Decline and Fall of the Catholic Church in America

[Boleslaw]

This follows through on my argument of why Catholics in America seem to embrace immigration so much. It's not Catholicism thats the problem, it's largely a mirror of the values promoted in American society altogether.

http://www.stritasbooks.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/store.ItemDetails/SKU/1978/229

The Decline & Fall Of The Catholic Church In America
Author: David Carlin

General Description:

David Carlin

The Roots of the crisis that's rocked the pulpits and emptied the pews

Many Catholics blame Vatican II for the decline of the Church in America these past 30 years: traditionalists say it caused too many changes, liberals say too few.

In this groundbreaking book, sociologist David Carlin shows that although Vatican II was the flashpoint for change in the Church, the roots of today's crisis go deeper than anything that happened during the Council.

Basing his conclusions on sociological analysis rather than on the theology or Church teachings, Carlin shows that in the 1960's the triumph of tolerance as an American virtue led Catholics to downplay their uniquely Catholic beliefs for the sake of national unity. At the same time, the weakened Church was being battered by a culture that, seemingly overnight, had become boldly secularist and morally libertine.

Called by Vatican II to engage the culture in order to evangelize it, while pressed by the culture to downplay its Catholicity in the name of tolerance, the Church in America lost its way.

The result? A widespread loss of Catholic identity; weakening of fidelity to Church teachings; Catholics abandoning their faith; and a diminishment of the Church's role as a moral voice in American society.

Carlin's analysis has uncovered a problem that's older and even more dangerous for the future of Catholicism than the deeds that have lately thrust the Church into the front pages. Indeed, says Carlin, the scandals are merely symptoms of this deeper problem that will continue to drain the Church's vitality long after the scandals are forgotten.

The Decline and Fall of the Catholic Church in America: essential reading for all who seek to understand the decline of their beloved Church and who hope to devise effective ways to restore her.

Audience:

- All those who live the Church and want to understand - and reverse - its decline in America

- Persons seeking a nonideological explanation of Catholicism in American life these past 30 years

David Carlin is a professor of sociology and philosophy at the Community College of Rhode Island and served twelve years in the Rhode Island state senate.

[Boleslaw]

http://www.catholics-in-action.org/decline%20and%20fall.htm

REVIEW: "THE DECLINE AND FALL OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN AMERICA"
By David Carlin
Review By Rev. John F. Harvey, OSFS

I want to point out an important book which all leaders and members ought to read. The Decline and Fall of the Catholic Church in America by David Carlin. The author predicts that if the Church continues to go downhill at the same rate as in the last 40 years, she will have about as much influence on public affairs as the Lancaster Amish. As a sociologist and as a practicing Catholic through many years , he has amassed the kind of data which will persuade the reader that Carlin is on target in his evaluation of the Church in America. He wrote the book reluctantly, adding four chapters at the end in which he recommends ways in which the Church in America can stop its slide into oblivion.

In Part 2, he describes how Secularism succeeded Protestantism as the dominant culture of America. In the mid-sixties, Catholics had become full participants in American mainstream culture at the very time that our culture "was being revolutionized by a generalized rebellion against authority". Catholics became full participants in an increasingly secularized culture which rejected all revealed religious: Catholicism, Protestantism, Judaism, and Mohammedanism. Secularism's moral theory rejected "a long list of traditional, religion based moral rules. Thus it endorsed - or at any rate, soon would endorse, once it realized the implications of its premises - sexual license, cohabitation, easy divorce , abortion, homosexuality, euthanasia, and suicide."

As Catholics breathed in the toxic air of secularism, they accepted the view that one must tolerate religious teachings in direct opposition to Catholic truth. It really did not matter what you believed in so long as you were a good person. It did not matter even if you were anti-religious. "And now an even more drastic change, tolerance extended not just to doctrine, but to conduct." Of course, one would be intolerant of conduct, which obviously hurt others, such as murder, rape and robbery, but everything else would have to be permitted. If you did not agree with this attitude, you were guilty of the great sin of intolerance. Carlin cites the example of no-fault divorce. From now on, divorces could be carried out by mutual consent, "simply because the two parties had grown tired of the relationship." Or even without such consent. Now people were as free to leave a relationship as they were free to enter one.

The culture of secularism was embraced wholeheartedly by some Catholics. They were lost to the Church. Other Catholics sought to work out a reconciliation between secularism and their Catholic religion. These were the "liberal" or "progressive" Catholics. Often priests who rejected Humanae Vitae And openly opposed the pope were leaders in this group. A third group did not accept secularism, or the liberal Catholic point of view. These were the conservative or traditional Catholics, some of whom yearned for the pre-Vatican II Church, but this was not true of other conservative Catholics.

What Carlin regards as the largest group are the bewildered Catholics, a mass or people which included many priests and "not a few" bishops. They remained attached to the Church as an institution without a clear understanding of what the Church stood for. They were not sure of their own beliefs, and consequently did not "engage in open resistance to that culture."


These four factions or groups can still be found today. But it is not clear which group, or combinations of groups will "definitively determine the future of American Catholicism".

Having described secularism, I want now to discuss the Principle of Personal Liberty which flows from it.

THE PERSONAL LIBERTY PRINCIPLE

The grounds for the Personal Liberty Principle (PLP) are found in cultural relativism and ethical emotivism, both of which have been with us for several centuries. Cultural relativism means that actions are good according to the tastes of the prevailing culture. It is acceptable by those in some parts of America to directly shorten a person?s life because one is tired of living, and one is in complete control of one?s life. This leads to forms of the living will, in which one declares the conditions under which he will die. Ethical emotivism is a method of determining right from wrong on the basis of personal feeling. Animal rights people feel that it is morally wrong to shoot a deer during hunting season. One will note that both cultural relativism and ethical emotivism undermine the idea that there is an objective moral law. "Both lead to the conclusion that moral rules and values are, in the last analysis, simply a matter of personal preference."

The principle of personal liberty may be described as the person?s right to decide that certain actions are good, and others are bad. But how do they make decisions about their conduct? The individual believes that he can do anything that he desires, so long as he does not hurt any other person. As this principle was practiced by the secularist it came to be applied to matters of sexuality. Sexual relations are purely a private matter. They are a source of great pleasure. One should not then be bound by religious or moral codes. So long as one does not directly hurt another person, one?s conduct is justified. Thus, sex before marriage, cohabitation, the viewing of pornography, and homosexual acts are viewed as private matters hurting no one. Directly shortening one?s life is the liberty exercised by the person.

Having described the PLP with its origins in John Stuart Mill?s understanding of liberty, Carlin demonstrates its serious flaws, referring to the PLP as a "singularly stupid principle." Nevertheless, many Americans have uncritically accepted it - such is "an indicator of the state of our national intellect and character. The dominance of this principle makes it difficult for Catholicism to flourish, or even to survive in America. It is the antithesis of Catholic morality. How can one be tainted by this principle and be really Catholic?"

Carlin adds that the PLP is composed of two inseparable sub-principles: (l) the autonomy principle, "which holds that we may do as we like, so long as we do not harm others" and (2) the tolerance principle which "holds that we must tolerate the conduct of others so long as this conduct does not harm people other than the actor himself."

Proponents of the gay-movement use the PLP in their effort to justify same-sex marriages. These unions are presented to the American people as alternatives to traditional marriage. If someone objects that such unions make no real contributions to the common good, he will be told that two people of the same-sex are not hurting anyone by their conduct.


Their sexual acts are strictly a private matter, until one of them gets AIDS. When children and teenagers know of their union, it impacts upon their perception of morality. They think marriage is not the only way to sexually express love. Such is a distortion of the meaning of marriage, of liberty, and true love.

We turn now to another application of the PLP, namely, married couples who become tired of one another and seek divorce. When they say that they are not hurting anyone else, they refuse to face the truth, as I know from many years of counseling the victims of divorce. True, it did not hurt me personally, but it did leave scars on the children. Many other examples can be offered of the harm done by those who follow PLP. Indeed it leads to habitual selfishness which ends up in addictive self-indulgence and loneliness.

