logo Sign In

Religion — Page 119

Author
Time

chyron8472 said:

Ric, I might be interested in discussing what doctrine I hold to vs. what you, or Warb, or _ender or whoemever else holds to. But I am not interested in having to continually defend why Protestant belief is not inferior to Catholicism. Whether whichever position is more sound might be up for debate, but that still doesn’t invite disdain or condescension.

Again, apologies if I come across in any way as being disdainful or condescending. I simply have strong beliefs, but that doesn’t mean I think you’re stupid or ignorant or anything. I simply love a good debate and mainly out of curiosity am trying to understand why you don’t find the Catholic position convincing.

Author
Time

RicOlie_2 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

RicOlie_2 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

RicOlie_2 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

The idea that any church has more to offer seems weird to me. What does that have to do with truth? Who cares if a religion offers more? Shouldn’t all you care about is whether there’s sufficient evidence to justify a belief in it? At least protestants don’t offer nearly two millennia of failure to help the poor while their religious leader lives in a solid gold palace. Not that protestants don’t have their share of con-artists taking money for personal gain, but it’s on a smaller scale.

What evidence are you referring to? Failure of individuals to live up to a religion’s doctrine doesn’t constitute evidence against that religion, unless that itself runs contrary to the tenets of said religion.

It’s also noteworthy that those whom the Church upholds as examples to follow did in fact help the poor. Sts. Martin of Tours, Francis of Assisi, Mother Teresa of Calcutta, and Nicholas all come to mind. Note that there are very few popes from the Middle Ages and Renaissance that the Church honours as saints. It isn’t as if we think they were all good popes. Many were corrupt and immoral, and some were rebuked by saints such as Catherine of Siena or Bernard of Clairvaux.

There’s no concrete evidence for the existence of God or Jesus Christ. I know it’s based on faith, but there’s also clear evidence of Church corruption on a grand scale that would point towards it not being a particularly holy institution.

No concrete evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ? What about the gospels, Josephus, Tacitus, etc.? Jesus’ existence is just as well attested as many other historical figures of the time.

Not really. The gospels were written much later than he was supposed to have lived. Definitely long enough later that there’s no reason to believe they are quoting him verbatim. And there’s definitely no historical documentation that would point towards those documents being credible. I’m not sure what historical figures you’re talking about so I can’t attest to that.

I’m referring to most historical figures who weren’t kings or something similar. I can’t think of a lot of good examples because there simply aren’t many non-Biblical people from the first century or so who are well known. But Pontius Pilate is only known, aside from one partial inscription, from the gospels (c. 70-100), Josephus (c. 75-95), and Philo (died c. 50). This isn’t much different from Jesus, who is attested in the Epistles of Paul (c. 50-60), the gospels (c. 70-100), Josephus (c. 93), and Tacitus (c. 115). There is a fringe theory that Jesus did not exist, but it seems to stem more from an implicit desire to disprove Christianity than from genuinely wanting to reconstruct history.

The “fringe” theory that he didn’t exist is largely just a theory that he didn’t exist in the form that the Bible describes him as. This could be said about pretty much all of the Old Testament Kings too.

There are also scientifically inexplicable miracles, still visible in the Shroud of Turin, the Tilma of Juan Diego

There are images that look like certain things appearing in everything. I just googled around a found examples of chicken nuggets shaped like Abe Lincoln. What about the “face on Mars”?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cydonia_(region_of_Mars)

Doesn’t anyone believe in coincidence anymore? If we’re taking all of these as literal divine interventions just because they look like something or because someone claimed it happened, then you have to accept all other similar claims made by other religious people or even nonreligious people or you’d be intellectually dishonest. My brother claims to have seen a ghost in our childhood apartment. Was that apartment haunted? What makes him less credible than eye-witnesses to other such apparitions?

Images looking like certain things certainly doesn’t apply to the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe on the Tilma of Juan Diego, unless you’re referring to details in the eyes, etc. As for the Shroud of Turin, this certainly doesn’t hold true (see here for a detailed forensic examination of the shroud). The carbon dating to the 14th century is more convincing. I had thought that had been explained away, but I guess the argument that thousands of people fingering the shroud contaminated it may not hold water after all.

I suspect most so-called visions and apparitions are fake (which is why the Church doesn’t typically approve them), but I am willing to accept that some ghost sightings could potentially have a supernatural nature. I also think it’s possible to imagine things or to hallucinate.

Then why believe these specific miracles. It sounds like an implicit desire to prove Christianity.

the Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano…

How could you possibly say that a priest 1300 years ago claiming to have found flesh in his eucharist is a scientifically inexplicable miracle? I guess if we had any reason to believe that it actually happened, it’d be a scientifically inexplicable miracle. But there are people every day that claim to have meetings with aliens, or Elvis. Do you believe them? I have a theory about the miracle of Lanciano: the guy lied. Or at best was totally mistaken.

It was scientifically analyzed by Dr. Odoardo Linoli and found to have not decayed despite not containing preservatives or being in a hermeneutically sealed container, and, like in other Eucharistic miracles, the blood type is AB, among other things. Now, the text of the study is unfortunately not freely available, so I can’t personally attest to its validity. But I certainly can’t dismiss it off-hand.

I can dismiss it off-hand because I know that bread and wine can’t turn into flesh and blood. That’s just how reality is.

The universe has no explicable origin without God. Matter doesn’t just spontaneously generate itself. Not to mention the unliklihood of life simply coming to be through a chemical reaction of some kind. The fact that you believe these things occurred is itself an example of faith without concrete evidence.

Where’d God come from? Why doesn’t he need an origin, but the universe does? And I don’t “believe” in anything. That’s something you’ve attributed to me. I don’t know how the universe came into being. Haven’t claimed to, don’t plan on it. Not to mention, even if I granted that a god was a necessity, that grants no credibility to any particular religion.

