[quote]Lorisco wrote:
randman wrote:
Again, you act like this is some kind of revealing news. Like the Catholic Church all of a sudden is doing this possibly as a desperate survival tactic. This has been the belief all along. All your seeing is a press release confirming the belief since the inception of the Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church has never viewed the bible as an infallible document/single source of truth. So it may be a completely new bit of informatino for you, but not to any believers. It goes to show how little you know of the Catholic faith. And please spare us your conjecture on the the Church’s motivations as some kind of desperate marketing ploy.
In my opinion this is why most Christian’s do not respect the Papacy. Having the ability to pick and choose from scripture what is literal and what is not or determining your own interpretation is not conducive to consistent application. This is what most protestants have been “protesting” about the Papacy.
Funny how the Papacy states that scripture is not the ultimate authority, but then turns around and say the church is the ultimate authority. They decide what is right and wrong. Not the bible, not me and not you.
So the reality is that the Papacy has replaced the bible as the truth. So the bible is fallible, but the church is not? Nice! I guess this is a how they explain those Catholic doctrines that conflict with the bible; just say the bible is no longer the standard.
[/quote]
“Most” Christians eh? You do realize that on a global basis, “most Christians” are actually Catholic, right? LOL
It’s not a matter of “picking and choosing” as you like to describe it, just that we don’t view the Bible literally. It’s not saying the Bible is “fallible” by any stretch of the imagination, but that it does need to be interpreted. If you take major issue with that, fine - that’s why you have your beliefs as a Protestant and if that works for you, more power to you. But the idea that the Catholic Church is somehow enforcing its doctrine upon you is pretty funny… you have free choice to accept what you believe and what you don’t.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Interesting, no offence to Catholics, but it is kind of funny to watch you get all indignant when it is suggested that there are problems or political issues within “The Church”.
Of course, it is more fun to watch fundamental literalists go apeshit all the time. For example, Zeb with respect to gay marriage. It was surely defeated, but the direction of the issue is towards, dare I use the word, liberalization and more so as you discuss the issue with younger crowds.
Anyway, for those of us that aren’t Catholic, don’t get upset when we discover things you’ve probably known your whole life. Unless you were born into a particular religion, most people don’t know anything about it… nor do they have any reason to.[/quote]
Hey, I will be the first to admit that the Church is not perfect and has areas where it needs to improve. This tends to be more of a streak in Catholics here in the U.S. mind you, but still… the priest abuse scandals clearly show there is a lot that needs to be done. We’re still all human and prone to mistakes… but we have to learn from them and not repeat them (especially not ones so grave).
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
While I struggle with the whole concept of the existence of god, I certainly take no pleasure in trying to destroy or make fun of others beliefs.
I even respect Islam although we are fighting those of it that try to pervert it.
It is interesting that the some of the so called enlightened or progressive posters here absolutey delight in trying to tear down others beliefs.
[/quote]
Right, it’s stuff like this that leads to accusations of being “un-American” or that people who, as you say, struggle with the existence of God, are out to tear down the very fabric of society or want to impose atheism on others. All I’m doing is asking whether or not God exists. I hardly consider myself a threat to society. All I ask is that those who do believe mind their own business; I’ll mind mine. We’ll both get along.
[quote]vroom wrote:
I did a Google search and found this, so perhaps you could critique it with respect to history and myth regarding Galileo?
It paints a different picture than you did…[/quote]
Vroom,
I have read a lot of your posts over the years and often find them funny and introspective, whether I agree or not, but with all due respect…getting info from infidels.org is like getting hardcore info from Muscle and Fitness…
There are kernels of truth and…well…that’s where it stops.
It will become a lenghty, drawn out discussion to prove otherwise but instead I would challenge you to find an unbiased source.
As I stated, I am not a Catholic and do not feel attacked by these things at all. I do however, hate the way the debate between believers and un-believers is taking place in this country.The level of disrespect is enormous.
