Catholics Don't Exemplify Christianity...

[Liminal]

Atheists and fundamentalists are just the flip sides of the same coin of stupid.

LOL Not even close.

One believes in a supernatural being that uses magic. No evidence is needed, it is a mental creation.

The other doesn't believe in any supernatural being, and there is no magic in the real physical world. There is physics and chemistry. Reality is based on evidence.

You cannot equate the two on any level.

You might consider changing your avatar, Newt.

"Isaac Newton saw a monotheistic God as the masterful creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation".- wikipedia

His observation of nature caused him to break with religious orthodoxy, but further strengthened his experience of the Divine.

He was perhaps the most intelligent and rational person of his time, yet immersed himself in the sacred and eternal. He wrote extensive religious tracts.
"In his posthumously-published Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel, and the Apocalypse of St. John, Newton expressed his belief that Bible prophecy would not be understood "until the time of the end", and that even then "none of the wicked shall understand"." -wikipedia

Newton never created a false dichotomy where a person could be either rational or a believer in "magic", as you put it. And incidentally, he was way to smart to engage in the type of political partisanship that is the norm on USMB.
As he said, "We build too many walls and not enough bridges."

"We account the Scriptures of God to be the most sublime philosophy. I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history whatever." - Ike Newton

There were many scientists the last 400 years or so that proclaimed a belief in 'god'. Some were deists. It doesn't matter, they were skeptical enough of magic to study physical reality and propose what was actually happening. And you can't compare the norms of today to the norms of then. The church pretty much ran roughshod over the globe up until even 100 years ago.

It is the blind belief in 'gods' and magic and the rejection of reality when it collides with those beliefs that I am against.

Science doesn't create anything. It merely turns on the light so we can see what has always been there.

It's become way more than obvious that you don't know any more about history than you do about science.

 

[aris2chat]

Atheists and fundamentalists are just the flip sides of the same coin of stupid.

LOL Not even close.

One believes in a supernatural being that uses magic. No evidence is needed, it is a mental creation.

The other doesn't believe in any supernatural being, and there is no magic in the real physical world. There is physics and chemistry. Reality is based on evidence.

You cannot equate the two on any level.

You might consider changing your avatar, Newt.

"Isaac Newton saw a monotheistic God as the masterful creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation".- wikipedia

His observation of nature caused him to break with religious orthodoxy, but further strengthened his experience of the Divine.

He was perhaps the most intelligent and rational person of his time, yet immersed himself in the sacred and eternal. He wrote extensive religious tracts.
"In his posthumously-published Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel, and the Apocalypse of St. John, Newton expressed his belief that Bible prophecy would not be understood "until the time of the end", and that even then "none of the wicked shall understand"." -wikipedia

Newton never created a false dichotomy where a person could be either rational or a believer in "magic", as you put it. And incidentally, he was way to smart to engage in the type of political partisanship that is the norm on USMB.
As he said, "We build too many walls and not enough bridges."

"We account the Scriptures of God to be the most sublime philosophy. I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history whatever." - Ike Newton

There were many scientists the last 400 years or so that proclaimed a belief in 'god'. Some were deists. It doesn't matter, they were skeptical enough of magic to study physical reality and propose what was actually happening. And you can't compare the norms of today to the norms of then. The church pretty much ran roughshod over the globe up until even 100 years ago.

It is the blind belief in 'gods' and magic and the rejection of reality when it collides with those beliefs that I am against.

Science doesn't create anything. It merely turns on the light so we can see what has always been there.

It's become way more than obvious that you don't know any more about history than you do about science.

Science and modern medicine evolved from early alchemy and curiosity, magic
The search for knowledge was 'god given' and will continue to be improved by people both of faith and skeptic because they are willing to ask how and why

That which was magic or godly miracle is now science. We have even discovered the god particle and soon be able to travel at warp speed and explore other worlds. Maybe god does not exist beyond this planet. Maybe others are really what we have come to call gods. Maybe there is a creator out there yet to find. Maybe god is just another word for unknown, yet.