God doesn’t need an origin because he is being itself, and is immaterial. Sorry for putting words in your mouth, I made a presumption which I thought was fair, but clearly wasn’t.

Why does he not need an origin? The Bible, at least in the old testament (and even in the new now that I think about it, given Christ’s humanity), describes him as pretty material and tangible.

Church corruption was no greater than any other organization in history. It should have been far less, of course. However, if you were to look only at those Catholics who have actually tried to live out their faith, I suspect you will see very little corruption.

I have higher expectations for God’s representatives on earth and there are plenty of irreligious people that have been just as great as Catholics that have tried to live out their faith. And it’s definitely not true that it’s no more corrupt than any other organization in history. What, is the Women’s Christian Temperance Union as corrupt? What about SETI? Or the Free Masons? How are you gauging the level of corruption?

Are any of these plentiful irreligious people as great as the saints?

I’d argue yes. Even if they were more flawed, I’d say that the accomplishments of people like Eleanor Roosevelt, Churchill, Earl Warren, Ghandi, Nelson Mandela, John Adams, Carl Sagan––just a few people that randomly came to my head––and many others have far greater accomplishments and inspired or helped a lot more people than saints like Mother Theresa. I know some of those examples had to claim affiliation with religion in order to survive politically during their respective times, but they weren’t particularly devout and none were Catholic. I’m sure you won’t consider them as great as the saints, but I don’t consider spreading Catholicism or the word of God to be a virtue, so I have much greater respect for people who helped, advocated for, or educated others (which is why I included Sagan) for irreligious reasons. Also, people can do great services without engaging in hands-on charity. Earl Warren protected the rights of tens of millions of Americans as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, which directly helped a lot more people than even the most charitable saints.

I suppose I wasn’t very clear when talking about corruption, so my claim isn’t very meaningful. When I think of corruption, I’m thinking in more religious terms, where it can refer to any sort of immorality.

I don’t care much about morality unless there’s hypocrisy involved. Like caring about the sanctity of life and then opposing condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS. I would actually be less frustrated by an institution opposing AIDS prevention if it didn’t claim to value the sanctity of life.

In fact, what I should have said is “individual Catholics are no more likely to be living immoral lives than anyone else, and in fact those who actually attempt to live out their faith are far less likely to be doing so,” or “corruption in the Catholic Church is not disproportionate to the amount of wealth and prestige it has enjoyed.”

The wealth and prestige is a big part of why I consider it to be a fraudulent organization, frankly. I don’t recall Jesus Christ or any of his followers living in anything other than poverty. There’s a sound biblical argument to be made that Christ was opposed to the accumulation of wealth at all, if we’re taking the gospels for what they are.

The truth of the matter is that there is no other comparable institution on earth. You mention the Women’s Christian Temperance Union, but that was never a potential means of power as becoming a clergyman in the Catholic Church once was. The same applies to Freemasonry. SETI does not have any bearing on one’s personal life. Any number of other organizations have either been relatively short-lived, do not require any moral commitments from their members, do not offer opportunities for power and wealth (this comes with size and prestige).

You didn’t make that distinction, but even still, most governments or governmental institutions in the western world aren’t as morally corrupt as the Catholic Church has been. It’s interaction with the Nazi Party, the child sex abuse coverups, and moral hypocrisy on abortion and birth control are just a few examples of issues that, while awful on their own, I find to be much more egregious coming from such a pious institution.

The Person in Question

Author
Time
 (Edited)

RicOlie_2 said:

I simply love a good debate and mainly out of curiosity am trying to understand why you don’t find the Catholic position convincing.

Because I value believer’s baptism by immersion; I don’t care much for liturgical recitation (because at some point the words become rote rather than genuine); I believe in the priesthood of the believer (1 Peter 2:9); and I’m happy with the autonomy accorded to my local church.

Among other things.

I also really see no value in having a Pope. I can talk to God as easily as he can. He is a teacher, and as a teacher he is held to a higher standard (James 3), but my local church doesn’t need to answer to a denominational administrative body.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMXvvNjYN50

 
JEDIT: Apparently, Baptists’ practice of believer’s baptism and Communion/The Lord’s Supper, are referred to as “ordinances” instead of “sacraments”. That is, we do so in obedience to Christ’s command and in following His example. I have personally been taught that baptism is an outward sign of an inward change. If Catholics hold to sacrements as “an outward sign of an inward grace” (according to the wiki entry on Sacrements), I’m not sure how that is different. I would have to ask someone more knowledgeable about it.

TV’s Frink said:

chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.

Author
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

RicOlie_2 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

RicOlie_2 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

RicOlie_2 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

The idea that any church has more to offer seems weird to me. What does that have to do with truth? Who cares if a religion offers more? Shouldn’t all you care about is whether there’s sufficient evidence to justify a belief in it? At least protestants don’t offer nearly two millennia of failure to help the poor while their religious leader lives in a solid gold palace. Not that protestants don’t have their share of con-artists taking money for personal gain, but it’s on a smaller scale.

What evidence are you referring to? Failure of individuals to live up to a religion’s doctrine doesn’t constitute evidence against that religion, unless that itself runs contrary to the tenets of said religion.

It’s also noteworthy that those whom the Church upholds as examples to follow did in fact help the poor. Sts. Martin of Tours, Francis of Assisi, Mother Teresa of Calcutta, and Nicholas all come to mind. Note that there are very few popes from the Middle Ages and Renaissance that the Church honours as saints. It isn’t as if we think they were all good popes. Many were corrupt and immoral, and some were rebuked by saints such as Catherine of Siena or Bernard of Clairvaux.

