Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Albert Cipriani · 03-11-2002, 10:32 AM

Dear Helen,
Yes, you are right. I misspoke. The Catholic canon of 73 books includes those seven books called by Protestants "Apocrypha" (which originally meant hidden, but now means spurious): Tobias, Judith, Baruch, Eccesiasticus, Wisdom, I and 2 Machabees and parts of Esther and Daniel.

I was thinking of Luther's editing of James regarding "faith alone."

Quote:

You now reject the last 40 years of Catholic pronouncements.

As a Catholic, I am within my rights to reject pastoral bull shit the Church palms off as official teaching to the gullible. We know it is not official because none of it qualifies as such by the guidelines the Vatican I Council laid down in the 1800's. Most of the novelties do not involve faith or morals, and those that do are promulgated in language too ambiguous to bind, and none of the teaching explicitly states that it is binding.

Quote:

It makes no more sense to call the church of the first few centuries after Christ "Catholic" and not Protestant anymore than it would make sense to argue your parents are yours only and not also the parents of your siblings.

Your metaphor makes God into a philanderer, siring churches through the centuries when He promised us to betroth only one church built upon one rock, singular tense. It also makes this two-timing God into an incompetent, for He prayed that His Church would be one as He and His Father were one.

You also make Jesus into a liar. The prince of hell is known as the father of lies. But Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church. But you assert that "the One True Church" had to be redeemed by "Martin Luther... (who) had to break off from (it), because of heresy." That means for a time the One True Church was not one or true and innocent people were deprived of salvation during this time in which the gates of hell prevailed.

If you honestly believe that the Church of the first few centuries could qualify as Protestant, produce a single passage from any of the Patristic Fathers of that Church that did not support such exclusively Catholic concepts as the Real Presence, the seven sacraments, the primacy of the bishop at Rome, and the sacramental priesthood. -- Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

[ March 11, 2002: Message edited by: Albert Cipriani ]

HelenM · 03-11-2002, 12:31 PM

Good answer, Albert - thanks!

Yeah, I was aware Luther didn't like the book of James.

Lately it's one of my favorites but then there are things about Luther I don't much care for.

OTOH they seem to think he was Bipolar (like me)...so maybe I ought to factor that in...

love
Helen

ClosedMindedAvenger · 03-11-2002, 04:14 PM

The belief of god(s) had to start somewhere. From hinduism to christianity, it started with one of them. Now what I am wondering is how it all started. Did some one make it all up to scare children into practicing the ways of good? If some one some day, the truth is found about which god or gods actually exist, shoot the person before word gets out. If every one knew which religion was the right one, we would all fall victim to conformity. No one wants that...

(irony intended)

03-11-2002, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Prince Hamlet:
AmosI know you want to believe in the infallibility of the pope, but do you really want to say that the Catholic Church was right to sign the death warrant of millions of Jews, and that it was for their own good?

Jeff

Jeff I am not trying to be a nice guy, or a good guy or a bad guy but if you would just read what I write without paranoia you would easily conclude that the statement makes sense on its own without a war.

You keep bringing the war into the argument as if you are blinded by fundamentalism, which is precisely why history repeats itself.

I do not believe that the Church is infallible but know that the Church is infallible. Your problem is the you do not know what infallible means and must think about stealing cookies or something like that. Infallible simply means "in charge of destiny" and has nothing to do with popes or even with good or bad.

03-11-2002, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bonduca:

Please try to stick to Pius XII and his alleged cooperation with the Nazi party. 

Nazi cooperation was never part of my argument. I only showed that the phrase has merit on its own and can stand on its own. I showed you how and why. 

Please try to stay focused on Europe during this period in history, and do not drag in Canadians. 

Europe was never part of my argument and I did not drag in Canadians but you did. I wrote that Canadians had noting to do with it.

Please do not wander off to the crucifixion (or else I will have to remind you that the Roman political machine's practice of crucifixion was the actual means of destruction of the legendary Jesus figure).

Please, please, try to stay on topic.

That is just my point. Your fundamentalist perspective requires a legendary Jesus to be real instead of legendary. If I thought Jesus was real and actually crucified in the flesh (as you believe) I would not have responded because I would not have a point to make.

So I am very much on topic but you wander because you are offended in you belief.

Why not read my post for what is written and leave all you preconceived notions out of it.

bonduca · 03-12-2002, 05:05 AM

*sigh*

Amos, with all due respect -
I am an atheist. Not a fundamentalist.
I'm afraid it was you who brought up the Canadians. However, there are no hard feelings, as I generally like Canadians.
I was discussing Pius XII and his cooperation with the Nazi party.
I'm not discussing the spiritual journey of the Jews. I am expressing outrage at allowing them to be killed.
I can't be offended by your post, because I can't make any sense of it.