The PLP principle is no reliable guide to conduct, but it allows one to rationalize any conduct in which one desires to engage. This is a dangerous moral principle. "but it is a principle that is immensely popular in American culture today." Yet for the last thirty or forty years our Catholic people have been living in this culture, and they will continue to live in this culture indefinitely.

Space does not permit me in this article to discuss the dismantling of the Catholic Ghetto in the sixties, the rebellion against the Magisterium of the Catholic Church by dissident theologians in the sixties and seventies on the issue of contraception, and the deeper problem of Catholic self-identity in which Catholics began to believe that their religion was a mere denomination among other Christian churches instead of believing that it is the one true Church of Christ.

I Hope I have whetted your curiosity to read Part VIII, entitled "Can the Fall Be Prevented?" Carlin holds that it can be prevented under certain conditions, but he is uncertain whether the leaders of the Catholic Church in America and its faithful members are willing to take the steps which he regards as necessary.

In an appendix, Carlin presents statistical evidence of American Catholic decline. Here are a few samples of the decline;

l) Between 1965 and 2002 the number of priests in the United States dropped from 59,000 to 46,000, a drop of 22 per cent.

(2) In 1965 the number of ordinations of new priests out numbered the number of priests lost through death and departures by 725. In 1998, it was quite reversed, as death and departures outnumbered ordinations by 810.

3) In 1965 there were 49,000 seminarians; in 2002 the number had dropped to 4700.
4) In 1965 there were 180,000 religious sisters in the United States; by 2002 the number had dropped to 75,000, with half of them past the age 70.

CONCLUSION: Catholics loving their Church must turn to Jesus, the Head of the Mystical Body of Christ, telling Him that they will pray and do works of penance for their Church. This will lead them to make sacrifices for the spiritual health of their families and parishes. The laity need to encourage our much-maligned bishops to openly oppose gay rights legislation and legislation that restricts the God-given freedom of conscience which everyone has. There are many examples of this restriction of freedom; for example, pressuring doctors and interns to learn how to perform abortions; asking a doctor to directly shorten a person?s life because the relatives desire it. I end with a prayer from the letter to the Philippians?"Brothers and Sisters?I am confident of this, that the one who began a good work in you will continue to complete it until the day of Christ Jesus"

[Fade the Butcher]

science > religion

[Boleslaw]

Incorrect Fade. Science has not lead to a decline in religion. In fact the notion that the two are even opposed to each other is a 19th century invention.

[Fade the Butcher]

Incorrect Fade. Science has not lead to a decline in religion. In fact the notion that the two are even opposed to each other is a 19th century invention.

Prodigal Son started a thread about this the other day.

Leading Scientists Still Reject God (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=5679)

"The popular media balyhoo the fiction that science is supportive of religion. A recent issue of Newsweek (July 20, 1998) featured a cover story "Science finds God" which gave many innocent readers the impression that scientists in droves were finding scientific "evidence" allowing for God and an afterlife and were jumping on the religion bandwagon. Some of these 1998 reports were stimulated by a June 1998 Science and the Spiritual Quest Conference organized by Robert John Russell, and sponsored by The Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences (CTNS) at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley. Since this is an organization devoted to the reconcilation of science and religion it's no surprise the the speakers were supportive of the idea of the possibility of god and/or an afterlife, though some of the papers were so speculative and abstruse that it's hard to tell whether they were profound philosophy or mere moonshine. One wonders whether some speakers came just for the stipend provided by the John Templeton Foundation. Several Nobel-Prize winning scientists gave papers at this meeting. The papers were mostly philosophical and speculative. No new hard evidence was produced. News reports failed to put these wishful speculations in perspective by pointing out that most scientists are, in fact, not religious. And the percent of "leading" scientists who hold religious beliefs has been declining from around 30% in 1914 to less than 10% in 1998. Wayne Spencer, editor of The Skeptical Intelligencer (a publication of the Association for Skeptical Inquiry) has provided me with this summary of an article in the journal Nature which documents this fact.

[Links to the CTNS are provided above, but this does not mean that I in any way endorse the opinions expressed at those web sites. For a detailed critique of these bogus science rationalizations, see Victor Stenger's excellent Has Science Found God?, a draft of an article for Astronomy magzaine. For a broader perspective on the science/religion questions, see these Religion and Philosophy links and these Science, Religion and Philosophy links. I also highly recommend Michael Koller's Essays on Science, Philosophy, and Religion. Also see the skeptic links on my web page.] — Donald E. Simanek.

[Summary of a paper that appeared in the 23 July 1998 issue of Nature by Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham: "Leading Scientists Still Reject God." Nature, 1998; 394, 313.]

Larson and Witham present the results of a replication of 1913 and 1933 surveys by James H. Leuba. In those surveys, Leuba mailed a questionnaire to leading scientists asking about their belief in "a God in intellectual and affective communication with humankind" and in "personal immortality". Larson and Witham used the same wording [as in the Leuba studies], and sent their questionnaire to 517 members of the [U.S.] National Academy of Sciences from the biological and physical sciences (the latter including mathematicians, physicists and astronomers). The return rate was slightly over 50%.

The results were as follows (figures in %):

BELIEF IN PERSONAL GOD 1914 1933 1998

Personal belief 27.7 15 7.0
Personal disbelief 52.7 68 72.2
Doubt or agnosticism 20.9 17 20.8

BELIEF IN IMMORTALITY 1914 1933 1998

Personal belief 35.2 18 7.9
Personal disbelief 25.4 53 76.7
Doubt or agnosticism 43.7 29 23.3

Note: The 1998 immortality figures add up to more than 100%. The misprint is in the original. The 76.7% is likely too high.

The authors elaborated on these figures:

Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. We found the highest percentage of belief among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality).

Larson and Witham close their report with the following remarks:

As we compiled our findings, the NAS issued a booklet encouraging the teaching of evolution in public schools.... The booklet assures readers, 'Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral'. NAS president Bruce Alberts said: 'There are many very outstanding members of this academy who are very religious people, people who believe in evolution, many of them biologists.' Our survey suggests otherwise."

There is a review of earlier studies of the religiosity of scientists at pp 180ff of:

Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi and Michael Argyle. The Psychology of Religious Behaviour, Belief and Experience. London & New York: Routledge, 1997. ISBN: 0-415-12330-5 (hbk) or 0-415-12331-3 (pbk).

On the subject of eminent scientists, they mention unpublished data collected by one of the co-authors: "Beit-Hallahmi (1988) found that among Nobel Prize laureates in the sciences, as well as those in literature, there was a remarkable degree of irreligiosity, as compared to the populations they came from." The reference is to: Beit-Hallahmi, B. (1988). The religiosity and religious affiliation of Nobel prize winners. Unpublished data."

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm

[Boleslaw]

I refer you to this thread Fade:
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=5949

As I said, it was only in the 19th century that this notion that religion and science are opposites even emerged.

[Boleslaw]

Although if you insist on a response to PS Fade, I dealt with similar arguments made by Angler over at OD:

http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showpost.php?p=136751&postcount=29

As my link above showed, there's little information concerning religious belief among those involved with social sciences and the humanities. No, it only deals with the views of people involved in physical science.

I sincerly would like to see what the results would be if you did actually include people involved in those fields of study. Interestingly, within these fields of study you freguently find views more sympathetic towards religion. Ironically, many sociologists will speak postively about religious devotion, regardless of their own personal belief or disbelief.

In fact there was no mention of that at all in your link Angler, does disbelief in god among those subjects necessarily imply a generally negative view towards religious belief in general? There are plenty of atheists/agnostics who will speak positively about religious devotion. One such man is Fred Reed who declares:

http://www.amconmag.com/2003/10_06_03/article.html

I do not offer myself as one intimate with the gods, and on grounds of reason would be hard pressed to choose between the views of Hindus and those of Buddhists. I note, however, that over millennia people of extraordinary intellect and thoughtfulness have taken religion seriously. A quite remarkable arrogance is needed to feel oneself mentally superior to Augustine, Aquinas, Isaac Newton, and C.S. Lewis. I’m not up to it.