There’s no concrete evidence for the existence of God or Jesus Christ. I know it’s based on faith, but there’s also clear evidence of Church corruption on a grand scale that would point towards it not being a particularly holy institution.

No concrete evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ? What about the gospels, Josephus, Tacitus, etc.? Jesus’ existence is just as well attested as many other historical figures of the time.

Not really. The gospels were written much later than he was supposed to have lived. Definitely long enough later that there’s no reason to believe they are quoting him verbatim. And there’s definitely no historical documentation that would point towards those documents being credible. I’m not sure what historical figures you’re talking about so I can’t attest to that.

I’m referring to most historical figures who weren’t kings or something similar. I can’t think of a lot of good examples because there simply aren’t many non-Biblical people from the first century or so who are well known. But Pontius Pilate is only known, aside from one partial inscription, from the gospels (c. 70-100), Josephus (c. 75-95), and Philo (died c. 50). This isn’t much different from Jesus, who is attested in the Epistles of Paul (c. 50-60), the gospels (c. 70-100), Josephus (c. 93), and Tacitus (c. 115). There is a fringe theory that Jesus did not exist, but it seems to stem more from an implicit desire to disprove Christianity than from genuinely wanting to reconstruct history.

The “fringe” theory that he didn’t exist is largely just a theory that he didn’t exist in the form that the Bible describes him as. This could be said about pretty much all of the Old Testament Kings too.

No, that’s the mainstream theory. The fringe theory that he didn’t actually exist is what I thought you were referring to and is known as the “Christ Myth Theory.” The Old Testament histories fall into the genre of ancient history, so I don’t have much of a problem accepting that they are probably not factually inerrant.

There are also scientifically inexplicable miracles, still visible in the Shroud of Turin, the Tilma of Juan Diego

There are images that look like certain things appearing in everything. I just googled around a found examples of chicken nuggets shaped like Abe Lincoln. What about the “face on Mars”?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cydonia_(region_of_Mars)

Doesn’t anyone believe in coincidence anymore? If we’re taking all of these as literal divine interventions just because they look like something or because someone claimed it happened, then you have to accept all other similar claims made by other religious people or even nonreligious people or you’d be intellectually dishonest. My brother claims to have seen a ghost in our childhood apartment. Was that apartment haunted? What makes him less credible than eye-witnesses to other such apparitions?

Images looking like certain things certainly doesn’t apply to the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe on the Tilma of Juan Diego, unless you’re referring to details in the eyes, etc. As for the Shroud of Turin, this certainly doesn’t hold true (see here for a detailed forensic examination of the shroud). The carbon dating to the 14th century is more convincing. I had thought that had been explained away, but I guess the argument that thousands of people fingering the shroud contaminated it may not hold water after all.

I suspect most so-called visions and apparitions are fake (which is why the Church doesn’t typically approve them), but I am willing to accept that some ghost sightings could potentially have a supernatural nature. I also think it’s possible to imagine things or to hallucinate.

Then why believe these specific miracles. It sounds like an implicit desire to prove Christianity.

For the same reason I believe anything else. Because of the evidence for their authenticity.

the Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano…

How could you possibly say that a priest 1300 years ago claiming to have found flesh in his eucharist is a scientifically inexplicable miracle? I guess if we had any reason to believe that it actually happened, it’d be a scientifically inexplicable miracle. But there are people every day that claim to have meetings with aliens, or Elvis. Do you believe them? I have a theory about the miracle of Lanciano: the guy lied. Or at best was totally mistaken.

It was scientifically analyzed by Dr. Odoardo Linoli and found to have not decayed despite not containing preservatives or being in a hermeneutically sealed container, and, like in other Eucharistic miracles, the blood type is AB, among other things. Now, the text of the study is unfortunately not freely available, so I can’t personally attest to its validity. But I certainly can’t dismiss it off-hand.

I can dismiss it off-hand because I know that bread and wine can’t turn into flesh and blood. That’s just how reality is.

Of course it can’t on its own. But if an all-powerful God exists, he can do whatever the heck he wants with matter. You’re looking at it with the assumption that a personal God does not exist, whereas I am looking at it as possible evidence for the existence of such a God (and specifically the Christian God).

The universe has no explicable origin without God. Matter doesn’t just spontaneously generate itself. Not to mention the unliklihood of life simply coming to be through a chemical reaction of some kind. The fact that you believe these things occurred is itself an example of faith without concrete evidence.

Where’d God come from? Why doesn’t he need an origin, but the universe does? And I don’t “believe” in anything. That’s something you’ve attributed to me. I don’t know how the universe came into being. Haven’t claimed to, don’t plan on it. Not to mention, even if I granted that a god was a necessity, that grants no credibility to any particular religion.

God doesn’t need an origin because he is being itself, and is immaterial. Sorry for putting words in your mouth, I made a presumption which I thought was fair, but clearly wasn’t.

Why does he not need an origin? The Bible, at least in the old testament (and even in the new now that I think about it, given Christ’s humanity), describes him as pretty material and tangible.

Because he is the source of all existence; he is being itself. He is not simply “a (really powerful) being.” He is Being, and doesn’t make sense for Being to have an origin beyond itself.

In the Old Testament, he wasn’t described as material and tangible, but rather attributed anthropomorphic characteristics at times and apparently described as appearing under more substantial forms sometimes. In the New Testament, it’s quite clear that he isn’t material and tangible, but that he took on a human nature.

Church corruption was no greater than any other organization in history. It should have been far less, of course. However, if you were to look only at those Catholics who have actually tried to live out their faith, I suspect you will see very little corruption.

I have higher expectations for God’s representatives on earth and there are plenty of irreligious people that have been just as great as Catholics that have tried to live out their faith. And it’s definitely not true that it’s no more corrupt than any other organization in history. What, is the Women’s Christian Temperance Union as corrupt? What about SETI? Or the Free Masons? How are you gauging the level of corruption?

