Mel Gibson's The Passion, sparking concern from the ADL.

No, LW, a bias does not indicate ignorance. You're wrong, completely wrong to harp on the Catholics the way you do, and you won't admit it.

0 Replies

Hi, Wenchilina.

You really need to read a little bit more. Be careful, because faith has funny ways to creep in. Either by having blind faith in science or reason, or by becoming a religious fundamentalist.

Take care.

0 Replies

God was created in man's image. Religion, the opiate of the people, is based in superstition and wishful thinking. Usually manipulated by the particular branch's priests, monks, rabbis, whatever. Man, a mammal, is subject to mammalian behavior. Just as other animals experience homosexual behavior, so with humans.
Maliagar reminds me in his posts of the priest in medieval times who sought to suppress a certain book because it contained joking. The priest believed that if joking existed it would be possible to joke about anything, even God. Since he could not tolerate the notion of jokes at God's expense the priest sought to kill any who read the book, by means of poison.

0 Replies

I'll admit that it's the Catholics are in the current news and it does prompt commentary over other religious factions. That bias doesn't denote an ignorance is something I can't accept. Bias involves prejudice, not just the preference of one thing over another. At least for me. If I misunderstood what you meant by bias, I apologize. If I'm wrong in zeroing in on the Catholics in particular so are hundreds of journalists and writers including Gore Vidal. Sorry if I'm keeping bad company.

It appears to me you have a bias (your version) towards all religious sects. How about Scientology? I've voiced a lot of in regards to that religion and not positive. You obviously haven't read everything I've wrote on these boards as I've also made comments about the bureaucracy of religious organizations (the Methodists, specifically, from personal experience).

Religious organizations set themselves up as being pristine and without fault. Therein lies the hypocrisy. The Catholics trying to rationalize away that pedophile scandal is just a symptom.

0 Replies

BTW, has anyone considered that Gibson's film may be a bad film?
Although I enjoyed "Braveheart" I didn't believe it was the best film of the year nor even in the top one hundred best films of the past decade. I'm interested in what respected critics say about the film. I doubt that I will make it a point to go see it until it gets onto cable.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

God was created in man's image. Religion, the opiate of the people, is based in superstition and wishful thinking. Usually manipulated by the particular branch's priests, monks, rabbis, whatever. Man, a mammal, is subject to mammalian behavior. Just as other animals experience homosexual behavior, so with humans.
Maliagar reminds me in his posts of the priest in medieval times who sought to suppress a certain book because it contained joking. The priest believed that if joking existed it would be possible to joke about anything, even God. Since he could not tolerate the notion of jokes at God's expense the priest sought to kill any who read the book, by means of poison.

Man, your position is really a good joke... Laughing

And the funniest thing is that you really believe that your position is based on reason... Laughing

0 Replies

Let's see, Lightwizard...

Quote:

If I'm wrong in zeroing in on the Catholics in particular so are hundreds of journalists and writers including Gore Vidal. Sorry if I'm keeping bad company.

The question is not in whose company are you. The question is if you have a balanced view (or if you seek to have a balanced view) about these issues.

Quote:

I've also made comments about the bureaucracy of religious organizations (the Methodists, specifically, from personal experience).

Bureaucracies (religious or not) have their good and bad sides. Like anything human. Like you and me. A good side of bureaucracy is that, like any organization, it's been put together to accomplish some goals that are deemed good by a polity. And they usually accomplish them, with varying degrees of effectiveness. The bad side of bureaucracy is that it is sometimes rigid and legalistic. So we always need perspective to put bureaucracy in its rightful place (which is very different from advocating the simplistic, puritanical, and utopian view that all bureaucracies should be abolished).

Quote:

Religious organizations set themselves up as being pristine and without fault.

Yes, that is a common temptation. Like the temptation of individuals who believe that they are faultless and that they are in a position to judge and criticize from the distance everything that doesn't appear to be pure to their self-righteous eye. The Catholic Church has a long history of self-awareness, and none of its critics is inventing the wheel here. As a matter of fact the most acute criticisms usually come from within the Church, and are the result of LOVE for the Church. Like those Medieval theologians who named the Church the Casta Meretrix (latin: the Virginal Whore). Whore because of our sins, virgin because of Christ.

Quote:

Therein lies the hypocrisy.

Whoever is free from sin should cast the first stone. Every time we don't live up to our own moral standards, we are being "hypocrits". Everytime we are selfish, or rude, or lazy... This is valid for atheists and believers alike. Therefore, "hypocrisy" is a basic, inescapable human condition. Furthermore, it is better to have high moral standards and struggle with hypocrisy (i.e., with weakness and sin), than to "downsize" our values so that we can be "totally consistent" and not be called "hypocrits".