I've posted his entire article here before and I suggest you read it. He addresses people like you, especially when he states:


Here is the chief defect of scientists (I mean those who take the sciences as an ideology rather than as a discipline): an unwillingness to admit that there is anything outside their realm. But there is. You cannot squeeze consciousness, beauty, affection, or Good and Evil from physics any more than you can derive momentum from the postulates of geometry: no mass, no momentum. A moral scientist is thus a contradiction in terms. (Logically speaking—in practice they compartmentalize and behave as well as anyone else.)
/////
That being said, at worst the religions of the earth are gropings toward something people feel but cannot put a finger on, toward something more at the heart of life than the hoped-for raise, trendy restaurants, and the next and grander automobile. And few things are as stultifying and superficial as the man not so much agnostic (this I can understand) as simply inattentive, whose life is focused on getting into a better country club. Good questions are better than bad answers. And the sciences, though not intended to be, have become the opiate of the masses.

And I might again remind the gallery this is an agnostic making these remarks. Disbelief in god does not necessarily mean disregard for religion per se. Many intelligent atheist/agnostics will look fondly on many aspects of religious faith, regardless of their own opinion. In fact, like Reed, they often question the notion that ones belief or disbelief is a factor in determining whether one is or is not intelligent.
/////

Intelligent Christians are certainly more likely to be skeptical of claims of miracles(as any reasonable person should), but then again it is also so that miralces and such dont play a significant role in their sense of religious faith to begin with. A less intelligent Christian may place more emphasis on the curing waters of Lourdes than a more intelligent one. Does it prove that intelligent people are less devout? No, it just shows that the nature of religious devotion differs from group to group.

Getting back to Andrew Greeley, in his studies about the level of religious belief in Europe he found out something very interesting:

http://www.americamagazine.org/gettext.cfm?articleTypeID=1&textID=3458&issueID=475

Superstition is weak in regions where belief in God or atheism is strong (Ireland and regions of eastern Germany) and powerful in countries where doubt is strong (Britain and western Germany).


As he notes in that article, "[m]ore residents of eastern Germany believe in divine miracles than believe in God. (Who is the God in whom they do not believe?)"

So apparently even the disbelief in God does not mean the elimination of irrational beliefs such as superstitions. In fact I wonder if any the subjects of the studies in Angler's link were questioned on their views concerning superstition. If Greeley's studies are an indictation, we probably would have found some interesting details. In fact the superstitious beliefs of some of the brightest men in history are well known(even among those with little or no religious belief).

[Boleslaw]

And so on. In other words, trying to link religious devotion with intelligence is basically a dead end, considering that both elements are extremely complex and not altogether easily measured. One would have to resort to very simplistic measurements to come to a conclusion.

[Kodos]

This follows through on my argument of why Catholics in America seem to embrace immigration so much. It's not Catholicism thats the problem, it's largely a mirror of the values promoted in American society altogether.


If the catholic bishops were opposing the will of the Pope and the Curia they'd be defrocked and replaced. They embrace immigration because they were ordered to do so.

[Fade the Butcher]

As I said, it was only in the 19th century that this notion that religion and science are opposites even emerged.

We're not discussing the High Middle Ages. Science is infinitely more mature today than it was then. Do you believe this, Perun? Did this actually happen?

But so the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

The man said,

"This is now bone of my bones,
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman,'
for she was taken out of man."

What does the Bible say about knowledge? Again, I quote from the LORD God:

"The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

[Boleslaw]

Keikel, what year is it? It's 2006, not 1906 or still less 1306!

After Vatican II, the Bishops and such were given a free hand under the concept of collegiality. An extreme example of such was the near schism that occured when the Canadian Bishops rejected the encyclical Humane Vitae concerning birth control. Also the one reason why the Vatican was so slow in reacting to sex abuse scandals in America was because it had a hands off approach to such issues, preferring them to be settled within the local dioceses.

Just two examples of the relative freedom the North American church has in doing whatever it feels without much fear of repurcussions from Rome. John Paul II even admitted that he was too soft on the bishops in America, explaining he basically allowed them to get away with murder.

[Kodos]

After Vatican II, the Bishops and such were given a free hand under the concept of collegiality.

Its all a show to create the illusion of a more democratic church( rather then a sinister autocratic crime organization centered in Rome that the church really is), the pope can sack any bishop and the vow of obedience still exists. Fake orders are given publically, real orders are given privately.

In 1306 the bishops had more independence actually given that the king or feudal lord might support them against the Pope.

[Boleslaw]

We're not discussing the High Middle Ages. Science is infinitely more mature today than it was then. Do you believe this, Perun? Did this actually happen?

What does the Bible say about knowledge? Again, I quote from the LORD God:

Fade, you're making the wrong argument to the wrong person. Im not an Evagenlical who takes every word of the Bible literally. In fact Scriptual literalism was what the Christians condemned of the Pharisees, as most explicitly expressed within the Epistle of Barnabas, which declared the Jews were duped by the Devil into taking the Bible literally rather than figuratively.

Is that how it actually happened? How should I know, I wasnt there and Im not God! The point being expressed is that God has been here since the beginning of time and has watched over creation.

[Boleslaw]

After Vatican II, the Bishops and such were given a free hand under the concept of collegiality.

Its all a show to create the illusion of a more democratic church( rather then a sinister autocratic crime organization centered in Rome that the church really is), the pope can sack any bishop and the vow of obedience still exists. Fake orders are given publically, real orders are given privately.

In 1306 the bishops had more independence actually given that the king or feudal lord might support them against the Pope.

You have a messed up view of how the Church operates, at best!

[Fade the Butcher]

Fade, you're making the wrong argument to the wrong person. Im not an Evagenlical who takes every word of the Bible literally.

Do you believe this?

"Then they brought him a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute, and Jesus healed him, so that he could both talk and see. All the people were astonished and said, "Could this be the Son of David?"

Matthew 22:12

In fact Scriptual literalism was what the Christians condemned of the Pharisees, as most explicitly expressed within the Epistle of Barnabas, which declared the Jews were duped by the Devil into taking the Bible literally rather than figuratively.

You started a separate thread about the Middle Ages. What would have happened to you if you had declared during the Middle Ages that we really don't know if God created Eve from the rib of Adam?

Is that how it actually happened? How should I know, I wasnt there and Im not God! The point being expressed is that God has been here since the beginning of time and has watched over creation.

You can't say for certain that biblical creation is true and evolution through natural selection is false? You can't say that the LORD God damned mankind for eating from the tree of knowledge?

[Boleslaw]

Hey Fade, are you going to ask me about my views concerning miracles now? If so, here's my answer:


http://www.catholic-forum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=19967&highlight=lourdes#post19967

One good example concerns appariartions of Mary at Fatima and Lourdes, or even appariations or miracles in general. Im quite skeptical towards many claims of Marian appariartions. I definately cannot stand people who claim they see Mary in their wooden door or in a grilled cheese sandwitch; which is not only absurd but even insulting to claim our Virgin Mother would be so trival.