 

[Liminal]

Atheists and fundamentalists are just the flip sides of the same coin of stupid.

LOL Not even close.

One believes in a supernatural being that uses magic. No evidence is needed, it is a mental creation.

The other doesn't believe in any supernatural being, and there is no magic in the real physical world. There is physics and chemistry. Reality is based on evidence.

You cannot equate the two on any level.

You might consider changing your avatar, Newt.

"Isaac Newton saw a monotheistic God as the masterful creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation".- wikipedia

His observation of nature caused him to break with religious orthodoxy, but further strengthened his experience of the Divine.

He was perhaps the most intelligent and rational person of his time, yet immersed himself in the sacred and eternal. He wrote extensive religious tracts.
"In his posthumously-published Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel, and the Apocalypse of St. John, Newton expressed his belief that Bible prophecy would not be understood "until the time of the end", and that even then "none of the wicked shall understand"." -wikipedia

Newton never created a false dichotomy where a person could be either rational or a believer in "magic", as you put it. And incidentally, he was way to smart to engage in the type of political partisanship that is the norm on USMB.
As he said, "We build too many walls and not enough bridges."

"We account the Scriptures of God to be the most sublime philosophy. I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history whatever." - Ike Newton

There were many scientists the last 400 years or so that proclaimed a belief in 'god'. Some were deists. It doesn't matter, they were skeptical enough of magic to study physical reality and propose what was actually happening. And you can't compare the norms of today to the norms of then. The church pretty much ran roughshod over the globe up until even 100 years ago.

It is the blind belief in 'gods' and magic and the rejection of reality when it collides with those beliefs that I am against.

Science doesn't create anything. It merely turns on the light so we can see what has always been there.

It's become way more than obvious that you don't know any more about history than you do about science.

Science and modern medicine evolved from early alchemy and curiosity, magic
The search for knowledge was 'god given' and will continue to be improved by people both of faith and skeptic because they are willing to ask how and why

That which was magic or godly miracle is now science. We have even discovered the god particle and soon be able to travel at warp speed and explore other worlds. Maybe god does not exist beyond this planet. Maybe others are really what we have come to call gods. Maybe there is a creator out there yet to find. Maybe god is just another word for unknown, yet.

What ever makes a universe, our barely evolved chimp brains probably aren't sophisticated enough to understand or even begin to perceive.

 

[aris2chat]

LOL Not even close.

One believes in a supernatural being that uses magic. No evidence is needed, it is a mental creation.

The other doesn't believe in any supernatural being, and there is no magic in the real physical world. There is physics and chemistry. Reality is based on evidence.

You cannot equate the two on any level.

You might consider changing your avatar, Newt.

"Isaac Newton saw a monotheistic God as the masterful creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation".- wikipedia

His observation of nature caused him to break with religious orthodoxy, but further strengthened his experience of the Divine.

He was perhaps the most intelligent and rational person of his time, yet immersed himself in the sacred and eternal. He wrote extensive religious tracts.
"In his posthumously-published Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel, and the Apocalypse of St. John, Newton expressed his belief that Bible prophecy would not be understood "until the time of the end", and that even then "none of the wicked shall understand"." -wikipedia

Newton never created a false dichotomy where a person could be either rational or a believer in "magic", as you put it. And incidentally, he was way to smart to engage in the type of political partisanship that is the norm on USMB.
As he said, "We build too many walls and not enough bridges."

"We account the Scriptures of God to be the most sublime philosophy. I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history whatever." - Ike Newton

There were many scientists the last 400 years or so that proclaimed a belief in 'god'. Some were deists. It doesn't matter, they were skeptical enough of magic to study physical reality and propose what was actually happening. And you can't compare the norms of today to the norms of then. The church pretty much ran roughshod over the globe up until even 100 years ago.

It is the blind belief in 'gods' and magic and the rejection of reality when it collides with those beliefs that I am against.

