Religious bigotry in seventh grade class room

@joefromchicago,

There's a difference?

Cycloptichorn

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

In that case, in your oh so humble opinion (i'm sure), who are are the Christians? Do not all Protestants share that heritage? Does that mean that there are no Christians?

It amazes me how complacently people will dance off into such a minefield.

I never said they're not true Christians; I said they're fooling themselves if they think their religion is "unique" or "monotheistic."

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

There's a difference?

Cycloptichorn

Yes. On the one hand, there's Catholic doctrine. On the other hand, there's stuff that you just made up that doesn't bear any resemblance to Catholic doctrine. One is, although both may be, bullshit.

1 Reply

I suspect Lash's unknown 7th grader would find much of this to be very familiar material. All of this is an excellent example of human intolerance and bigotry.

Fashion, of course dictates regional variations and periodic changes in the groups that are the common targets of this stuff, and others that are sacred and immune. However, these are the only details that appear to change.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

That's cool, i got ya now.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

I suspect Lash's unknown 7th grader would find much of this to be very familiar material. All of this is an excellent example of human intolerance and bigotry.

Discussing inconsistencies with people's stated religious beliefs and the historical record they supposedly base those beliefs on is tantamount to 'intolerance and bigotry?'

Recall that none of us are telling anyone what they can or cannot believe or asking anyone to change any of their behaviors whatsoever. That being the case, I think you are off the mark on this one. In fact, quite the opposite is true; nobody here is being 'intolerant' of anyone's beliefs at all. We tolerate them perfectly fine.

Quote:

Fashion, of course dictates regional variations and periodic changes in the groups that are the common targets of this stuff, and others that are sacred and immune. However, these are the only details that appear to change.

Pointing out the inherent hypocrisy in the differences between the established Catholic church's pronouncement of moral authority and both the actual words of Jesus (as recorded) and the actions of the leaders of the church has been in fashion, to the best of my knowledge, for well over 1500 years.

No groups are sacred or immune to this analysis, either.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

There's a difference?

Cycloptichorn

Yes. On the one hand, there's Catholic doctrine. On the other hand, there's stuff that you just made up that doesn't bear any resemblance to Catholic doctrine. One is, although both may be, bullshit.

Pretty sure that praying to a non-diety person (in the form of Mary, mother of Jesus) is standard Catholic doctrine.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

By what passes for logic here, the putative Jesus would have had to have held that he was the son of god and would die to redeem mankind. That's not too far from JW theology which holds that Jesus was the first born of god, but not a god himself. Upon what basis would you assert that Jesus held that he was the son of god and would die to redeem mankind? Just so you'll know, if you assert that it's in scripture, i'll reject that. The oldest copies of Christian scripture anyone possesses only date to the early 4th century, so i don't consider that to be a reliable basis for assertions about the putative Jesus said or did.

1 Reply

By the way, Buddha means the one who was awakened, who attained full enlightenment, which opens quite a large can of worms. I believe i am correct in saying that he is held to be the supreme buddha--so although you've got a shot at being a buddha, he'll still be the bull-goose loony.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Pretty sure that praying to a non-diety person (in the form of Mary, mother of Jesus) is standard Catholic doctrine.

That's not what you said. You said that it was "Catholic doctrine that man cannot converse with God directly." That clearly is wrong. I'm not sure where you learned your Catholic catechism, but if I were you I'd ask that nun for my quarter back.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Pretty sure that praying to a non-diety person (in the form of Mary, mother of Jesus) is standard Catholic doctrine.

Cycloptichorn

What do you think to be a "standard Catholic doctrine", Cyclo? (And what could be a non-standard doctrine ... ?) Dogmas?

0 Replies

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

Ideas?

I sure hope California is a state that endorses corporal punishment of adolescent pain-in-the-ass students. I guess that's my way of saying that, no, I have no ideas, but I wish you well.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

By what passes for logic here, the putative Jesus would have had to have held that he was the son of god and would die to redeem mankind.

If that's what passes for logic there, I'm glad I'm here.

Setanta wrote:

Upon what basis would you assert that Jesus held that he was the son of god and would die to redeem mankind?

Jesus was rather cagey about his forebears -- probably because, if he had come right out and said that he was the son of god, he'd get himself into a lot of trouble with the religious and political authorities (which, in the end, he did anyway). He was a bit more direct about the redemptive nature of his death, hinting at it, for instance, during the Last Supper. Paul, of course, was much more assured on both counts, and as Christian doctrine is pretty much his product, that's about as close as we're going to get to an authoritative statement on those points.