And I tend to skeptical towards the claims that Lourdes cures the sick. However, I pay deep respects to those appariartions and criticise those skeptics determined to bash their claims(from the skeptic point of view, its really irrelevant if those claims are real or not). Whether or not the Lady of Guadulpue is geninue or painted by man, who cares! It's still holds strong spiritual value in a cultural Catholic context. Same can be said of Fatima and Lourdes. Whether the sick are cured by Lourdes or not per se(or even perhaps the placebo effect is the cause), it doesnt entirely matter to me personally. It holds great significance to great numbers of Catholics and many who have visited claim miracles(physically or even just strengthening their spirituality). That enough gives it value.
/////
Im not going to fully debate what exactly happens at Lourdes concerning miracles. As I stated, I find the issue quite irrelevant whether these are real or not. I was stating that even if it was only a placebo effect, it would still have value for that. Lourdes still is a very important cultural center for Catholics, so whether or not the Virgin Mary actually appeared there(and Im not officially required to believe that she did) is quite irrelevant to me personally. Which is why I find it absurd that some skeptics are determined to bash it; its one thing to have a healthy skepticism as opposed to one cloaked in rabid anti-religiousity. Same thing can be said with Fatima.
////
As I also stated, I certainly share many elements of Belloc's view towards the Church and the faith. So hence this explains much of my outlook on things in the Church. Like my defense of Lourdes and Fatima as a cultural centers for Catholics, despite whether or not the Virgin Mary actually appeared there.

Although as an Eastern Catholic and of Slavic descent, I'm able to pay greater attention to the theology and mysticism of the faith. So while I may be skeptical that the Virgin Mary appeared to Bernadette or that the waters of Lourdes cure the sick; I can still find much geniune mystical and spiritual strength from going there like anyother Catholic.

My sense of faith is very complex and goes beyond the simple "because the Bible saids so" attitude.

[Kodos]

One good example concerns appariartions of Mary at Fatima and Lourdes, or even appariations or miracles in general. Im quite skeptical towards many claims of Marian appariartions. I definately cannot stand people who claim they see Mary in their wooden door or in a grilled cheese sandwitch

I need to find a way to mass produce these...

[Fade the Butcher]

Fade, you're making the wrong argument to the wrong person. Im not an Evagenlical who takes every word of the Bible literally.

Do you believe this?

"Then they brought him a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute, and Jesus healed him, so that he could both talk and see. All the people were astonished and said, "Could this be the Son of David?"

Matthew 22:12

In fact Scriptual literalism was what the Christians condemned of the Pharisees, as most explicitly expressed within the Epistle of Barnabas, which declared the Jews were duped by the Devil into taking the Bible literally rather than figuratively.

You started a separate thread about the Middle Ages. What would have happened to you if you had declared during the Middle Ages that we really don't know if God created Eve from the rib of Adam?

Is that how it actually happened? How should I know, I wasnt there and Im not God! The point being expressed is that God has been here since the beginning of time and has watched over creation.

You can't say for certain that biblical creation is true and evolution through natural selection is false? You can't say that the LORD God damned mankind for eating from the tree of knowledge?

[Boleslaw]

Do you believe this?

What difference does it make if I do or I don't?


You started a separate thread about the Middle Ages. What would have happened to you if you had declared during the Middle Ages that we really don't know if God created Eve from the rib of Adam?

:rolleyes: Fine I'll play your play little game. Assume for a moment that I was brought before the Inquisition and charged with heresy, what would I say in my defense? Basically my argument would be that Im in no real position to comment on such issues, and since Im in no real position to comment on them, why should I comment on them in the first place?

More below:

You can't say for certain that biblical creation is true and evolution through natural selection is false?

Are you asking me personally, or are you asking me for the official position of the Church?

Personally, I cannot say that for certain largely because Ive never gotten that deep into the issue to begin with. Why not? Simple, I lack any real interest in it. There are plenty of spiritual and theological matters that bore me to death and I dont touch them with a 1000ft pole.


You can't say that the LORD God damned mankind for eating from the tree of knowledge?

I can say that sin does exist in the world. How exactly that occured, I dont know.

[Boleslaw]

If you must know my basic position on Evolution/Creationism/ID Fade, heres a post from my blog about the issue:

Creationism vs. Evolution

Patrick Buchanan has written an interesting commentary (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45655) dealing with the controversial issue of Creationism( or Intelligent Design) against Darwin's theory of evolution. The sad aspect of this on-going controversy is the constant knee-jerking and idiocy that seems abound on both sides of the argument. Many atheists and other anti-religious minded folks will try to argue for evolution as a way of to debunk religious faith. In particular they like to group all creationists or supporters of Intelligent Design as Christian nut-cases who try to promote theology as science. Casey Luskin refuted this notion in a critique (http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1308) of such arguments made by Michael Shermer. The truth is the Creationist/Intelligent design camp is full of people from different backgrounds(not just Christian). Of course the same should be said for supporters of evolution, many religious people can be found in that camp as well. So the controversy is not entirely religion vs. science as many people try to portray it, it's far more complex.

Yet there are many problems with Creationists as well. In response to Evolutionist arguments, many in this school of thought will degrade themselves into a full-blown crusade against science as a whole. What's even more annoying about many creationists is their literalism towards the Book of Genesis. This is clearly irrational and even goes against Christian tradition in relation to how the scriptures are to be read. Christianity has always been rooted in an allegorical tradition not a literalist one. It was the literalism of the Pharisees that Jesus and the early Christians clearly rejected.

As a Christian, my sympathies are clearly with the Creationist/Intelligent Design camp, but I should mention only in a general sense. That is, I clearly believe that the universe was created by an intelligent being(God). The specifics of how God created the universe and how life came to exist, well.....I'm more than happy to leave it to biologists to explain the specifics of that. So I'm very much in favor of a Creationism/Intelligent Design governed by a strong sense of reason, and there are plenty of Creationists who would agree with me. In fact the Book of Genesis itself advocates an evolutionary-like development of life, where God starts off creating small simple creatures and ending with more complex creatures.

A very interesting commentary (http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/evolution_kuraev.htm) on the relationship between evolution and religion (and one which forms much of my viewpoint on this issue) was written by Fr. Deacon Andrey Kuraev. Although it argues largely from an Orthodox standpoint, the points Kuraev makes can easily apply to all denominations. He notes that there's no "textual nor a doctrinal basis to reject evolutionism" especially when separated from its "atheist interpretation". Kuraev goes into more detail concerning what several Orthodox theologians have states on this issue, to even debunking many inconsistencies of Creationists who take the Book of Genesis literally.

Well these are my two cents on this issue.

[Fade the Butcher]

What difference does it make if I do or I don't?

I would like you to answer the question. Do demons cause blindness? Did Jesus make a blind man see?

Fine I'll play your play little game. Assume for a moment that I was brought before the Inquisition and charged with heresy, what would I say in my defense?

Is it fair to say that you would have been charged with heresy and burned at the stake?

Basically my argument would be that Im in no real position to comment on such issues, and since Im in no real position to comment on them, why should I comment on them in the first place?

Why not simply tell the Inquisition that the Bible shouldn't be taken seriously?

Are you asking me personally, or are you asking me for the official position of the Church?

Both. Is biblical creation true? Is evolution through natural selection false?

Personally, I cannot say that for certain largely because Ive never gotten that deep into the issue to begin with. Why not? Simple, I lack any real interest in it. There are plenty of spiritual and theological matters that bore me to death and I dont touch them with a 1000ft pole.

Perun dodges the question. There is nothing complicated about the issue. Either humans were created by God or they evolved through natural selection. There is nothing ambiguous about what the Bible says on the issue.

I can say that sin does exist in the world. How exactly that occured, I dont know.

What does the Bible say? What does the Catholic Church say?

[Fade the Butcher]

Check this out. I found this book in a Google search.

An Introduction to Biblical Nonsense (http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/chapter7.html)

I borrowed the title of this chapter from a religious sect so incredibly devout to their beliefs in a flat earth that they will proliferate the bounds of logic to any extent in order to explain obvious complications with their easily disprovable hypothesis. However, we should refrain from laughing too much at people holding onto such an outdated notion because those clinging to such preposterous beliefs have merely been conditioned to think this way since birth, just as the ancient Jews casually thought that the identical belief was true for thousands of years. Nevertheless, how does the belief of a flat planet still manage to survive in the twenty-first century? The Holy Bible. In fact, the Bible provides much more erroneous detail about the earth than its purportedly planar configuration. The good book also explains how foundational pillars, which shake when God becomes angry with us, supposedly hold our planet motionless. Seeing as how I don’t feel much need to convince you that the earth is a spherical body, sans pillars, in motion around the sun, we’ll only look at the sources of the opposing school of thought.

