Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ferrari · 03-02-2005, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BSM

Who would want to return the favor when the "Mother Church" uses these terms to describe them?

*are not Churches in the proper sense
*albeit imperfect
*they suffer from defects

An insult is an insult no matter how much double-speak you use to dress it up.

~BSM

I would not dispute your points but I fail to understand why an atheist would be concerned about the subject. My attitude is, let the Christians agree on something, then I might be prepared to give their religion a fair hearing.

capsaicin67 · 03-02-2005, 01:41 PM

The Church has traditionally discouraged the population into believing that they cannot think for themselves on matters of importance and requiring the people to swallow that the Pope and his Capos are the exclusive gatekeepers for telling them what god wants. Jesus is more important, but the congregations are to be indoctrinated that they are less important than the Pope. It's a chain of command thang. God and Jesus are great, but um, the clergy are special favorites of them, and they'll tell you what to believe and do.

I agree that Catholics have tended to not be as pushy in the States, as a result of having to keep a somewhat low profile in the early days of the country when they were outnumbered, feared/resented, and at risk. Now C/SS has protected them and Evangelicals so successfully that they are able to be cocky and intrusive and judgemental again. C/SS gave them that, and now that they are the ones in power, they [the religious mgmt] want to take it away from any future competition. So petty and transparent.

The Protestants did have the right idea in making religion once again a personal thing, and democratizing/liberating it. They just faltered short of carrying that idea forward through Deism and beyond it.

BSM · 03-02-2005, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ferrari

I would not dispute your points but I fail to understand why an atheist would be concerned about the subject. My attitude is, let the Christians agree on something, then I might be prepared to give their religion a fair hearing.

Despite the notion of ecumenical unity that you hear certain denominations, or Protestants and Catholics talk about, if you scratch the surface the reality of the situation is not as nice and neat as they'd have you believe. In fact, church history is littered with schisms. In addition, some adherents are not even aware of the differences and buy into the whole "brothers in Christ" sales pitch.

As for why be concerned, well, in my opinion religion should be open to critique, scrutinity, and honest intellectual inquiry. In fact, in my opinion it's been a sacred cow for far too long and it's still a cultural taboo to critique it. To answer your question, before one can critique, one needs to learn as much as one can about it. Also, tangentially related is the notion that learning about religion in general, and Christianity in particular, is one way to learn about humanity, culture, and social interaction.

~BSM

Chili · 03-02-2005, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hinduwoman

Thank you Catholic Convert for proving my point.

Protestants have not embraced the fullness of Christ because they refuse the Pope. In other words, it is not belief in Christ that determines their status but belief in Pope and his infallibility.

But we do not believe in the Pope nor do we believe in Christ. Your problem is that you are thinking protestant and try to apply those thoughts to Catholicism. That just doesn't work and is much like trying to play ice hockey on a soccer field (I agree that that might be fun to watch, as Aquinas once noted, but it is not practical and a no-win situation for protestants).

In Catholicism the Pope sets out the arena wherein the game is played and his guidelines are infallible so that there can be uniform rules for the game. See the difference? eg. Catholics are sinners and not Christians while protestants are self proclaimed Christians and still sinners (and will use every trick in the book to score but always in the wrong goal,

).

The purpose of the game is not to follow Christ (or even to follow the Pope) but to play by the indoctrinated rules of the game. The game is played inside the Catholic arena where the Sacraments become our milestones of faith that are placed along the way into the journey of life as Catholic. It is not until the final whistle blows that we become another Christ and this will be the time when the game is over. Until then do we enjoy the fellowship of believers and communion with the saints in heaven who's accumulated riches are on display to be admired by us and by the rest of the world (often to the chagrin of racketeering protestant religions that never have anything to potlatch in return).

So therefore, Catholics are not Christians but only those who have played the game from beginning to end will be Christian when they die their first death -- which may, indeed, be long before they die their second physical death. See the difference? or don't you agree?

Chili · 03-02-2005, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jehanne

The great theologian Karl Rahner, the architect of Vatican II, would develop the idea of an “anonymous Christian�? as even including atheists of “good will�?!

That was done to be "politically correct" but really is a slam against protestant churches if an atheists can be as good as the best protestant from their point of view.

Chili · 03-02-2005, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BSM

Who would want to return the favor when the "Mother Church" uses these terms to describe them?

*are not Churches in the proper sense
*albeit imperfect
*they suffer from defects

An insult is an insult no matter how much double-speak you use to dress it up.

~BSM

But they are not insults if they are true and a good argument would prove them wrong.

No, they are not Churches in the proper sense but they are just social clubs wherein the spiritual fornication of innocent believers is rewarded with official membership status.

They are imperfect because they have tampered with the soul of the believer who must live up to the commitment that was made in public at the age of accountability.

The defect is not unbelief but the premature exposure of the inner sanctum (soul) to the congregation that leaves them torn in the saved sinner complex until they die.

Jehanne · 03-02-2005, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

That was done to be "politically correct" but really is a slam against protestant churches if an atheists can be as good as the best protestant from their point of view.