You may be on your topic, and have a very pressing point to make, but I'm afraid you don't seem to be on mine. <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

03-12-2002, 12:06 PM

But Bonduca, you are fundamentalist because you think of Christ as historic and think that Jews need protection.

The poor Jews had no defence against religious persecution and so I agree that the Nazi party is wrong, and wrong also are those that contributed to the success of the Nazi party. Regardless how true that all is, it has nothing to do with my response.

We seem to have a communication problem because I never wanted to "be on your" topic and showed that the phrase will make sense on its own and outside your topic.

And please, you do not need to apologize because it matters not if you like Canadians. My point had nothing to do with Canadians nor with the killing of Jews or the killing of anyone.

To lead you away from the historic interpretation I added the crucifixion of Christ and that mythically only Jewish law was responsible for that and to deny that is to destroy the myth. For the same reason, to say that the Jews cannot take care of themselves is to destroy the destiny of the Jews within the myth.

I don't like war either and it seems that it is always the fundamentalists that are fighting. It is as if they have something to protect that is not real or it would not need protection.

Not Prince Hamlet · 03-12-2002, 12:15 PM

Amos,

You're not making any sense here. Let me make it easy for you with a simple yes or no question:

Do you think that that Pope was right to sign the Reich Concordat?

"Yes" or "No", please. Do not write about how we're "confused" on some point or other. Please just answer this question with "yes" or "no".

Thank you,

Jeff

03-12-2002, 12:19 PM

What is the Reich Concordat? I have never heard of it.

[ March 12, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]

bonduca · 03-12-2002, 12:20 PM

Amos, you astound me. Go up about two pages. Or do a google search.

[ March 12, 2002: Message edited by: bonduca ]

03-12-2002, 12:19 PM	#229
Amos Guest Posts: n/a	What is the Reich Concordat? I have never heard of it. [ March 12, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

03-12-2002, 12:20 PM	#230
bonduca Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: . Posts: 1,653	Amos, you astound me. Go up about two pages. Or do a google search. [ March 12, 2002: Message edited by: bonduca ]</p>

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

03-11-2002, 12:31 PM	#222
HelenM Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Ill Posts: 6,577	Good answer, Albert - thanks! Yeah, I was aware Luther didn't like the book of James. Lately it's one of my favorites but then there are things about Luther I don't much care for. OTOH they seem to think he was Bipolar (like me)...so maybe I ought to factor that in... love Helen

03-11-2002, 04:14 PM	#223
ClosedMindedAvenger Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Texas Posts: 5	The belief of god(s) had to start somewhere. From hinduism to christianity, it started with one of them. Now what I am wondering is how it all started. Did some one make it all up to scare children into practicing the ways of good? If some one some day, the truth is found about which god or gods actually exist, shoot the person before word gets out. If every one knew which religion was the right one, we would all fall victim to conformity. No one wants that... (irony intended)

03-12-2002, 05:05 AM	#226
bonduca Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: . Posts: 1,653	sigh Amos, with all due respect - I am an atheist. Not a fundamentalist. I'm afraid it was you who brought up the Canadians. However, there are no hard feelings, as I generally like Canadians. I was discussing Pius XII and his cooperation with the Nazi party. I'm not discussing the spiritual journey of the Jews. I am expressing outrage at allowing them to be killed. I can't be offended by your post, because I can't make any sense of it. You may be on your topic, and have a very pressing point to make, but I'm afraid you don't seem to be on mine. <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

03-12-2002, 12:06 PM	#227
Amos Guest Posts: n/a	But Bonduca, you are fundamentalist because you think of Christ as historic and think that Jews need protection. The poor Jews had no defence against religious persecution and so I agree that the Nazi party is wrong, and wrong also are those that contributed to the success of the Nazi party. Regardless how true that all is, it has nothing to do with my response. We seem to have a communication problem because I never wanted to "be on your" topic and showed that the phrase will make sense on its own and outside your topic. And please, you do not need to apologize because it matters not if you like Canadians. My point had nothing to do with Canadians nor with the killing of Jews or the killing of anyone. To lead you away from the historic interpretation I added the crucifixion of Christ and that mythically only Jewish law was responsible for that and to deny that is to destroy the myth. For the same reason, to say that the Jews cannot take care of themselves is to destroy the destiny of the Jews within the myth. I don't like war either and it seems that it is always the fundamentalists that are fighting. It is as if they have something to protect that is not real or it would not need protection.

03-12-2002, 12:15 PM	#228
Not Prince Hamlet Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: New Jersey, USA Posts: 1,309	Amos, You're not making any sense here. Let me make it easy for you with a simple yes or no question: Do you think that that Pope was right to sign the Reich Concordat? "Yes" or "No", please. Do not write about how we're "confused" on some point or other. Please just answer this question with "yes" or "no". Thank you, Jeff

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.