Can't even say the Catholic Church, as there are those within it [usually not for very long] who think not as well. Let's go with "institutional religion" . . . nothing wrong with some organization; big problems within the institution . . . the main reason for existence eventually gets lost and keeping it running becomes its reason for existence! Attendance is not the means of salvation . . . it is a means of support. Reuben Welch's book from the 70s We Really Do Need Each Other is a book about participation in the life of a church . . . but it speaks of life as well. That is your religious tenet or dogma. Glad it works. One biblical perspective [Romans] suggests that that's what you will eventually be judged by: did you live by it or not? |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on May 7, 2009 22:02:15 GMT -5
Can't say "the Church", Skilly . . . too inclusive. Can't even say the Catholic Church, as there are those within it [usually not for very long] who think not as well. Ok fair enough ... can I say religious fundamentalists? (or whatever politically correct phrase one would use in reference to people who believe the Bible is 100% accurate, error free, the true living Word of God .... which it is not) |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on May 7, 2009 23:14:05 GMT -5
I always had a hard time with the coveting of thy neighbors wife thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 8, 2009 5:57:42 GMT -5
Can't say "the Church", Skilly . . . too inclusive. Can't even say the Catholic Church, as there are those within it [usually not for very long] who think not as well. Ok fair enough ... can I say religious fundamentalists? (or whatever politically correct phrase one would use in reference to people who believe the Bible is 100% accurate, error free, the true living Word of God .... which it is not) yup. or just call them "literalists". fwiw, there are those of us in the conservative camp who are offended by the extremes too. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 8, 2009 5:59:21 GMT -5
I always had a hard time with the coveting of thy neighbors wife thing. Great line: my [at the time] four year old daughter ran in after Sunday School one day and said "I know one of the 10 commandments: Thou shalt not admit adultery". Back to regularly scheduled programming. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on May 8, 2009 8:20:28 GMT -5
On celibacy and Catholic priests.
First of all, people act as if this is some bizarre Catholic ritual, unknown and incomprehensible to any other religion. It’s not of course; Buddhist monks are also celibate, and Gandhi, a Hindu, famously tested his own celibacy by lying with women. Many cultures throughout time espoused the celibacy and/or virginity of its priests and priestesses.
So it’s not a whacky Church thing.
Second of all, I actually attended a school taught by Jesuits, and this discussion came up on numerous occasions. Their logic was both simple and impeccable; priests are married to the Church, and as such have an obligation to the communities to which they are assigned. They cannot meet those obligations if they also have obligations to their own families.
Put it this way; a priest has a wife and a kid. One night, his kid is very sick. On the same night, a parishioner is also very sick, dying in fact, and needs/wants Last Rites. Where does the priest go? Does he stay with his sick child and deny somebody last rites? Or does he go to the bedside of his dying parishioner? Wouldn’t that make him a lousy father? What if his son isn’t sick, but just has a big baseball game? What if the parishioner isn’t dying, but is just an elderly widow who wants somebody to talk to?
What if it’s his wedding anniversary? Would he be a lousy husband if he put his parish in front of her needs? Forsaking all others the vows say. How can you be 100% committed to both a family and your community?
The logic is simple; you cannot have two families. Pick one. Not all religions have the same philosophy, and I’m not saying they are wrong, but I can’t really see anything overtly wrong with the Catholic logic.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 8, 2009 12:18:43 GMT -5
Well said, BC . . . and in that I have no problem. My problem [hey, what can I say, I'm a stickler here] was with something at best implied attributed as quotes: In the gospels, Christ says specifically, blessed are those who give up everything, including natural marital rights for the kingdom of God -- no to both thoughts.
From the question of divorce came the statement there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it." Matthew 19:12 No "blessing" there.
Paul, not Peter [and let's remember that Peter and Paul were both married, but that Paul actually left his wife (or more likely, it seems she him when he left his Jewish tradition behind to follow the Christ) while Peter in all likelihood remained married ] said It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife 1 Corinthians 7:1-2
Interestingly, Paul also says If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife 1 Timothy 3:1-2 Some have read this to mean that a bishop = pastor = priest should marry; others that a bishop should not mess around!
Regarding unmarried clergy and the sick/etc: choices often need to be made. A priest gets two calls at about the same time -- where does he go? Who does he chose [and I specifically mention he because . . . well . . . you know] to see first? Which family member is more important?
Sick child? The wife stays [I'm ready to hear it from wives everywhere!]. Wedding anniversary? How about the unmarried clergy just being out for the evening at a show with his cell phone off [and before cell phones . . . what happened then?].
May or may not be a justified question, but some have wondered how an unmarried man can offer counseling to a couple struggling in their marriage, a woman with post-partum depression, a husband and wife dealing with a wayward child, etc. Sometimes experience helps [and their is another side I know: those who are alone for whatever reason may not be served well by a married clergyperson].
All that said, there is indeed nothing at all wrong with the Catholic/Buddhist/etc logic. Each follows a particular calling.
Then there's Hot Shots Part Deux: These men have taken a supreme vow of celibacy, like their fathers, and their fathers before them...