Are any of these plentiful irreligious people as great as the saints?

I’d argue yes. Even if they were more flawed, I’d say that the accomplishments of people like Eleanor Roosevelt, Churchill, Earl Warren, Ghandi, Nelson Mandela, John Adams, Carl Sagan––just a few people that randomly came to my head––and many others have far greater accomplishments and inspired or helped a lot more people than saints like Mother Theresa. I know some of those examples had to claim affiliation with religion in order to survive politically during their respective times, but they weren’t particularly devout and none were Catholic. I’m sure you won’t consider them as great as the saints, but I don’t consider spreading Catholicism or the word of God to be a virtue, so I have much greater respect for people who helped, advocated for, or educated others (which is why I included Sagan) for irreligious reasons. Also, people can do great services without engaging in hands-on charity. Earl Warren protected the rights of tens of millions of Americans as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, which directly helped a lot more people than even the most charitable saints.

Fair enough. We’re arguing from completely different points of view, so clearly we will never agree on this.

I suppose I wasn’t very clear when talking about corruption, so my claim isn’t very meaningful. When I think of corruption, I’m thinking in more religious terms, where it can refer to any sort of immorality.

I don’t care much about morality unless there’s hypocrisy involved. Like caring about the sanctity of life and then opposing condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS. I would actually be less frustrated by an institution opposing AIDS prevention if it didn’t claim to value the sanctity of life.

In fact, what I should have said is “individual Catholics are no more likely to be living immoral lives than anyone else, and in fact those who actually attempt to live out their faith are far less likely to be doing so,” or “corruption in the Catholic Church is not disproportionate to the amount of wealth and prestige it has enjoyed.”

The wealth and prestige is a big part of why I consider it to be a fraudulent organization, frankly. I don’t recall Jesus Christ or any of his followers living in anything other than poverty. There’s a sound biblical argument to be made that Christ was opposed to the accumulation of wealth at all, if we’re taking the gospels for what they are.

I agree that the wealth and prestige of many Church officials (and aristocratic laymen) throughout history is scandalous. I don’t see that as evidence that the Catholic Church is fraudulent, however, but rather as an indication of the unwillingness of many of its members to truly embrace its teachings. Most Catholics are just as much in need of conversion as anyone else. As far as Jesus’ teaching goes, I agree that he encouraged literal (voluntary) poverty. He would have, and I believe will, condemn many popes and bishops just as strongly as he condemned the pharisees. The Church realized early on, however, that private property was a necessary evil, although a Christian should still live simply and not extravagently.

What is important, and this seems clear from Jesus’ teachings as well, is a spirit of poverty (“Blessed are the poor in spirit…”), i.e. a detachment from material things and by implication, a willingness to generously share what one has. In the story of the rich young man, at least one of the gospels reports that “[Jesus] loved him” when the young man recounted his faithfulness to the commandments. Jesus then counselled him that if he wanted to be perfect, then he should go and sell all that he had and give it to the poor. This implies that a certain degree of poverty is necessary for perfection and sanctity, but that one can follow the commandments well and still have material wealth. If my family gave up all our possessions and gave to those poorer than us, we would soon be living on the street. It simply isn’t practicable for everyone to live in poverty.

The truth of the matter is that there is no other comparable institution on earth. You mention the Women’s Christian Temperance Union, but that was never a potential means of power as becoming a clergyman in the Catholic Church once was. The same applies to Freemasonry. SETI does not have any bearing on one’s personal life. Any number of other organizations have either been relatively short-lived, do not require any moral commitments from their members, do not offer opportunities for power and wealth (this comes with size and prestige).

You didn’t make that distinction, but even still, most governments or governmental institutions in the western world aren’t as morally corrupt as the Catholic Church has been. It’s interaction with the Nazi Party, the child sex abuse coverups, and moral hypocrisy on abortion and birth control are just a few examples of issues that, while awful on their own, I find to be much more egregious coming from such a pious institution.

I certainly don’t see that. Governments are corrupt even on provincial and state levels (it’s a matter of course, in Canada, at least, for government workers to be paid to do things like going golfing, and of course there are many more serious examples to be found). Support for euthanasia, abortion, and complete disregard for the sacredness of human sexuality are just a few of the examples that are indicative of a general moral bankruptcy in the governments of the Western World. You mention that the Church is somehow hypocritical in condemning these things. How so?

I’m not quite sure what you’re referring to regarding the Nazis. Why did Nazis target Catholic priests if the Church was complaisant towards the regime? I suggest you read at least the first few paragraphs of the Wikipedia article on the subject to get a more balanced view of the Church’s response to Nazism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_Nazi_Germany

Pope Pius XII is credited with doing more than any other world leader to save Jews, and in fact the chief rabbi in Rome, Israel Zolli, converted to Catholicism after the war at least partly because of his efforts and that of other Church leaders.

Sex abuse coverups are often due to corruption, though sometimes they are simply due to cowardice or misplaced “mercy.” It is unfortunate that the problem was as severe as it was in certain countries, but it is a minority of clergy who are culpable. Most Catholic clergymen that I’ve met are wonderful people. There are bad apples, and a handful that merit a far harsher term, but what do you expect from human beings? There are also many saints and inspiring examples among their ranks.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Let me be clear here: I have no personal disdain for Catholicism. I just don’t belong to it. To me, again, they are brothers and sisters in Christ. So nevermind the differences.