Moreover, hypocrisy is an integral part of the Judeo-Christian history. The people of Israel failed time and time again to live up to its covenant with the Lord. Even the most respected Jewish leaders (David, Salomon) betrayed the Lord's trust. But the Lord would not break his covenant with Israel. The very apostles chosen by Christ would fight among themselves for places of honor in the Kingdom of Heaven. One of them would betray him, and all the others but John abandon him at the crucifixion. Etcetera. But the Lord would not abandon His One Church.

It is easy to detect the hypocrisy in our neighbor (and to neglect the beam in our own eyes). The real challenge for EVERYBODY is to live up to our own moral standards. Fortunately, Christians know it IS possible, as the examples of countless saints prove (just remember Mother Teresa).

Quote:

The Catholics trying to rationalize away that pedophile scandal is just a symptom.

I don't know what you mean by "the Catholics".

Take care.

0 Replies

I should have said "the Catholic hiearchy," but I'm sure you know what I meant. I know from my friends who are Catholic that they are not happy about these turn of events. My point is that the church bureaucracy aren't any better or worse than any other bureaucracy. The rest of your dissertation is not coming through very clearly. It sounds like a sermon on Saturday.

0 Replies

Let's see, Light Wizard:

Quote:

My point is that the church bureaucracy aren't any better or worse than any other bureaucracy.

That is a very bleak point. Too generic. Too much of a blanket statement. If you really cared about the truth, you would have to put in the balance the good deeds and bad deeds of a specific bureaucracy. Or compare its accomplishments and mishaps with other similar organizations. For example, you would need to carefully evaluate the good things done by the "hierarchy" and other Catholic organizations, with their "sins". For example, did you know that the largest non-governmental supplier of health services for the poor and the needy in the state of New Jersey is Catholic Charities? What do you think happens in states like New York, Massachussetts, California, etc. What do you think happens in Latin America, Africa, and other parts of the world?

So not all bureaucracies are the same...

Quote:

The rest of your dissertation is not coming through very clearly. It sounds like a sermon on Saturday.

And of course, one should never listen to sermons, right??? Laughing

If you really cared for the truth, you would listen to my sermon, open your eyes to the real-world, and be amazed by the every-day operations of "Catholic bureaucracies" serving the poor all over the world.

As a Catholic I am always impressed by the work these "bureaucrats" do all over the world. Paradoxically, these "bureaucracies" renew my faith all the time.

Take care, and pleae take the time to carefully consider my previous "sermon"). :wink:

0 Replies

Who said bureaucracies are the same? I said one isn't any better nor worse than another and can't represent themselves being different -- maybe a different set of rules and distributing responsibility but no better or worse than another. It's always the bureaucrats within the bureaucracy that become the problem. If you're saying there is no such thing as church politics, there's a bird in Australia that does a good imitation.

BTW, there's no need to shout in bold print unless you fancy yourself to be Elmer Gantry.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

Who said bureaucracies are the same? I said one isn't any better nor worse than another and can't represent themselves being different -- maybe a different set of rules and distributing responsibility but no better or worse than another. It's always the bureaucrats within the bureaucracy that become the problem. If you're saying there is no such thing as church politics, there's a bird in Australia that does a good imitation.

BTW, there's no need to shout in bold print unless you fancy yourself to be Elmer Gantry.

Obviously you don't want to address the issues that I've presented to you. I've explained the human side of church organization even better than you have (politics included), but you're choosing to skirt the issue. It seems like we've reached the limit of your argumentative capacity.

0 Replies

You reached the limit of your argument wth your first sentence and I see you still couldn't resist shouting out "skirt" -- just what issue were we discussing? You're simply pontificating on how wonderful the Catholic church is in a peculiar writing style -- I am not impressed but underwhelmed.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

You reached the limit of your argument wth your first sentence and I see you still couldn't resist shouting out "skirt" -- just what issue were we discussing? You're simply pontificating on how wonderful the Catholic church is in a peculiar writing style -- I am not impressed but underwhelmed.

I guess we all have our own writing styles...

Let me remind you what the issue is. It is very simple: You think that you can put down the Church just because it is a human organization with a hierarchy, bureaucracy, and internal politics. And I'm telling you that (1) all human organizations have positive and negative aspects, (2) to have a fair opinion of the Church you would need to put in the balance its positive aspects and its negative ones, (3) Christians have been doing this for centuries, (4) anybody with a fair mind and the eyes open will see that the good deeds vastly outweigh the bad deeds.