And, he had an imprimatur on his book "Anonymous Christian". Quite a different "story" from the Middle Ages' viewpoint given in the following:

http://www.smu.edu/ijas/1431trial.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by THE PUBLIC ADMONITION, May 2, 1431

The same day Jeanne was brought before the judges in this trial. The bishop, in their presence, admonished her that she should follow the advice and admonitions which had been given to her by M’itre Jean de Châtillon, doctor in theology, for the salvation both of her soul and her body, and if she were unwilling so to do, she would fall into grave danger both of body and soul. And then the judges begged de Châtillon to proceed charitably to the said admonitions. To which de Châtillon answered that he would gladly do so. Firstly, he pointed out to her that all loyal Christians are obliged to believe and hold the articles of the Faith. And he showed her the form and manner thereof, as she had previously been shown. He then asked her whether she was willing to correct herself and amend her faults in accordance with the deliberation. To which she answered: Read your book, That is to say, the schedule which the bishop was holding. And then I will answer you. I wait upon God my Creator in all. I love Him with all my heart. Questioned as to whether she desires to answer to this general admonition, She answered: I trust in my judge, that is the King of Heaven and earth. She was then told: Formerly you said that your deeds were seen and cross‑examined, as is contained in the schedule. She answered that she gives the same answer now. When it was explained to her what the Church Militant meant, and [she was] admonished to believe and hold the article Unam Sanctam Ecclesiam, etc., and to submit to the Church Militant, She answered: I believe in the Church on earth; but for my deeds and words, as I have previously said, I refer the whole matter to God, Who caused me to do what I have done. She said also that she submits to God her Creator, Who caused her to do what she did; and refers it to Him in His own Person. Asked if she means that she has no judge on earth, and our Holy Father the Pope is not her judge, She replied: I will tell you nothing else. I have a good Master, Our Lord, in Whom I trust for everything, and not in any other. She was told that if she did not wish to believe in the Church and in the article Ecclesiam Sanctam Catholicam, she would be a heretic to uphold [her views], and that she would be punished by other judges who would sentence her to be burned. She answered: I will tell you nothing else. And [even] if I saw the fire, I should tell you what I have told you, and nothing else. Questioned as to whether, if the General Council, that is to say our Holy Father, the Cardinals [and the rest] were here, she would be willing to submit, She answered: You will drag nothing else from me. Asked if she is willing to submit to our Holy Father the Pope, She said: Bring me to him, and I shall answer him. She was unwilling to answer further..

Chili · 03-02-2005, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jehanne

And, he had an imprimatur on his book "Anonymous Christian". Quite a different "story" from the Middle Ages' viewpoint given in the following:

http://www.smu.edu/ijas/1431trial.html

Not much has changed Jehanne and people were never executed for not believing. It was when they proclaimed to have certain insights and used these insights to scatter the flock that they were reprimanded and eventually brought to trial if they refused to change their ways.

The Reformation made this enterprise legal and allowed what at one time were called "wolves in sheep's clothing" to start up their own denominations. They all ran away with some of the truth and began refining their own recipes to heaven in effort to attract more followers. Today, many enriched believers that have drank some of their potion end up in recovery centers while others are still trying to preaching their modified gospel in effort to change the world around them.

As an aside, I don't think that any of them ever found Christ because the fact that they have built their cathedrals in the shape of aircraft carriers to speed up the second coming of Christ is sufficient evidence that Christ never yet came into their lives.

So probably, the Church finds that atheist can be the "anonymous Christian" because they are at least honest to themselves and may have refused to drink of wine of Gods wrath poured full strength in the cup of his anger.

Gunnaheave · 03-02-2005, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

Not much has changed Jehanne and people were never executed for not believing. It was when they proclaimed to have certain insights and used these insights to scatter the flock that they were reprimanded and eventually brought to trial if they refused to change their ways.

Is this meant as a defense of the executions?

Chili · 03-03-2005, 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunnaheave

Is this meant as a defense of the executions?

No because I do not think that executions are ever worth the end achieved.

The point here is that the Church believed that those who follow the wrong gospel are in hell which really is purgatory for an extended period of time (and surely until they died nonetheless). This would be much like the children of Israel who ate manna in the desert for 40 years until 'they' died nonetheless. This manna really were the second hand bible passages that came to them via Moses and so Jesus came to show them the right way so they could enjoy heaven while on earth. I guess that is what Jn.6 is all about.

The trial and torture that preceded these executions was their genuine attempt to save their souls and this gave these heretics plenty of time to bethink their actions and save their own lives if they wanted too.

Now, I don't want to make this sound like they were doing them a favor but if they led others astray and into the fires of hell until they died, the Inquisitor was sure doing the innocent believers a great favor.

It is important to understand here that the Church in those days believed that heaven and hell were a state of mind. The difference between these two is that only if rebirth is incipient from God heaven would soon be theirs and if rebirth was the result of witchcraft (such as altar calls today) heaven would never be theirs.

The above train of thought is biblical and I think that the high culture of the Renaissance period speaks loudly in their favor. From this point of view can it be argued that the reformers chose hell as the preferred destiny for protestants who still insist that heaven does not come our way until after we die. I think one of the most comical affirmations of this idea was that Luther wanted to replace all confessionals with hatching boxes so that all Catholics would get born again in a hurry (instead of in Gods time).

It is just a perspective that I learned when I did some contemplative logic.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-02-2005, 01:41 PM	#12
capsaicin67 Contributor Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Gold coast plain, sea, scrubland, mountain range. Posts: 20,955	The Church has traditionally discouraged the population into believing that they cannot think for themselves on matters of importance and requiring the people to swallow that the Pope and his Capos are the exclusive gatekeepers for telling them what god wants. Jesus is more important, but the congregations are to be indoctrinated that they are less important than the Pope. It's a chain of command thang. God and Jesus are great, but um, the clergy are special favorites of them, and they'll tell you what to believe and do. I agree that Catholics have tended to not be as pushy in the States, as a result of having to keep a somewhat low profile in the early days of the country when they were outnumbered, feared/resented, and at risk. Now C/SS has protected them and Evangelicals so successfully that they are able to be cocky and intrusive and judgemental again. C/SS gave them that, and now that they are the ones in power, they [the religious mgmt] want to take it away from any future competition. So petty and transparent. The Protestants did have the right idea in making religion once again a personal thing, and democratizing/liberating it. They just faltered short of carrying that idea forward through Deism and beyond it.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.