But I will say this… When I went to Eureka Springs, Arkansas with my wife and her family, and we visited The Thorncrown Chapel there, it was pretty. The building and surrounding nature was nice. But when I visited St. Elizabeth Catholic Church, it was amazing. I could… feel something in the church there. Something tangible. It was like the Spirit was there, in that place, despite it being empty. I didn’t want to leave. I genuinely felt in that moment like I could have sat in that pew all day and just been in His presence. My family wanted to do other things that afternoon, and it made me sad to leave. It made me think about Aslan in the Narnia novel Prince Caspian where he tells Lucy she should have gone to him even despite her siblings’ protestations of not seeing him anywhere.

It was only days later when I mentioned my experience that my family admitted feeling similarly. My wife says the next time we go back, we will go there and just be for a while.

TV’s Frink said:

chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.

Author
Time

chyron8472 said:

RicOlie_2 said:

I simply love a good debate and mainly out of curiosity am trying to understand why you don’t find the Catholic position convincing.

Because I value believer’s baptism by immersion; I don’t care much for liturgical recitation (because at some point the words become rote rather than genuine); I believe in the priesthood of the believer (1 Peter 2:9); and I’m happy with the autonomy accorded to my local church.

I won’t address all your points unless you want me to, because I’m short on time, but there are a couple points I wanted to make:

While I think what you say about liturgical prayer is often the case, I find I enter into liturgical prayers more and more when I make the effort to do so and they become more meaningful to me the more familiar I become with them and the realities of my faith that they reference. I do agree that personal prayer is extremely important, however, and has not been emphasized enough in the Church.

I appreciate your cordial responses. If only I came across that way all the time…

You may be interested to know that Catholics also believe in the priesthood of the believer (usually called the “Baptismal priesthood” as distinct from the better known “ministerial priesthood”):

http://www.catholiclane.com/the-baptismal-priesthood/

Among other things.

I also really see no value in having a Pope. I can talk to God as easily as he can. He is a teacher, and as a teacher he is held to a higher standard (James 3), but my local church doesn’t need to answer to a denominational administrative body.

Catholics don’t believe that we need the Pope to talk to God for us. Everyone can and should do that. We believe that he is Christ’s representative on earth, it’s true, but he is not somehow a “superhuman,” and his authority is not absolute. Its purpose it to preserve the unity of the Church and to provide guidance to all its members.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMXvvNjYN50

That’s a beautiful video, and I wish his words applied to more Catholic parishes. It is very true of the Church as a whole, however. People of all kinds are united in the Body of Christ through baptism and it’s a wonderful thing.

 
JEDIT: Apparently, Baptists’ practice of believer’s baptism and Communion/The Lord’s Supper, are referred to as “ordinances” instead of “sacraments”. That is, we do so in obedience to Christ’s command and in following His example. I have personally been taught that baptism is an outward sign of an inward change. If Catholics hold to sacrements as “an outward sign of an inward grace” (according to the wiki entry on Sacrements), I’m not sure how that is different. I would have to ask someone more knowledgeable about it.

I think, though I could be wrong, that the Baptist belief is more along the lines of “baptism is an expression of a change that has occurred within oneself,” whereas in Catholicism, it’s more like "baptism is an outward sign (water and the words “I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit”) accompanied by an inward change (remission of original sin, incorporation into the Body of Christ, the gift of the Holy Spirit).

It’s also noteworthy that the Church teaches that the graces of baptism and the other sacraments are not necessarily received by the recipient of the sacrament. A proper disposition is required for this, and thus an infant who is baptized must be raised in the faith and accept it as their own in order to fully receive the graces of the sacrament.

Author
Time

chyron8472 said:

Let me be clear here: I have no personal disdain for Catholicism. I just don’t belong to it. To me, again, they are brothers and sisters in Christ. So nevermind the differences.

But I will say this… When I went to Eureka Springs, Arkansas with my wife and her family, and we visited The Thorncrown Chapel there, it was pretty. The building and surrounding nature was nice. But when I visited St. Elizabeth Catholic Church, it was amazing. I could… feel something in the church there. Something tangible. It was like the Spirit was there, in that place, despite it being empty. I didn’t want to leave. I genuinely felt in that moment like I could have sat in that pew all day and just been in His presence. My family wanted to do other things that afternoon, and it made me sad to leave. It made me think about Aslan in the Narnia novel Prince Caspian where he tells Lucy she should have gone to him even despite her siblings’ protestations of not seeing him anywhere.

It was only days later when I mentioned my experience that my family admitted feeling similarly. My wife says the next time we go back, we will go there and just be for a while.

Thank you for sharing that. I do think I’m perhaps overemphasizing our differences when I should be focusing on similarities. But then there wouldn’t be much of a debate, would there? ;P

I feel strongly about the need for unity in matters of doctrine, but I can also appreciate your own desire for unity in a different way. I think the two need to be balanced, but I respect your thoughts on the matter.

Author
Time

RicOlie_2 said:
There are bad apples, and a handful that merit a far harsher term, but what do you expect from human beings? There are also many saints and inspiring examples among their ranks.

I actually have pretty high expectations of human beings, even though I know I shouldn’t. That’s why I get so angry at them all the time. I don’t like the “bad apples” argument. When there’s a problem that is wide-spread in an organization, I consider every member of the organization that stands by and does nothing to be complicit. Just like all American cops that play the middle ground and don’t condemn wholeheartedly every single instance of police brutality are complicit in the problem.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

RicOlie_2 said:
There are bad apples, and a handful that merit a far harsher term, but what do you expect from human beings? There are also many saints and inspiring examples among their ranks.

I actually have pretty high expectations of human beings, even though I know I shouldn’t. That’s why I get so angry at them all the time. I don’t like the “bad apples” argument. When there’s a problem that is wide-spread in an organization, I consider every member of the organization that stands by and does nothing to be complicit. Just like all American cops that play the middle ground and don’t condemn wholeheartedly every single instance of police brutality are complicit in the problem.