Setanta wrote:

Just so you'll know, if you assert that it's in scripture, i'll reject that. The oldest copies of Christian scripture anyone possesses only date to the early 4th century, so i don't consider that to be a reliable basis for assertions about the putative Jesus said or did.

Well, you can believe or disbelieve anything you like. Nobody was calling you a "Christian."

1 Reply

i'm probably going to regret writing this, but . . .

There's a real difference in the way we pray to God and the way we pray
to the saints. ("We" being Catholics)

When we pray to God, we say things like "give us this day our daily bread",
or "forgive us our trespasses" or "deliver us from evil".

When we pray to the saints, we say things like "pray for us sinners". We
also ask each other to pray for us. I've asked my friends for prayers and I
have prayed for my friends, including folks here on A2K. (Of course, on
A2K I use code words like "sending positive thoughts").

I'm not defending or trying to justify any of this prayer stuff, by the way.
I'm just decribing how we do it.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Pretty sure that praying to a non-diety person (in the form of Mary, mother of Jesus) is standard Catholic doctrine.

That's not what you said. You said that it was "Catholic doctrine that man cannot converse with God directly." That clearly is wrong. I'm not sure where you learned your Catholic catechism, but if I were you I'd ask that nun for my quarter back.

What need, if man can converse with God directly, for a church to interpret God's words and teaching for him? What need for the authority of the church whatsoever?

Several speeches given both by JP2 and Ratzinger over the years speak to exactly this question, and would seem to indicate that the official position of the church is that man cannot determine morality of actions for himself, but instead must rely upon the church to do so for him. See Ratzinger's 'two levels of Conscience' speech given in Dallas in'91 - and the fact that the church continually gives out pronouncements as to what is and isn't acceptable 'in the eyes of god,' in an attempt to actually sway human behavior.

'Converse' implies a two-way flow of information. The Catholic church doesn't say that individuals cannot Beseech God, only that they aren't properly equipped to understand what he has to say about anything. At least, to the best of my knowledge, this is the case.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

As you acknowledge yourself, there is not any reliable evidence that your boy Jesus held he was the son of god, nor do i know of any authoritative source for that or that he held that he would die to redeem mankind. That makes the logic rather dodgy. Paul is hardly to be considered an authoritative source on Jesus. What i "believe" about scripture is based on sound historiographic method--the sources are too far removed from the events to be considered reliable.

Christ means anointed, and is probably a Greek translation of Messiah. Messiah means the prophesied deliverer of the Jews. Leaving aside that Jews aren't buying that line, it appears that one need only see the putative Jesus as having been the redeemer. There is no requirement that they believe that Jesus was the son of god, much less god himself.

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

You talk about "Catholic doctrine" and then refer to what a cardinal (Ratzinger) said? I mean, I've heard Ratzinger teaching (as a professor) at university ....

2 Replies

@Lash,

Lash, having read the rest of the thread, I'm interested in hearing how your conversation with the principal went. What's the news there?

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

You talk about "Catholic doctrine" and then refer to what a cardinal (Ratzinger) said? I mean, I've heard Ratzinger teaching (as a professor) at university ....

Well, he's the Pope now, so if he isn't communicating doctrine, who is?

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@George,

George wrote:

i'm probably going to regret writing this, but . . .

There's a real difference in the way we pray to God and the way we pray
to the saints. ("We" being Catholics)

When we pray to God, we say things like "give us this day our daily bread",
or "forgive us our trespasses" or "deliver us from evil".

When we pray to the saints, we say things like "pray for us sinners". We
also ask each other to pray for us. I've asked my friends for prayers and I
have prayed for my friends, including folks here on A2K. (Of course, on
A2K I use code words like "sending positive thoughts").

I'm not defending or trying to justify any of this prayer stuff, by the way.
I'm just decribing how we do it.

Right. I guess what I and others are saying is that you are describing a difference without a meaningful distinction. At least, it's not a clear-cut distinction, when you are asking deceased people to pray on your or someone else's behalf.

I guess the question boils down to: if God hears all prayers, and intercession by others is not necessary to converse with him, what exactly is the point of asking others to pray on one's behalf? Especially asking 'saints' to do so? Does it elevate your message in the queue, or what? I don't get the logic behind doing so.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

Religious bigotry in seventh grade class room

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know