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on May 8, 2009 12:19:28 GMT -5
On celibacy and Catholic priests. First of all, people act as if this is some bizarre Catholic ritual, unknown and incomprehensible to any other religion. It’s not of course; Buddhist monks are also celibate, and Gandhi, a Hindu, famously tested his own celibacy by lying with women. Many cultures throughout time espoused the celibacy and/or virginity of its priests and priestesses. So it’s not a whacky Church thing. Second of all, I actually attended a school taught by Jesuits, and this discussion came up on numerous occasions. Their logic was both simple and impeccable; priests are married to the Church, and as such have an obligation to the communities to which they are assigned. They cannot meet those obligations if they also have obligations to their own families. Put it this way; a priest has a wife and a kid. One night, his kid is very sick. On the same night, a parishioner is also very sick, dying in fact, and needs/wants Last Rites. Where does the priest go? Does he stay with his sick child and deny somebody last rites? Or does he go to the bedside of his dying parishioner? Wouldn’t that make him a lousy father? What if his son isn’t sick, but just has a big baseball game? What if the parishioner isn’t dying, but is just an elderly widow who wants somebody to talk to? What if it’s his wedding anniversary? Would he be a lousy husband if he put his parish in front of her needs? Forsaking all others the vows say. How can you be 100% committed to both a family and your community? The logic is simple; you cannot have two families. Pick one. Not all religions have the same philosophy, and I’m not saying they are wrong, but I can’t really see anything overtly wrong with the Catholic logic. This is not unlike my conservative political leaning. I have a family to feed, raise and educate. I object to having to pay taxes to feed and educate other mens children that are not mine. My priority is my own family. I wouldn't have made a good priest anyways. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 8, 2009 12:22:58 GMT -5
I wouldn't have made a good priest anyways. especially if you have trouble with the coveting another man's wife thing. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on May 8, 2009 13:10:29 GMT -5
On celibacy and Catholic priests. First of all, people act as if this is some bizarre Catholic ritual, unknown and incomprehensible to any other religion. It’s not of course; Buddhist monks are also celibate, and Gandhi, a Hindu, famously tested his own celibacy by lying with women. Many cultures throughout time espoused the celibacy and/or virginity of its priests and priestesses. So it’s not a whacky Church thing. Second of all, I actually attended a school taught by Jesuits, and this discussion came up on numerous occasions. Their logic was both simple and impeccable; priests are married to the Church, and as such have an obligation to the communities to which they are assigned. They cannot meet those obligations if they also have obligations to their own families. Put it this way; a priest has a wife and a kid. One night, his kid is very sick. On the same night, a parishioner is also very sick, dying in fact, and needs/wants Last Rites. Where does the priest go? Does he stay with his sick child and deny somebody last rites? Or does he go to the bedside of his dying parishioner? Wouldn’t that make him a lousy father? What if his son isn’t sick, but just has a big baseball game? What if the parishioner isn’t dying, but is just an elderly widow who wants somebody to talk to? What if it’s his wedding anniversary? Would he be a lousy husband if he put his parish in front of her needs? Forsaking all others the vows say. How can you be 100% committed to both a family and your community? The logic is simple; you cannot have two families. Pick one. Not all religions have the same philosophy, and I’m not saying they are wrong, but I can’t really see anything overtly wrong with the Catholic logic. What if several parishioners are sick and need last Rites? Does he get to everyone? Same logic...same dilemma. Cannot have two families? Tell that to the polygamists in Bountiful. Just kidding. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I don't think one can underestimate the $$ saved by not having to look after wives and children....the extra food, housing, clothing, education.....it's staggering when extrapolated. Way more economical to have a mens' only club. And what standing did women really have in the Church until recently? Not much if any at all. How much say do they have in the hierarchy even now? An extremely patriarchal organization. And I'm not being facetious. Raised RC. Taught in the RC system. Admittedly lapsed. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A little joke: I can't understand why Catholic priests want to get married. I mean, after a while it's no sex AND nagging. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 8, 2009 14:22:07 GMT -5
I can't understand why Catholic priests want to get married. I mean, after a while it's no sex AND nagging.  |
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 8, 2009 14:33:48 GMT -5
I don't think one can underestimate the $$ saved by not having to look after wives and children....the extra food, housing, clothing, education.....it's staggering when extrapolated. Way more economical to have a mens' only club. that's the thing, CH . . . the history is that originally there was no paid clergy -- most were "tentmakers" [Paul, for example, worked everywhere he went and started churches in his "spare time"] -- called bi-vocational today. And remember -- churches were illegal and underground for about 400 years before Christianity became accepted and recognized -- some say at the insistence of Constantine, as a unifying empire religion [though that's another whole discussion]. The church grew, and people demanded full-time clergy -- soon to learn that it cost a lot to support a priest who had a family. It was then that the edict for unmarried priesthood was enacted [though it did not stop priests from "indulging" -- unmarried did not mean celibate. Actually, in the very beginning -- a lot. It was women that led churches in the earliest days. But not for long -- soon women were good to be Sunday School teachers and that's about it [improper interpretations of Paul, and as you say, never RC; RC step-father; RC high schooling at boarding school. |
|