Every Catholic I’ve ever talked to about this vehemently condemns sexual abuse. There is mandatory training for volunteers in my diocese for dealing with situations of possible sex abuse. I don’t see a whole lot of problems in this area where I live. The problem isn’t as widespread as many make it out to be. There are areas in the world where it’s a horrific problem and many others where it really isn’t an issue.

Author
Time

The coverups were a global issue. I’m sure all Catholics that aren’t molesting kids think it’s horrible, but to downplay the role that Vatican played in allowing it to continue is being complicit, I would argue. Just like cops that condemn police brutality are complicit if they downplay the problem or ignore it.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

Right, but I doubt the Vatican not doing enough has to do with popes not caring. It’s more likely that John Paul II was unaware of the scale of abuse or was in denial about it due to shock or belief that it was overexaggerated. I’m not saying the Church couldn’t have handled it better, but I don’t think it’s so black and white either. There are many other pressing concerns the Vatican has, so it left local bishops to deal with sexual offenders. The failure to deal with the problem lay more with those bishops far more than it did with the Vatican.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

‘The church brutalised Ireland. People have a right to protest the pope’s visit’…

Ireland’s political leaders are calling protests against Pope Francis’s visit ‘petty’. Have they forgotten the decades of abuse?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/09/catholic-church-ireland-pope-francis-visit-abuse

^ as ever with The Guardian - sources, events and information are linked to in the article itself.

 

 

On the topic of the Catholic Church blaming the victims for abuse:-

‘The Catholic church must stop blaming victims: children cannot consent to sex’…

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/24/catholic-church-victim-blaming-children-consent-sex-abuse

&

‘Catholic Church claimed child sex abuse victims ‘consented’’…

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/catholic-church-sex-abuse-paedophile-criminal-injuries-compensation-scheme-victim-support-sexual-a7903396.html

A little patience goes a long way on this old-school Rebel base. If you are having issues finding what you are looking for, these will be of some help…

Welcome to the OriginalTrilogy.com | Introduce yourself in here | Useful info within : About : Help : Site Rules : Fan Project Rules : Announcements
How do I do this?’ on the OriginalTrilogy.com; some info & answers + FAQs - includes info on how to search for projects and threads on the OT•com

A Project Index for Star Wars Preservations (Harmy’s Despecialized & 4K77/80/83 etc) : A Project Index for Star Wars Fan Edits (adywan & Hal 9000 etc)

… and take your time to look around this site before posting - to get a feel for this place. Don’t just lazily make yet another thread asking for projects.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

moviefreakedmind said:

Disgusting.

I find it ironic that a Nihilist would truly care…for what are sexual organs apart from regions of the body with a high concentration of nerve endings…? What are said nerves other than conduits capable of transmitting signals to the mass of organic matter known as the brain…? What is the brain apart from a concentration of neurons capable of translating such signals in order to determine the appropriate related chemical releases…?

So for what purpose might a Nihilist be concerned that an immature human specimen might have been subjected to a premature excitation of said nerve endings, which in turn may have resulted in a series of unexpected mental experiences brought about by chemical release?

For while certainly the Humanist might be concerned as to the consequences of such a situation due to a concern for the welfare of the psyche of the child…and certainly the Religious might be concerned as the welfare of the spirit or soul of the child…and surely the Legalist might merely be dissatisfied that an entity, who in former times had little in the way of legal protection, might have had certain basic rights offended…and perhaps even the Economist might be taken to fret about the possible cost to society in terms of a potential future drain on the collective’s productivity brought about by the child’s considered detachment from a normative upbringing translating into a future dividend of costly antisocial behavior…but clearly the Nihilist has little logical concern for any of these…so how might such a lack devolve so readily into substantive disgust?

I was once…but now I’m not… Further: zyzzogeton

“It wasn’t the flood that destroyed the pantry…”

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Post Praetorian said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Disgusting.

I find it ironic that a Nihilist would truly care…for what are sexual organs apart from regions of the body with a high concentration of nerve endings…? What are said nerves other than conduits capable of transmitting signals to the mass of organic matter known as the brain…? What is the brain apart from a concentration of neurons capable of translating such signals in order to determine the appropriate related chemical releases…?

So for what purpose might a Nihilist be concerned that an immature human specimen might have been subjected to a premature excitation of said nerve endings, which in turn may have resulted in a series of unexpected mental experiences brought about by chemical release?

For while certainly the Humanist might be concerned as to the consequences of such a situation due to a concern for the welfare of the psyche of the child…and certainly the Religious might be concerned as the welfare of the spirit or soul of the child…and surely the Legalist might merely be dissatisfied that an entity, who in former times had little in the way of legal protection, might have had certain basic rights offended…and perhaps even the Economist might be taken to fret about the possible cost to society in terms of a potential future drain on the collective’s productivity brought about by the child’s considered detachment from a normative upbringing translating into a future dividend of costly antisocial behavior…but clearly the Nihilist has little logical concern for any of these…so how might such a lack devolve so readily into substantive disgust?

I think it’s disgusting because when people do things that I wouldn’t want done to me I get disgusted. It’s basic human empathy, which is a biological trait. I have been told that I lack empathy because I don’t like the Mormon religion and didn’t understand Warbler’s reasoning for leaving the forum. I don’t know what any of that shit has to do with empathy, but disgust at child rape is a healthy reaction to such a crime. It doesn’t mean that I accept any kind of intrinsic meaning in life, and my thoughts on the subject are also consistent with the nihilistic notion that morality is a human construct.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Post Praetorian said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Disgusting.

I find it ironic that a Nihilist would truly care…for what are sexual organs apart from regions of the body with a high concentration of nerve endings…? What are said nerves other than conduits capable of transmitting signals to the mass of organic matter known as the brain…? What is the brain apart from a concentration of neurons capable of translating such signals in order to determine the appropriate related chemical releases…?