It surprises me because I had/have a different view of Americans. But I guess religion indeed does bring out the best as well as worst in people.
On the one had I wish some Christians would stop reacting the way they did and not respond in kind. In the other hand I wish some Atheists would realize the vast amount of PhD’s who feel there is ample evidence for Creation (and no…not PhD’s in English )
A true search (which might take a long time) on the historic facts on some of these matters like Galileo, Copernicus and the Churche’s dealings with scientists will uncover some nasty facts indeed but also perpetuations of falsehood to put the Catholic Church in a bad light.
As you perhaps know, Vroom, there are many sides to a story. I used to treach Marketing Research at a University in Holland and trust me, you can manipulate data in any information you would like. It is hard to find unbiased sources but they are out there. But just Googling Galileo will not do it…
[quote]IamMarqaos wrote:
Lothario1132…
unfortunately you are perpetuating a myth and it shows the lack of education of many atheists when it comes to these matters.
I am not a catholic but a student od history and must come to their defense concerning Galileo.
Galileo insisted that the church immediately endorse his views, rather than allow for general acceptance and went as far as mocking the pope. Yes, he was censured, but the church kept giving him his pension for the rest of his life.
Copernicus also, history shows, was not persucuted and died of natural causes the same year his ideas were published.
I know it seems rather easy to bash the Catholic Church and I am certainly not a fan but stick to the facts.[/quote]
Okay. Fact: Galileo was right. Fact: The Catholic church at the time called his theories heresy. Conclusion: The church censored him because they could not reconcile the scripture’s teachings with scientific truth, which was my whole point in re the Catholics not having a problem with science in my post you took issue with.
My understanding of history is just fine. The fact that you feel threatened by my posts to spew some whiny drivel about how I’m a jerk doesn’t change the fact that I’m right. Sorry.
Of course we always start with a snide remark. “Believers” are goofy. Would you take seriously a grown man who believes in the tooth fairy? Belief in the supernatural is by definition an untenable position to take in a “rational” discussion of ANY kind. Think about that for a second. If I poke a little fun at someone because they are goofy, then tough. They poke fun at me right back, don’t worry. Please relax.
I got a question. Can a murderer become a priest? If I kill someone (let’s say Oogie, just as an example), and I go to jail and do my time. When I get out, can I become a priest?
[quote]Massif wrote:
I got a question. Can a murderer become a priest? If I kill someone (let’s say Oogie, just as an example), and I go to jail and do my time. When I get out, can I become a priest?[/quote]
Yes, specifically if you get rid of Oogie you will become a priest and members on this site will sit and listen to you as if your giving a sermon.
[quote]Massif wrote:
I got a question. Can a murderer become a priest? If I kill someone (let’s say Oogie, just as an example), and I go to jail and do my time. When I get out, can I become a priest?[/quote]
Hmm. I am wracking my brain on this one. Part of me wants to say “yes” since it is inherent in Catholicism that anyone can repent and be saved (provided that they are sincere in doing so). I am going to have to check more into this one, though.
As long as you go anywhere other than a religious site, the end result is the same. The church, whether prodded or used, ended up taking the position that his work was heresy. No matter who was upset at his work, it was the church that was the ruling authority.
Something which probably won’t be argued with…
On October 31 of 1992, the Roman Catholic Church finally admitted that it had erred in its 359-year-old persecution of the 17th century astronomer and physicist Galileo Galilei (1564-1642). The announcement was made by Pope John Paul II at a meeting of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences in Rome. The Pope said that “the underlying problems of this case concern both the nature of science and the nature of faith…one day we may find ourselves in a similar situation, which will require both sides to have an informed awareness of the field and the limits of their own competencies.”
[quote]Kuz wrote:
Massif wrote:
I got a question. Can a murderer become a priest? If I kill someone (let’s say Oogie, just as an example), and I go to jail and do my time. When I get out, can I become a priest?