From Flat To Round

Before I delve into detail of how our flat earth supposedly survives in this mystical environment, a brief historical progression on the proposed shapes for our planet is necessary to appreciate fully the erroneous hypotheses offered by the Old Testament authors. Around 600 BCE, Pythagoras became the first person we know to have proposed the idea of a spherical planet. His hypothesis subsequently grew in popularity around 500 BCE with the support of Aristotle. While Plato first gave a rough guess of the earth’s size around 400 BCE, Archimedes offered a more educated hypothesis of its circumference around 250 BCE. Moreover, during Archimedes’ lifetime, Eratosthenes was completing the first in depth scientific research into the circumference mystery.

Because of the work done by Greek scientists and philosophers, the idea of a spherical earth became nearly concrete before the New Testament authors began their writings. Considering the fairly acceptable record keeping found in Kings and Chronicles, as well as the presence of Jesus’ genealogies in the New Testament, we can determine whether the historical Jewish writings were completed before or after the spread of the Greeks’ spherical earth philosophies. Once we match the histories of the two regions, we find that almost all of the Old Testament had been penned well before the spherical earth theory became concrete. On the other hand, only a very small amount of Old Testament writings had the potential to creep in during the demise of flat earth beliefs. In short, educated people were well aware that the earth was spherical before New Testament authors arrived on the scene. Now that we have this understanding, we can analyze the different positions on the earth’s confirmation taken by the two testaments.

The Shape Of The Earth

In Science To The Rescue, we learned of several supporting examples for how the ancient Hebrews commonly believed that a solid firmament, separating the sky ocean from the land ocean, covered the earth. Within the proposed firmament are the sun, moon, and stars. The throne of God could potentially be found on top of the earth’s dome. When a group of people tried to ascend into Heaven by building a tower, God confused them to cease its construction because he was afraid of people seeing him. While there’s no directly informative statement about the shape of the earth itself in these Pentateuch examples, one must assume, based on logical deductions, that the so-called divinely inspired authors held the same opinion as the general population. If divine inspiration allowed them to realize that our world was spherical, one would expect the accords to be void of such figurative, fantastic, and erroneous descriptors. Again, the Bible had a chance to distinguish itself from other ancient religious texts, but it failed to do so. Instead, God seemingly allows certain people to write whatever they please about his magnificent universal creation.

In the years following the Pentateuch completion, additional illustrative scriptures would emerge from the prophets and paint additional pictures of a flat planet. Isaiah describes how God will “maketh the earth empty, turneth it upside down, and scattereth abroad the inhabitants thereof” (Isaiah 24:1). No matter how the spherical earth is situated, however, part of it will always be “upside-down” relative to another. As you should also realize that there’s no true “upside-down” to the earth, it’s impossible to orient our planet in such a fashion and erroneous for Isaiah to use this absurd brand of diction. The concept of gravity and its effect among massive spherical bodies would have certainly been a foreign notion to a fallible man, such as Isaiah, when this piece was written over 2000 years ago. However, if the earth were as flat as a casual observation would indicate, and we toss all modern understanding of gravity to the side, it would be very conceivable for us to think that God could invert the earth so that its inhabitants would fall into some unknown void. As the situation stands in the natural world, Isaiah plainly made the flat earth mistake because he had no scientific knowledge beyond that of his peers.

Daniel also commits the same error recorded by Isaiah. He speaks of his dream about a tree so tall that “the height thereof reached unto heaven and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth” (Daniel 4:11). As you may have already deduced, it’s impossible to see a tree from all points on the earth, regardless of how far it ascends, because the earth is spherical. While witnessing this tree might be possible from all points on a plane or from all points on the earth known to the Hebrews, such widespread observation is simply impossible on a massive spherical body. Daniel obviously exhibited no special insight or inspiration either.

The book of Job curiously refers to the earth as “long” and having a “strong” sky with the appearance of “glass” (11:9 and 37:18). “Long” obviously isn’t an accurate term for conveying the idea of a spherical planet. In addition to implying attributes of a flat world, this biblical author reinforces the widespread ancient belief of a glass dome ceiling covering the earth.

In the New Testament, Matthew and Luke record a fantastic tale in which the Devil whisks Jesus to an exceedingly tall mountain in order to show him all the kingdoms of the world (4:8 and 4:5, respectively). Again, you cannot see the entire world from a single point. However, we must recall that the belief in a flat earth began to fizzle by the time writers put these words on hardcopy. Thus, this statement probably only insinuates that Matthew and Luke believed that all the kingdoms of the world were in locations observable from a single point. In other words, this passage is unemphaticly suggesting that the unviewable regions of the globe were void of kingdoms. If this interpretation is the case, the statement contains an entirely different category of error because it neglects civilizations of the Far East and Western Hemisphere that were presumably unknown to Middle Easterners.

On the other side of the coin, there’s a singular instance found in Isaiah that Christians often flaunt to promote an imagined harmony between the Bible and the true configuration of the earth. All the while, previously mentioned scriptures authored by Isaiah and his colleagues go completely ignored. Isaiah 40:22 says, “It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth.” The word in question here is “circle.” A circle is a flat two-dimensional object, while a sphere, the approximate shape of the earth, is a three-dimensional object. The original Hebrew term used in this verse is chug, meaning circle. The same word is used twice in the book of Job to describe Heaven and the sea, two areas that we have no reason to believe anyone ever considered spherical. Furthermore, Isaiah does not use the actual Hebrew word for sphere, kadur, in 40:22 even though this utilization would have been much more appropriate if Isaiah intended to convey a spherical planet. In addition to this logical analysis of the verse, historians have long determined that a disc-shaped earth was a popular belief not only in the Middle East, but also in Greece before the time of Aristotle. We even have ancient maps of Babylon and Egypt containing illustrations of a circular sea surrounding circular land. When you combine this tangible evidence with other biblical comments regarding the shape of the earth, the likelihood of Isaiah 40:22 referring to a sphere is extremely remote.

What Keeps The Earth Aloft?

If you believe the earth is flat, that’s a reasonable question to investigate. The ridiculous proposal offered by imperfect Old Testament authors is a set of pillars. What do we know about these phantom pillars? They “are the Lord’s and he hath set the world upon them” (1 Samuel 2:8); the earth is shaken out of its place when they tremble (Job 9:6); they shake at God’s disapproval (Job 26:11); God holds them in place when the earth shakes (Psalms 75:3).

Keep in mind that no one has ever found such pillars, nor would we ever sanely explore this proposal because the earth isn’t in any real danger of collapsing. Nevertheless, what is all this business about the pillars shaking? Fortunately, the Bible explains the fictitious reason behind this physical phenomenon in more detail. “The Earth shook and trembled…because [God] was wroth” (2 Samuel 22:8 and Psalm 19:7); “At [God’s] wrath the earth shall tremble” (Jeremiah 10:10); God will “shake the heavens and the earth shall remove out of her place…in the days of his fierce anger” (Isaiah 13:13); “The Lord shall roar out of Zion…and the heavens and the earth shall shake” (Joel 3:16); “Speak to Zerubbabel, governor of Judah, saying ‘I will shake the heavens and the earth’” (Haggai 2:21). Since the pillars are supposedly the support foundations for the earth, it’s reasonable to conclude that our world would shake right along with them.

As you can see, the Bible has at least six different sources recording and prophesying earthquakes only during times when God is angry. While these so-called divinely inspired authors are supposed to be speaking on behalf of an omniscient god, they instead offer ancient superstitious explanations for a natural phenomenon known as an earthquake. Today, we know these events are the result of volcanic eruptions or tectonic plate movements in the earth’s crust. Again, the chances of obtaining this knowledge were well beyond the grasp of someone living 2500 years ago. For this reason, the alleged physical manifestations of God’s anger were frightening enough to coerce the scientifically ignorant population into believing these hilariously clueless explanations.