So for what purpose might a Nihilist be concerned that an immature human specimen might have been subjected to a premature excitation of said nerve endings, which in turn may have resulted in a series of unexpected mental experiences brought about by chemical release?

For while certainly the Humanist might be concerned as to the consequences of such a situation due to a concern for the welfare of the psyche of the child…and certainly the Religious might be concerned as the welfare of the spirit or soul of the child…and surely the Legalist might merely be dissatisfied that an entity, who in former times had little in the way of legal protection, might have had certain basic rights offended…and perhaps even the Economist might be taken to fret about the possible cost to society in terms of a potential future drain on the collective’s productivity brought about by the child’s considered detachment from a normative upbringing translating into a future dividend of costly antisocial behavior…but clearly the Nihilist has little logical concern for any of these…so how might such a lack devolve so readily into substantive disgust?

I think it’s disgusting because when people do things that I wouldn’t want done to me I get disgusted. It’s basic human empathy, which is a biological trait. I have been told that I lack empathy because I don’t like the Mormon religion and didn’t understand Warbler’s reasoning for leaving the forum. I don’t know what any of that shit has to do with empathy, but disgust at child rape is a healthy reaction to such a crime. It doesn’t mean that I accept any kind of intrinsic meaning in life, and my thoughts on the subject are also consistent with the nihilistic notion that morality is a human construct.

Why might disgust be considered a ‘healthy’ reaction to anything given nothing has within it an intrinsic value?

By what standards is it considered healthy? To what standards is it reacting against or towards?

I was once…but now I’m not… Further: zyzzogeton

“It wasn’t the flood that destroyed the pantry…”

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Post Praetorian said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Post Praetorian said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Disgusting.

I find it ironic that a Nihilist would truly care…for what are sexual organs apart from regions of the body with a high concentration of nerve endings…? What are said nerves other than conduits capable of transmitting signals to the mass of organic matter known as the brain…? What is the brain apart from a concentration of neurons capable of translating such signals in order to determine the appropriate related chemical releases…?

So for what purpose might a Nihilist be concerned that an immature human specimen might have been subjected to a premature excitation of said nerve endings, which in turn may have resulted in a series of unexpected mental experiences brought about by chemical release?

For while certainly the Humanist might be concerned as to the consequences of such a situation due to a concern for the welfare of the psyche of the child…and certainly the Religious might be concerned as the welfare of the spirit or soul of the child…and surely the Legalist might merely be dissatisfied that an entity, who in former times had little in the way of legal protection, might have had certain basic rights offended…and perhaps even the Economist might be taken to fret about the possible cost to society in terms of a potential future drain on the collective’s productivity brought about by the child’s considered detachment from a normative upbringing translating into a future dividend of costly antisocial behavior…but clearly the Nihilist has little logical concern for any of these…so how might such a lack devolve so readily into substantive disgust?

I think it’s disgusting because when people do things that I wouldn’t want done to me I get disgusted. It’s basic human empathy, which is a biological trait. I have been told that I lack empathy because I don’t like the Mormon religion and didn’t understand Warbler’s reasoning for leaving the forum. I don’t know what any of that shit has to do with empathy, but disgust at child rape is a healthy reaction to such a crime. It doesn’t mean that I accept any kind of intrinsic meaning in life, and my thoughts on the subject are also consistent with the nihilistic notion that morality is a human construct.

Why might disgust be considered a ‘healthy’ reaction to anything given nothing has within it an intrinsic value?

By what standards is it considered healthy? To what standards is it reacting against or towards?

I already addressed that. Empathy is the ability of a conscious organism to recognize the feelings of another, which is critical to the survival of the species because otherwise it would likely destroy itself either through violence or the inability to cooperate. My natural paternal instincts are probably kicking in too, which is an evolutionary construct. Even though I thankfully haven’t been irresponsible enough to create a child, I still feel compelled to protect kids or see them protected from dangerous things or people. These responses are healthy because it’s what human beings without severe mental disorders do, just like it’s healthy to feel hunger if you haven’t eaten in a long time and it’s healthy to feel pain when your hair gets pulled out. I never said that I chose to feel disgusted or anything like that. As I nihilist I don’t demand that all “moral” (and again, people disagree on what constitutes morality) behavior be rejected, I just acknowledge that morality is a human construct, which it is. That doesn’t mean that it’s “bad” or whatever. It just means that it lacks intrinsic value or meaning, which it also does. Everything is irrelevant or meaningless to something somewhere.

Also, just because something is valuable to me, that doesn’t mean it has intrinsic value.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

I really hope Post Praetorian responds to this. One of my pet peeves is when I thoroughly respond to someone’s criticism of me and then they never acknowledge it or address it.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

I really hope Post Praetorian responds to this. One of my pet peeves is when I thoroughly respond to someone’s criticism of me and then they never acknowledge it or address it.

That certainly would be frustrating…allow me to alleviate your suffering 😉

(I have limited time to spend on this site so please forgive my lengthy absences as best as you might be able…)

I was once…but now I’m not… Further: zyzzogeton

“It wasn’t the flood that destroyed the pantry…”

Author
Time

It isn’t really that I struggle to cope with your absence or am hesitant to forgive you, I just don’t like responding to someone’s criticism of me to have it go totally unaddressed.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Post Praetorian said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Post Praetorian said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Disgusting.

I find it ironic that a Nihilist would truly care…for what are sexual organs apart from regions of the body with a high concentration of nerve endings…? What are said nerves other than conduits capable of transmitting signals to the mass of organic matter known as the brain…? What is the brain apart from a concentration of neurons capable of translating such signals in order to determine the appropriate related chemical releases…?