Now, are you going to see the point and take a really close look at the Church and what it does through its numerous organizations? Or are you just going to declare: "Yes, but it has a hierarchy [bad] and internal politics [bad] and that discredits it"?????

Take care.

0 Replies

I believe it was Einstein that said that (paraphrasing) "to be a scientist is to continuously search for the truth - no true scientist would ever stop searching for the link that binds all things together". Do you think those words could be uttered by an atheist? Impossible. The fact that you have concluded that believing in god is a farce evidences that you have stoped your search for knowledge and the truth - the very antithesis of a scientist.

0 Replies

Catholicism
Quoting Seb I have to say to Maliagar (and Seb Smile

), a quest for truth is what is really important - not just the works of a church on it's own. I have several disagreements with the Catholic church. Most are based on the foundation of salvation and a conflict between what the Catholic church says and what the Bible says.

Take the rosary prayer for example. 3 hail Mary's, later 10 hail Mary's. Then look at what the Bible actually says in regards to this... Matthew 6:7 "And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words." This is in direct conflict with the Bible.

Or the declaration of Mary being "co-redemtrix and co-mediatrix" of humanity. Zenit describes this as being not a dangerous issue. But yet, lets go back to the scriptures and see what it says. 1 Timothy 2:5 "For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,". Or what does Mary herself say about this? Luke 1:46:47 "And Mary said: "My soul magnifies the Lord, And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior." To refer to a Saviour (sorry I use the English spelling for the word unless I copy and paste), means she can be only one type of person. A sinner, like the rest of us.

Here are just two examples of where the Catholic church have gone astray from the Bible. It may be hard to swallow, or you may have heard these examples before. Just keep in mind this is not my opinion... it is written.

0 Replies

Drew - I, for one, will not disagree with you at all. In fact, I too - despite being a Catholic - disagree with some of the Church's interpretations and/or liberties taken at the expense of the written word. I don't necessarily agree (well, with some of it I do) with the two examples you gave. But, your point is well taken and I respect that. As adults, we have choices to make - my choice just happened to be to follow and be a part of the Catholic religion. Ultimately, all Christians interpret the essence of the Bible exactly the same - Jesus came to wash clean the slate that man's sins had stained for centuries before (and for our future sins) - His betrayal, torture and blood shed were in fulfillment of the scriptures - and His resurrection assured life everlasting for those who follow and believe (that's a whole other discussion).

The moral of my little lecture here is that ALL of Christianity interprets Jesus' Passion the very same way. Why is it that people like LW decide to only chastise the Catholic Church? The Baptists, evangelists, Protestants, Jehovah's Witnesses and so on all believe in it, why just the Catholics then? That type of bias is absurd and all too often tolerated because the Church is an easy target.

0 Replies

Re: Catholicism
Let's see, Drew...

You say:

Quote:

drew77 wrote:
Take the rosary prayer for example. 3 hail Mary's, later 10 hail Mary's. Then look at what the Bible actually says in regards to this... Matthew 6:7 "And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words." This is in direct conflict with the Bible.

Wrong. To be in "direct contradiction" you would have to prove that when people pray the Rosary they are using "vain" repetitions. To know if those repetitions are "vain", you would need to go into their hearts--only God can do that. One single word can be vain or filled with meaning. The same with many words. And there is no way for you to judge that from the outside.

Should we say that the expression "Holy, holy, holy" is a "vain" repetition?

That's what happens when people try to interpret Scripture on their own, apart from the Church. That's what happens when people follow their own inspirations and false teachers... For even the Devil can quote Scripture... "Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation..." (2 Pe 1:20).

Take care.

0 Replies

Re: Catholicism
Something else, Drew:

Quote:

Or the declaration of Mary being "co-redemtrix and co-mediatrix" of humanity. ... lets go back to the scriptures and see what it says. 1 Timothy 2:5 "For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,". Or what does Mary herself say about this? Luke 1:46:47 "And Mary said: "My soul magnifies the Lord, And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior." To refer to a Saviour (sorry I use the English spelling for the word unless I copy and paste), means she can be only one type of person. A sinner, like the rest of us.

Christian doctrine is not defined by quoting one verse here and another there. This would lead us into a war of verses: You throw your favorite verses and I throw mine. "Who is to say" if my verse is to be interpreted in light of yours, or yours in light of mine, right? If I disagree with your interpretation, I can always go and establish my own "church" in my garage. That is why Protestants keep dividing and subdividing and diluting the Christian message--which we were commanded to announce to the world in Unity... "that the world may believe".

Quote:

Here are just two examples of where the Catholic church have gone astray from the Bible. It may be hard to swallow, or you may have heard these examples before. Just keep in mind this is not my opinion... it is written.