Movement, Or Lack Thereof

Thus far, we have a flat earth with pillars to keep it aloft. Since these pillars are the foundation for the earth, and objects with such foundations tend to remain relatively motionless, does the Bible also imply that the earth doesn’t move? Looking into these potential implications isn’t necessary because the Bible directly spells it out for its audience. “The world also shall be stable that it be not moved” (1 Chronicles 16:30), “Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?” (Job 38:4), “And the foundations of the earth searched out beneath” (Jeremiah 31:37), “And ye strong foundations of the earth” (Micah 6:2). In addition, Psalms twice mentions that the earth has foundations (18:15 and 82:5) and twice mentions that God established the earth so that it cannot be moved (93:1 and 96:10). Furthermore, Psalms also binds the ideas of a foundation and motionlessness: “Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever” (104:5).

There should be little debate over what the Old Testament authors thought of the earth’s kinetics and other characteristics. Today, we know that the earth moves in at least five different ways: it rotates on its axis, causing day and night; it revolves around the sun, causing us to maintain our distance; it wobbles due to the gravitational pull toward the moon; it hovers around the galaxy with the rest of our solar system; and the galaxy as a whole is continuously moving through empty space. Did God inspire his biographers with this knowledge, or did he allow the inclusion of blatantly false superstitions in his holy book?

The Sun Plays The Earth

Since the earth is purportedly motionless upon its pillars in the biblical universe, and the sun deceitfully appears to be the body in motion, does the Bible imply that the sun has movement as it relates to the daily cycle on earth? Once again, we’re not required to examine these potential implications because the Bible plainly delivers its held position to us. “[The sun’s] going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it” (Psalms 19:6). In more comprehensible English, the sun journeys across the sky in a circular path. Thanks to the work of early astronomers, we now know that the sun is stationary relative to the planets around it. Twenty-five hundred years ago, it would only be logical for divinely uninspired individuals to assume that the sun was the body in revolutionary motion.

Other books of the Old Testament also purport witnesses to similarly strange astronomical events. Isaiah once asked God to move the sun’s shadows ten degrees, and the almighty allegedly complied with this request (2 Kings 20:11, Isaiah 38:8). We can find a comparable event in the book of Joshua when the main character asks God to keep the daytime symbol in the sky longer so that he can defeat his enemies before nightfall (10:12). God allegedly complies with Joshua’s request as well by creating a length of day that had never taken place in the past (10:13-14, Habakkuk 3:11).

The consequences of these two phenomena occurring would be catastrophic. The earth’s gravitationally induced inertia around the sun is the sole force preventing the two massive bodies from merging. Without this momentum, the earth would move gradually yet dangerously closer to the sun. After a short while, it’s quite possible that the earth would become too hot to remain inhabitable if it was able to survive the countless local effects of its halt. At the very least, the polar ice caps would melt and flood the coastlines. Once again, these modern understandings go far beyond the limitations of Ancient Hebrew knowledge. Even so, I suppose that if a power existed to stop the planet from moving, the same power could withhold such consequences from taking place.

A much more detrimental perplexity with these sun-stopping events lies with the presence of astronomers spread throughout different regions of the world. After Joshua’s celestial miracle supposedly took place, the two recording authors specifically say that no one in history had every experienced a day like this. In other words, this extended day was a unique event. As you might have guessed, there’s little credibility to this claim because astronomers in Egypt, China, Babylon, and South America would have certainly recorded an additional 12-24 hours of daytime/nighttime if such an occurrence were this atypical. We are now in possession of the records made by these astronomers. Predictably enough, there’s no indication of such extraordinary and unique astronomical events ever taking place. The only rational and obvious conclusion to make concerning these wild claims is that they’re totally fabricated. Thus, the Bible has once again offered falsified history as fact.

Joel offers one final misinterpretation of the earth’s role in the solar system. He says, “The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood” during the day of the Lord (2:31). While Joel would probably like his readers to remain scared of these supposedly supernatural events, we now have more advanced knowledge concerning the mechanics of eclipses. The earth goes dark on the rare occasion that the moon passes directly between us and the sun; our nighttime light turns red from the earth’s sunsets projecting on the lunar surface when we sweep directly between the sun and the moon. Again, if you subtract this modern understanding, it wouldn’t be too difficult to frighten a person into believing that a supernatural force was manipulating these heavenly bodies in order to foreshadow some imminent spectacle of anger. Seeing as how this ordinary Hebrew had no reasonable explanation for these extraordinary scientific phenomena, he seemingly invented one of his own.

Sailing Off The Edge

Based on their works that reveal beliefs of a flat, stationary, and pillar-supported earth surrounded by the path of a revolving sun, I don’t think it’s too far of a stretch to say that the authors failed to exhibit divine inspiration. In actuality, the earth isn’t much different from the limitless number of spherical planets revolving around their respective stars in order to hold their positions in their own solar systems. We should expect these fallible biblical authors to have a limited knowledge concerning the true nature of the universe if they were void of inspiration allegedly available from an omniscient deity. This is, in fact, what we observe when undertaking an impartial reading of the Old Testament.

Since the authors leave us with these erroneous notions in the Bible, the majority of unbiased persons who hold the knowledge contained within this chapter would not dare defend the blind belief that an omniscient and omnipotent being directly inspired its authorship. These curious statements are just part of the growing number of solid reasons to consider biblical passages twice before recognizing them as absolute truth. We should never accept any statement based solely on the fact that we can find it in an ancient book claimed to have been co-authored by one of ancient society’s many gods.

[Boleslaw]

I would like you to answer the question. Do demons cause blindness? Did Jesus make a blind man see?

Fade, in case you didnt know, Im not a excorcist.


Is it fair to say that you would have been charged with heresy and burned at the stake?

Probably not.



Why not simply tell the Inquisition that the Bible shouldn't be taken seriously?

More like it shouldnt be taken literally. As was the position of the Church since its founding.

Biblical literalism leads one into some odd areas, as the Book of Jubilees demonstrates.



Perun dodges the question.

Im sorry to have disappointed you, but I refuse to comment on issues I have little knowledge and/or interest in.


There is nothing ambiguous about what the Bible says on the issue.

You do realize the multiple schools of thought that exist surronding Biblical interpretation?

[Vindex]

Of course the universal church supports the massive invasion of the metizo hordes. Because those metizo's are catholics. The universal church does not care about race only power they have been pushing race mixing and culture wrecking for years. They are in the same spirit of the corperations of today, their just a older corperation.

[Boleslaw]

Check this out. I found this book in a Google search.

Yes with enough time on your hands, you can find almost any BS with google.

Am I to take it that you've given up on your Calvinism now?

[Boleslaw]

Of course the universal church supports the massive invasion of the metizo hordes. Because those metizo's are catholics. The universal church does not care about race only power they have been pushing race mixing and culture wrecking for years. They are in the same spirit of the corperations of today, their just a older corperation.

Seeing as I have yet to read one intelligent post from you, Im placing you on ignore from now on. Not to mention your avatar disturbs me greatly. Have a nice day!

[Fade the Butcher]

Yes with enough time on your hands, you can find almost any BS with google. Am I to take it that you've given up on your Calvinism now?

I was never a Calvinist.

[Boleslaw]

Yet you were a deep admirer of Calvin and his teachings, now were you not? You even wanted to make Christianity the official religion. Do you still adhere to that?

[Vindex]

Using you as the yardstick of intelligent is amusing. My avatar is most holy, unlike the stick up the arse one you use.:p

Seeing as I have yet to read one intelligent post from you, Im placing you on ignore from now on. Not to mention your avatar disturbs me greatly. Have a nice day!