Hmm. I am wracking my brain on this one. Part of me wants to say “yes” since it is inherent in Catholicism that anyone can repent and be saved (provided that they are sincere in doing so). I am going to have to check more into this one, though.[/quote]
So is the main problem with gays becoming priests the fact that they don’t repent? They still want to be gay and a priest?
If they truly repented and stopped rooting dudes, would they be able to become priests?
Big questions, I know. I am not being a smart ass, by the way.
[quote]Massif wrote:
Kuz wrote:
Massif wrote:
I got a question. Can a murderer become a priest? If I kill someone (let’s say Oogie, just as an example), and I go to jail and do my time. When I get out, can I become a priest?
Hmm. I am wracking my brain on this one. Part of me wants to say “yes” since it is inherent in Catholicism that anyone can repent and be saved (provided that they are sincere in doing so). I am going to have to check more into this one, though.
So is the main problem with gays becoming priests the fact that they don’t repent? They still want to be gay and a priest?
If they truly repented and stopped rooting dudes, would they be able to become priests?
Big questions, I know. I am not being a smart ass, by the way.[/quote]
I recall reading once that it was the homosexual acts themselves, i.e., rooting dudes as you so eloquently put it, that were considered sinful. Actually being gay was not a sin. So as long as a gay person essentially remained celibate, that was okay. I suppose you could ask, “what’s the point of that,” but then again, the Catholic church is against birth control unless is the “natural family planning” method which is so-so effective, so I suppose the church wants even heterosexuals to lead semi-celibate lives, too. BTW, perhaps I’m being too cynical, but I think the “no birth control” rule was made up by a bunch of cranky guys leading celibate lives who figured since they couldn’t have any, then the rest of us shouldn’t be allowed to enjoy it. If priests were allowed to marry, I bet we’d hear a whole 'nother song from them. However, I think the rule that no sex outside of marriage is a good rule. I have a daughter - amazing how things change once you have one. But once married, hinky and kinky is all good.
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
However, I think the rule that no sex outside of marriage is a good rule. I have a daughter - amazing how things change once you have one. But once married, hinky and kinky is all good.[/quote]
ROTFL!!!
I hear you on that one. I found my perspective changed dramatically after the birth of my daughter!!
I heard today, that the no marriage rule was instituted by the church in order to prevent the land owned by priests being divided up and distributed to his heirs upon his death. Of course, this isn’t what was said…
Go look up the date that it was enacted and decided for yourself.
[quote]vroom wrote:
I heard today, that the no marriage rule was instituted by the church in order to prevent the land owned by priests being divided up and distributed to his heirs upon his death. Of course, this isn’t what was said…
Go look up the date that it was enacted and decided for yourself.[/quote]
That’s not Catholic Common Sense, that’s Catholic Business Sense.
As long as you go anywhere other than a religious site, the end result is the same. The church, whether prodded or used, ended up taking the position that his work was heresy. No matter who was upset at his work, it was the church that was the ruling authority.
Something which probably won’t be argued with…
On October 31 of 1992, the Roman Catholic Church finally admitted that it had erred in its 359-year-old persecution of the 17th century astronomer and physicist Galileo Galilei (1564-1642). The announcement was made by Pope John Paul II at a meeting of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences in Rome. The Pope said that “the underlying problems of this case concern both the nature of science and the nature of faith…one day we may find ourselves in a similar situation, which will require both sides to have an informed awareness of the field and the limits of their own competencies.” [/quote]
Vroom,
I am not disagreeing, merely stating that what was presented was one sided.
Again:
Galileo insisted that the church immediately endorse his views, rather than allow for general acceptance and went as far as mocking the pope. Yes, he was censured, but the church kept giving him his pension for the rest of his life.
Most people read only the first part and focus on that. They forget the immense implications of mocking the pope in those days. Today mocking Bush gets you a laugh most of the time and your car keyed unfortunately some of the time. However life was very precarious back then and changes had to be made slowly. Galileo was right but his inistance of being accepted immediaely as well as his mocking the pope had social consequences and could have caused social chaos. It was this that caused him to be censored. Now that doesn’t make it any less wrong but the Church initially accepted his findings! Societies were frail back then and discrediting the spiritual leadership would have a lot more bad consequnces than it would in 2005.