You have a wrong (Protestant) understanding of the relationship between the Church and the Bible. You seem to believe that the Church is like the Executive branch of government: It should act according to the Constitution. In fact, the Church is like the Supreme Court: It has the authority to decide what is constitutional and what not. The Church is also like the Constitutional Convention: It wrote the New Testament and approved its canon.

Since its origins with Peter and Paul, the Church has never grounded its teachings in isolated Bible verses. Remember: The Word of God is, primarily, Christ himself. Also remember: The Apostles were sent out to preach the Gospel, not to write. Christ himself did not write anything. Nobody carried a Bible under their arm. I don't need to tell you that the role of the Bible in Christianity is not the same as the role of the Koran among Muslims (except for the comparatively minoritarian sects of Christian literal-fundamentalists).

The books of the Bible were in separate scrolls, they were expensive, heavy, few people knew how to read, and the Christian message was meant to be announced, not written down. In other words, first was the Church, then the oral preaching, then disperse written versions of the oral message, and much later, a gradual editing and putting together of those manuscripts, and finally a decision that canonized certain manuscripts and rejected others.

This was done by the Catholic Church. And those who accept the Bible as inspired are accepting (whether they realize it or not) the authority of the institution that declared it inspired. So the Protestants accept the authority of the Church that put together the Bible but do not accept its authority to define the rest of the Christian message.

Now, in Protestant countries many atheists and non-believers have absorbed from the culture the fairly recent idea that Christian teaching is rooted in specific Bible verses. Not at all. Not in the most ancient Christian churches: the Catholic, the Eastern Orthodox, and the Oriental Orthodox. Not in Judaism. This is not a historically accurate understanding of Christianity.

Take care.

0 Replies

Hi, Seb.

Keep in mind one thing. For a Christian, the Church is the teacher. And we are like children. The Pope and Bishops are the pastors. And we the sheep. Individual Christians are not teachers and pastors, and when they pretend to be so, something like the Protestant revolt occurs. So we listen to the Gospel as the People of God (the Church) announces it through the centuries, and we ponder in our hearts its message as we make it our own and try to live by it.

It is absolutely natural to have some difficulties with some teachings here and there. Sometimes it takes years for us to see the point. Sometimes we obey even if we don't see the point (that's why we have COMMANDMENTS). Sometimes we decide not to obey (which may be a venial or a mortal sin). Sometimes we become adults and follow the teaching not out of obedience, but out of full understanding.

Some Catholics believe that they will be accepted by "the world" if they proclaim their "disagreements" with "the pillar and foundation of Truth", the Church (1 Tim. 3:15). Not at all. The world won't be satisfied until it turns you into a totally lukewarm Christian, and then into an indifferent, an agnostic, or an atheist (atheists are so few that they wouldn't be able to accomplish anything without the help of lukewarm Christians). So be careful. By all means continue struggling with what doesn't make sense to you, but do not just let the mind of the world take over you.

Take care.

seb wrote:

Drew - I, for one, will not disagree with you at all. In fact, I too - despite being a Catholic - disagree with some of the Church's interpretations and/or liberties taken at the expense of the written word. I don't necessarily agree (well, with some of it I do) with the two examples you gave. But, your point is well taken and I respect that. As adults, we have choices to make - my choice just happened to be to follow and be a part of the Catholic religion. Ultimately, all Christians interpret the essence of the Bible exactly the same - Jesus came to wash clean the slate that man's sins had stained for centuries before (and for our future sins) - His betrayal, torture and blood shed were in fulfillment of the scriptures - and His resurrection assured life everlasting for those who follow and believe (that's a whole other discussion).

The moral of my little lecture here is that ALL of Christianity interprets Jesus' Passion the very same way. Why is it that people like LW decide to only chastise the Catholic Church? The Baptists, evangelists, Protestants, Jehovah's Witnesses and so on all believe in it, why just the Catholics then? That type of bias is absurd and all too often tolerated because the Church is an easy target.

0 Replies

LW, i'd like to note that i am indeed taking bias to be defined as either a preference for or against something--and that does not implicity involve ignorance. Yes, it is fair to say that i am biased against all "sects," in that i despise the idea of organized religion. I've missed any comments you've made about Scientology, and therefore, you have my apologies for not acknowledging as much, with the plea that i did not know of it. I have seen more than one comment of yours on Catholicism, and so, it seemed to me that you had an ax to grind with them. I was frankly surprised, as i consider you level-headed and fair minded.

As for what ensued with Maliagar's comments and your exchanges there, my only comment is that i don't have a dog in that fight.

0 Replies

Mel Gibson's The Passion, sparking concern from the ADL.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know