[Boleslaw]

Just a reminder, you're on ignore, so I cant read your posts. :p

[Micaelis]

Genesis is more or less a book of anti-agrarianism demanding against placing ourselves as masters of the land for the sheer consequences that it entails (the destruction of our ecological system, which is occuring as we speak). The textual illustration of Cain and Abel demonstrates this perfectly, and the theme of the book flows with it. 'Creationism' seems to miss the point by focusing solely on the first few sentences of the book.

[Jim West]

I am rather disappointed in all the non-believers here. Frankly, I'm very hurt. Who in their right mind could doubt that Jesus was the son of God, and a brotha' to us all. Slap me five, and amen.

http://trinitywholesale.com/prints/religious/images/scafa_502_19975.jpg

[Micaelis]

I am rather disappointed in all the non-believers here. Frankly, I'm very hurt. Who in their right mind could doubt that Jesus was the son of God, and a brotha' to us all. Slap me five, and amen.

Negating an idea by appealing to racist sentiments typical of the gallery is NOT conducive to the deconstruction of an idea. Nice try, though. :nono:

[Boleslaw]

Yeah really, this is how Christ our Lord looks like:

http://www.crownofdavid.com/files/heartandking.jpg

[Micaelis]

Christ's phenotype is not important. Can we move beyond that?

[Boleslaw]

I know that, Im just playing their stupid little game here. For every potrait that shows Christ as a black guy, there's thousands upon thousands of portraits from several generations showing him with more European features.

[Boleslaw]

Not only that, the Shroud of Turin shows a Christ who was "Aryan" in looks.

Based upon the Shroud:
http://www.insearchofjesus.org/graphics/faces/shroud3.jpg

[Ace Rimmer]

Indeed , our Lord Jesus Christ was Nordic Aryan Superman,
to claim otherwise is to be considered as blasphemy.

[Petr]

Check this out. I found this book in a Google search.
Yes Fade, we all know that Google search is the best way to find reliable information about the Bible. :)

What sort of silly philistine makes observations like this about supernatural visions?

"In the New Testament, Matthew and Luke record a fantastic tale in which the Devil whisks Jesus to an exceedingly tall mountain in order to show him all the kingdoms of the world (4:8 and 4:5, respectively). Again, you cannot see the entire world from a single point."

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

Here are some antidote to stupidity:

http://www.trueorigin.org/flatearth01.asp


Petr

[Boleslaw]

Indeed Petr. That's one reason why I find discussing the Bible so tedious and boring, because it revolves around some wannabe smart-ass nitpicking this or that verse, and often without considering the greater context in which that verse maybe speaking of or so on. :rolleyes:

[Petr]

Fade, you're making the wrong argument to the wrong person. Im not an Evagenlical who takes every word of the Bible literally. In fact Scriptual literalism was what the Christians condemned of the Pharisees, as most explicitly expressed within the Epistle of Barnabas, which declared the Jews were duped by the Devil into taking the Bible literally rather than figuratively.
Opposing wooden literalism is something that I can also often agree upon, but overt allegorizing can easily turn into a slippery slope.

Bible-bashers despise compromisers, and will eventually have more respect for Christians who "stick to their guns."


Petr

[Petr]

Yet you were a deep admirer of Calvin and his teachings, now were you not? You even wanted to make Christianity the official religion. Do you still adhere to that?
Fade is a cherry-picker, not a guy with a consistent belief-system. He takes some stuff he likes from Plato, he borrows some stuff from Puritans, and so forth.


Petr

[Boleslaw]

For the record, my spiritual temprament is very similar to that of my namesakes:

http://www.seattlecatholic.com/a050524.html

Another reason why Belloc considered the political battle in which the Church was engaged to be of principal importance was no doubt connected with the manner in which he would downplay his own private, personal Faith. He was, by his own admission, one with which all who knew him would happily have concurred, an instinctive, natural sceptic. His belief in the Church found strongest expression in his belief in Her as a force, a personality, an institution acting upon history and upon men. His life was spent in the service of the hierarchical, civilizing Church. The political and cultural attachments of the Church he was in many respects more cognizant of and sensitive to than Her theology or mysticism.

One difference, however, is that Im more sympathetic to mysticism than the historical Belloc was, in accordance with my Eastern Christian upbringing. This is especially true when concerning Belloc's assestment of St. John of Cross, whose poetry he found
...the whole thing repulsive. I don't say-I am not so foolish to say-that it is false. But I do say that I was never made for understanding this "union with God" business: St. Theresa and the rest. I don't know what it is all about and the description of isolation and detachment, "the necessary night of the soul," disgusts me like Wagner's music or boiled mutton. Good for others: not for me. I am no more fitted to it than is an elephant for caviar, or a dog for irony.

I like St. John of the Cross, but his general sentiment is one I can identify with in other circumstances, if not in this particular case. There are many things Catholics do and teach that hold little personal appeal to me, but I certainly will not bash it as a whole as wrong or anything.

[Fade the Butcher]

Yet you were a deep admirer of Calvin and his teachings, now were you not?

I still admire Calvin. I admire Luther too. That, however, doesn't make me a Calvinist anymore than it does a Lutheran.

You even wanted to make Christianity the official religion. Do you still adhere to that?

Of course. I have never professed to be a Christian. That doesn't mean I have an axe to grind against Christianity.

[Jim West]

Micaelis: Negating an idea by appealing to racist sentiments typical of the gallery is NOT conducive to the deconstruction of an idea. Nice try, though. Hey, you really know how to get a brotha' down, brotha'. I'm not appealing to racist sentiments at all. Besides, you got a problem with a black Jesus, brotha'? You do know that he was black and proud, don'tcha? And Jesus was black, brotha'! Even blacker than the inside of your A-hole. And if you go and try deconstructing that Biblical truth then you're nothing but a honkie mothafucka. Slap me five and amen.

http://trinitywholesale.com/prints/religious/images/scafa_502_19975.jpg
THIS is YOUR Jesus, Micaelis. Praise the Lord!

[Fade the Butcher]

Did this happen, Perun? Did God speak through a burning bush to Moses?

"Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian, and he led the flock to the far side of the desert and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. There the angel of the LORD appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up. So Moses thought,

"I will go over and see this strange sight -- why the bush does not burn up."

When the LORD saw that he had gone over to look, Gold called to him from within the bush, "Moses! Moses!"

And Moses said, "Here I am."

"Do not come any closer," God said. "Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground." "Then he said," "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Issac and the God of Jacob." At this, Moses hid his face, because he was afraid to look at God.

Exodus 3: 1-6

[Petr]

Did this happen, Perun? Did God speak through a burning bush to Moses?
I for myself answer promptly YES.

Burning bush that did not burn up greatly symbolizes how a sinful man can directly communicate with infinitely holy YHWH, "the consuming fire," without being annihilated himself.


Petr

[Jimbo Gomez]

Opposing wooden literalism is something that I can also often agree upon, but overt allegorizing can easily turn into a slippery slope.

Bible-bashers despise compromisers, and will eventually have more respect for Christians who "stick to their guns."


Petr

What do you care if Bible bashers despise you or not? I'm not jumping into the dispute here, but I find this argument coming from you of all people rather strange.

[Petr]

What do you care if Bible bashers despise you or not? I'm not jumping into the dispute here, but I find this argument coming from you of all people rather strange.
Many foolish people think that if they back off from some Biblical positions (but still cling to others), unbelievers will be nicer towards them. Actually they will attack despise you as an inconsistent sell-out, and attack you harder than ever to make you drop even the rest of your beliefs.

A classic case of how appeasement doesn't work.


Petr

[Boleslaw]

Did this happen, Perun? Did God speak through a burning bush to Moses?

:rolleyes: What are we playing 20 Bible questions here or something?