The Church unfortunately choose to fight back in a un-Christian manner, however, they did continue to pay him his pension till he died.
And again, I am not Catholic, this is not an attempt to protect my Church.Sometimes there is just more to an argument then what traditionally people have focussed on.
Shouldn’t you be trying to deprive gay people of the right to get married or something? This is productive!
Deprive?!? They never had it in the first place, “CaptainLogic.”[/quote]
They have the right, like all other Americans, to pursue happiness, do they not? Do we Americans not say all people are created equal? Do gays born in this country and paying taxes in this country not have the same rights as any other Americans? Isn’t the only reason they cannot get married in this country because of religion-based ignorance and hostility? Is this country not about liberty and justice for ALL? The Bill of Rights doesn’t guarantee heterosexuals the right to marry any more than it denies that right to gays. The only reason gay people cannot marry in this country is religious prejudice.
Christian reasoning on this issue is perverse beyond description. Zap, this very thing here is why I delight in tearing down religious beliefs. If it weren’t for the religious beliefs of some people, gays would be treated with dignity, like they were on an equal footing with other Americans. I recognize that people have the right to believe as they wish. I don’t have to respect those beliefs if they are stupid and/or harmful to other human beings.
YOur right to believe whatever you want does not translate into a right to inflict yourself on other people, even if you are in the majority.
[quote]Massif wrote:
MikeTheBear wrote:
However, I think the rule that no sex outside of marriage is a good rule. I have a daughter - amazing how things change once you have one. But once married, hinky and kinky is all good.
ROTFL!!!
I hear you on that one. I found my perspective changed dramatically after the birth of my daughter!!
[/quote]
[quote]WMD wrote:
YOur right to believe whatever you want does not translate into a right to inflict yourself on other people, even if you are in the majority.
[/quote]
Ooo… Heard that!
[quote]vroom wrote:
I heard today, that the no marriage rule was instituted by the church in order to prevent the land owned by priests being divided up and distributed to his heirs upon his death. Of course, this isn’t what was said…
Go look up the date that it was enacted and decided for yourself.[/quote]
Yup, you got it right, Vroom. That is the original reason they instituted the celibacy rule. Over the hundreds of years since then, it’s taken on a different kind of meaning all together, more to the notion of being “married to the Church” (a concept which does not entirely bother me… I don’t think we need to point blame at the current Church hierarchy now if they have taken on a different meaning for this over the years).
Personally, it would not trouble me at all if priests were allowed to marry (or women to become priests) and given the thinning ranks of new seminarians and ageing of the current population of priests, it’s probably a necessary step. The funny thing is that I can see it being difficult for more priests to be married given the amount of commitment to church activities (saying Mass, visiting the sick, etc.) that is expected of them since it tends to be a lot of work.
But hey, I’m just one of those “radical” U.S. Catholics that the Vatican shakes its head over. LOL
[quote]WMD wrote:
Christian reasoning on this issue is perverse beyond description. Zap, this very thing here is why I delight in tearing down religious beliefs. If it weren’t for the religious beliefs of some people, gays would be treated with dignity, like they were on an equal footing with other Americans. I recognize that people have the right to believe as they wish. I don’t have to respect those beliefs if they are stupid and/or harmful to other human beings.[/quote]
While I personally have no issue with someone being gay, I call BS on this to a certain degree. If you think that religion is the sole reason that gays are treated the way they are (and I would admit it is definitely part of it), I think you are giving way too much credit to all of the the bigots out there. People tend to fear and loathe that which is different from them, whether based on race, religion, creed or sexual orientation. A lot of people who are anti-gay may use the Bible as as justification, but even absent that, it’s not like they would be hugging the next gay person they saw.
)