So for what purpose might a Nihilist be concerned that an immature human specimen might have been subjected to a premature excitation of said nerve endings, which in turn may have resulted in a series of unexpected mental experiences brought about by chemical release?

For while certainly the Humanist might be concerned as to the consequences of such a situation due to a concern for the welfare of the psyche of the child…and certainly the Religious might be concerned as the welfare of the spirit or soul of the child…and surely the Legalist might merely be dissatisfied that an entity, who in former times had little in the way of legal protection, might have had certain basic rights offended…and perhaps even the Economist might be taken to fret about the possible cost to society in terms of a potential future drain on the collective’s productivity brought about by the child’s considered detachment from a normative upbringing translating into a future dividend of costly antisocial behavior…but clearly the Nihilist has little logical concern for any of these…so how might such a lack devolve so readily into substantive disgust?

I think it’s disgusting because when people do things that I wouldn’t want done to me I get disgusted. It’s basic human empathy, which is a biological trait. I have been told that I lack empathy because I don’t like the Mormon religion and didn’t understand Warbler’s reasoning for leaving the forum. I don’t know what any of that shit has to do with empathy, but disgust at child rape is a healthy reaction to such a crime. It doesn’t mean that I accept any kind of intrinsic meaning in life, and my thoughts on the subject are also consistent with the nihilistic notion that morality is a human construct.

Why might disgust be considered a ‘healthy’ reaction to anything given nothing has within it an intrinsic value?

By what standards is it considered healthy? To what standards is it reacting against or towards?

I already addressed that. Empathy is the ability of a conscious organism to recognize the feelings of another, which is critical to the survival of the species because otherwise it would likely destroy itself either through violence or the inability to cooperate. My natural paternal instincts are probably kicking in too, which is an evolutionary construct. Even though I thankfully haven’t been irresponsible enough to create a child, I still feel compelled to protect kids or see them protected from dangerous things or people. These responses are healthy because it’s what human beings without severe mental disorders do, just like it’s healthy to feel hunger if you haven’t eaten in a long time and it’s healthy to feel pain when your hair gets pulled out. I never said that I chose to feel disgusted or anything like that. As I nihilist I don’t demand that all “moral” (and again, people disagree on what constitutes morality) behavior be rejected, I just acknowledge that morality is a human construct, which it is. That doesn’t mean that it’s “bad” or whatever. It just means that it lacks intrinsic value or meaning, which it also does. Everything is irrelevant or meaningless to something somewhere.

Also, just because something is valuable to me, that doesn’t mean it has intrinsic value.

I commend you for your well considered response…it was more than I had hoped to receive when first I had asked the questions and it truly speaks highly of you as a properly grounded individual…

When considering one’s proper nihilism, there certainly appears to be something of a variable distance between some of those qualities offered as normative or indigenous to nature and the more rational world view brought about purely by purposeful reflection…but might one truly accept the belief that one may so alter one’s nihilism so as to at times accept an arbitrary standard without intrinsic value?

For little appears to come to the nihilist by way of reflex without also having an attached explanation and understanding of its base causes–the lack of which must needs surely reduce the views of said nihilist to some form of composite belief in a greater perspective outside that of his own deep well, while, alternately, the understanding of which must plausibly reduce the former (that is to say, the reflex as stated) to something which may either be accepted willingly or deliberately avoided…

For in comprehending morality to be little aside from a human construct, what over-arching demand requires one to accept it entirely without alternative or alteration…? If no such demand, is it not then acceptable to rationalize and then dismiss by degree…or perhaps even by whole measure?

Yet if one is capable of choosing whether or not to dismiss such impulses, what might drive one to fully (or even partially) embrace some whilst rejecting others? For how can the same individual be crowned a humanitarian in one setting and a devil in another, well all the while maintaining a sporadic moral code that he knows to be arbitrary? For even if some such acceptance might be made based upon the claim that so doing might merely be in answer to a natural impulse or order, why obey either of such?

For is not nihilism, by its very definition, the acceptance of all morality (impulsive or created) as meaningless? If so, how might one willingly abstain from some ‘meaninglessness’ whilst enjoining a serious acceptance of any of the rest?

Is it to be considered possible that some emotions might yet be expected to be entirely more powerful than the pure mental rationalizations of the deep nihilist…?

Or, alternately, is it possible that a nihilist might choose to accept certain arbitrary impulses in order to better conform with the normative view so as to avoid unnecessary conflict…?

Yet, by so doing, is it truly possible or appropriate for him to share in the outrage when such arbitrary mores might be offended?

I was once…but now I’m not… Further: zyzzogeton

“It wasn’t the flood that destroyed the pantry…”

Author
Time

‘Cardinal McCarrick, prominent US Catholic, resigns over abuse claims’…

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44993221 &

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/28/pope-mccarrick-resignation-cardinal-sex-abuse-scandal

 

for info on a broader scale:-

‘Child sexual abuse and the Catholic Church: What you need to know’… (from May 2018)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-44209971

 

an article from the victims’ perspectives:-

‘Australia child abuse inquiry: Messages from survivors’… (from Dec 2017)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-42346916

A little patience goes a long way on this old-school Rebel base. If you are having issues finding what you are looking for, these will be of some help…

Welcome to the OriginalTrilogy.com | Introduce yourself in here | Useful info within : About : Help : Site Rules : Fan Project Rules : Announcements
How do I do this?’ on the OriginalTrilogy.com; some info & answers + FAQs - includes info on how to search for projects and threads on the OT•com

A Project Index for Star Wars Preservations (Harmy’s Despecialized & 4K77/80/83 etc) : A Project Index for Star Wars Fan Edits (adywan & Hal 9000 etc)

… and take your time to look around this site before posting - to get a feel for this place. Don’t just lazily make yet another thread asking for projects.