[WAM]

...is that it doesn't court intelligent followers but instead prefers African savages and Jorges and Cuntswaylows and other brown-and-barely-humans who see the Virgin Mary in their skid-marked underwear.
The Church fully supports the flooding of White homelands with the detritus of the human gene pool because the Church wants to keep the collection plates nice and full with shekels.And since the global catholic racket has only accumulated about 50 Trillion dollars in worldwide holdings its needs another 50 Tril or so before god is satisfied and the only people in the world with any wealth are God's Chosen and the Catholic Church(no difference between them really).

Only then will the world have reached perfect righteousness!!!

[Boleslaw]

WAM, I'd like to know how the fuck you came up with that argument!

[Jim West]

The Church fully supports the flooding of White homelands with the detritus of the human gene pool because the Church wants to keep the collection plates nice and full with shekels. Hallelujah, brotha! Slap me five, and amen!

http://www.american.edu/bgriff/H207web/civrights/malcolmX.jpg

[Boleslaw]

Yeah immigration really benefits Catholics in America, sure! :rolleyes:


http://suicideofthewest.com/?p=257

So, why does a figure like Cardinal Mahoney support amnesty? Because he’s a powerful man who moves in powerful circles. He can look out across the Los Angeles Basin and pity the poor immigrant, but the bulk of his flock - working class, English-speaking Americans named Smith and Jones - are transparent to him. He has enormous empathy for the Mexican illegal in need of a job, but is completely inattentive to the man whose job is taken by that illegal. It’s the same way with nearly everyone pushing amnesty. If Mexican members of the professional classes were swarming the borders and taking university professorships, legal clients, boardroom promotions and physician referrals away from the well-to-do in this country, the border would snap shut like a crocodile’s jaw at feeding time. But the American professional class isn’t threatened. To many of them, rather, illegal immigration represents an opportunity: cheap labor and even cheaper moral gratification.

The irony for Catholics is that at one time the Church was the backbone of the American working class, and Catholics were the iron core of the labor movement. Now, American Catholic workers not only see their jobs being exported to Mexico, the Phillipines and Korea, but they must suffer the indignity of their own bishops encouraging illegal immigrants to cross the border and take what few jobs still remain. I don’t think the bishops are craven. I just think that their position in this debate is another manifestation of an episcopacy that is detached, worldly, and focused more on the wealthy than on average Americans.

So again Lenny, tell me how destroying the livelihood of blue-collar Catholic Americans(who make up the backbone of the Church) benefiting the Church?

[Lenny]

Yeah immigration really benefits Catholics in America, sure! :rolleyes:It benefits the Catholic Church in America, and the Catholic Church worldwide. Those crooked, lying, conniving, scheming, anti-American, anti-Protestant fatcats in the Catholic power structure see a very easy way (unimpeded open borders immigration) of making America Catholic, of making the strongest country in the world Catholic! If the Communists had seen a way to easily flood America with Communists and make America majority Communist, they'd have done it too! The Catholics are and were a bigger threat than the Communists, anyway.

The irony for Catholics is that at one time the Church was the backbone of the American working class"Catholics the backbone of the US working-class"? Outrageous lie! :mad:

So again Lenny, tell me how destroying the livelihood of blue-collar Catholic Americans(who make up the backbone of the Church) benefiting the Church?Cant you see that it is about numbers, and demographics? They want more Catholics in this country, and they want to make the US a Catholic country. The Knights of Columbus slogan is "Make America Catholic" :mad:

[Boleslaw]

Lenny you just make blind assertions without backing them up.

[IttamFotesa]

It benefits the Catholic Church in America, and the Catholic Church worldwide. Those crooked, lying, conniving, scheming, anti-American, anti-Protestant fatcats in the Catholic power structure see a very easy way (unimpeded open borders immigration) of making America Catholic, of making the strongest country in the world Catholic! If the Communists had seen a way to easily flood America with Communists and make America majority Communist, they'd have done it too! The Catholics are and were a bigger threat than the Communists, anyway.

The Communists had their chance during The Great Depression. Being that Communists are super competent they failed. There was almost a Socialist revolution during the 1930s. USSA or USSR, your pick.

"Catholics the backbone of the US working-class"? Outrageous lie! :mad:

It is true. Religion plays a central role in the lives of the working class. The working class in America is made up mostly of Irish, Italians, and Germans. Populations who are Catholic with Protestants among them. Lutheranism is very close to Catholicism in dress and ritual.

Cant you see that it is about numbers, and demographics? They want more Catholics in this country, and they want to make the US a Catholic country. The Knights of Columbus slogan is "Make America Catholic" :mad:

Of course the Catholic Church wants to undermine the Protestant nature of the country. The Catholic Church having dismissed Traditionalism has now embraced the dollar. It matters to them not who suffers as long as they continue to reap financial rewards. Pure selfishness and greed.

[Lenny]

It is true. Religion plays a central role in the lives of the working class. The working class in America is made up mostly of Irish, Italians, and Germans.To say that "Catholics are the backbone of the American working class" is an outrageous lie, and not supported by simple facts at all. Maybe in the northeast it is true that Catholics "are the backbone of the working class", but nowhere else.

Of course the Catholic Church wants to undermine the Protestant nature of the country. The Catholic Church having dismissed Traditionalism has now embraced the dollar. It matters to them not who suffers as long as they continue to reap financial rewards. Pure selfishness and greed.I agree with you there. But it goes beyond just greed. It is about political and social power, it is a political conspiracy against the United States

Lenny you just make blind assertions without backing them up.Belloc, is it true or is it not true that the Catholic Church wants to "make America Catholic"?

[Kodos]

Of course the Catholic Church wants to undermine the Protestant nature of the country. The Catholic Church having dismissed Traditionalism has now embraced the dollar.

This was a change???

[jcs]

Belloc, is it true or is it not true that the Catholic Church wants to "make America Catholic"?
Lenny, do you, as a Christian, want the souls of as many people as possible to be saved by turning to Christ? Well, Catholics believe that heretics, due to misunderstanding and ignorance of God, remain unsaved; and the Catholic Church, having set the salvation of souls as its goal, strives to show people the truth such that they will find Paradise.
Not that difficult to understand...

[Kodos]

Lenny, do you, as a Christian, want the souls of as many people as possible to be saved by turning to Christ? Well, Catholics believe that heretics, due to misunderstanding and ignorance of God, remain unsaved; and the Catholic Church, having set the salvation of souls as its goal, strives to show people the truth such that they will find Paradise.

1. They never really believed this themselves this was always shit they used to peddle to the rubes about why no one can leave.

2. It borders on muslim type thinking.

3. This isn't even their official doctrine as of Vatican II.

4. Even if they did believe it why would I care because I don't, they are a big part of the forces undermining my country and should be ruthlessly suppressed.

[jcs]

1. They never really believed this themselves this was always shit they used to peddle to the rubes about why no one can leave.
Prove it

2. It borders on muslim type thinking.
It borders on the type of thinking that any compassionate person would have.

3. This isn't even their official doctrine as of Vatican II.
Learn how dogma works. The Vatican II must be understood in the light of earlier dogma. The Catholic Church clarifies and explains; it does not go back on what it says regarding issues of faith.

4. Even if they did believe it why would I care because I don't, they are a big part of the forces undermining my country and should be ruthlessly suppressed.
Your country deserves to be undermined to whatever degree Catholics deem necessary.

[Kodos]

LOL you sound like some idiotic fanatic ala Guy Fawkes or a catholic OBL.

Prove it

Do you really want me to bring the personal lives of the early Popes into this.

It borders on the type of thinking that any compassionate person would have.

No its totalitarian "I'm going to uplift everyone whether they want it or not thinking".

Learn how dogma works. The Vatican II must be understood in the light of earlier dogma.

Inotherwords it was just public relations while the orders passed to the local hierarchies about political matters and the loathsomeness of "heretics" remains unchanged. I already knew that though.

Your country deserves to be undermined to whatever degree Catholics deem necessary.

"Catholics" aren't privy to the operations of the church. The communist party was modeled on the catholic church... there are the lay "workers" who don't know shit. The lower priest who know very litte and the elite who actually run things and know what is going on.