Science doesn't create anything. It merely turns on the light so we can see what has always been there.

It's become way more than obvious that you don't know any more about history than you do about science.

Science and modern medicine evolved from early alchemy and curiosity, magic
The search for knowledge was 'god given' and will continue to be improved by people both of faith and skeptic because they are willing to ask how and why

That which was magic or godly miracle is now science. We have even discovered the god particle and soon be able to travel at warp speed and explore other worlds. Maybe god does not exist beyond this planet. Maybe others are really what we have come to call gods. Maybe there is a creator out there yet to find. Maybe god is just another word for unknown, yet.

What ever makes a universe, our barely evolved chimp brains probably aren't sophisticated enough to understand or even begin to perceive.

and mankind will continue to search for understanding till we do know and can explain, prove or disprove there is anything out there.
Maybe there is a scientific and logical explanation for the idea of a god(s) and why so many have given it male attributes instead of female or just the absence of any feeling or emotions what so ever. Maybe that something has not interest or care about us lowly being on this small blue planet. Maybe the real concern by suck a being is for whales or dolphins but our egos don't allow us to see that. So much water on this planet, why should small land creatures be the 'superior' species? Maybe there is something else out there in the deeps that is highly more evolved and more inelegant. Maybe there is an underwater atlantis populated with something of a higher being than man.

Our ego and vanity might be the worst sin of all because it blinds us and stunts our ability to think beyond ourselves.

 

[turzovka]

Our ego and vanity might be the worst sin of all because it blinds us and stunts our ability to think beyond ourselves.

That’s funny, I see it the very opposite.

Our ego and vanity might be the worst sin of all because it will not allow us to admit to a truth even if the evidence is overwhelming. Such as God exists. Such as the Shroud of Turin could never have been created by a medieval forger thanks to the discoveries of modern science.

No, much easier to say “have an open mind and do not accept anything that makes us uncomfortable so we can pretend to have excuses later for not accepting or obeying.”

 

[aris2chat]

Our ego and vanity might be the worst sin of all because it blinds us and stunts our ability to think beyond ourselves.

That’s funny, I see it the very opposite.

Our ego and vanity might be the worst sin of all because it will not allow us to admit to a truth even if the evidence is overwhelming. Such as God exists. Such as the Shroud of Turin could never have been created by a medieval forger thanks to the discoveries of modern science.

No, much easier to say “have an open mind and do not accept anything that makes us uncomfortable so we can pretend to have excuses later for not accepting or obeying.”

>>Such as the Shroud of Turin could never have been created by a medieval forger thanks to the discoveries of modern science.<<

exposure to a confined non-ionizing radiation, does not prove that god was the source or that Jesus rose from the dead. How and why is still unknown, we just know the what so far.

Everything in time. We will find explanations.

When they clone Jesus from the blood DNA, that will be a miracle of science. He will be reborn by man not god.

...........and virgin birth is not miracle, that is scientific proven in animals

 

[turzovka]

Our ego and vanity might be the worst sin of all because it blinds us and stunts our ability to think beyond ourselves.

That’s funny, I see it the very opposite.

Our ego and vanity might be the worst sin of all because it will not allow us to admit to a truth even if the evidence is overwhelming. Such as God exists. Such as the Shroud of Turin could never have been created by a medieval forger thanks to the discoveries of modern science.

No, much easier to say “have an open mind and do not accept anything that makes us uncomfortable so we can pretend to have excuses later for not accepting or obeying.”

>>Such as the Shroud of Turin could never have been created by a medieval forger thanks to the discoveries of modern science.<<

exposure to a confined non-ionizing radiation, does not prove that god was the source or that Jesus rose from the dead. How and why is still unknown, we just know the what so far.

Everything in time. We will find explanations.

When they clone Jesus from the blood DNA, that will be a miracle of science. He will be reborn by man not god.

Sure thing.

FYI, the inexplicable evidence on the Shroud does not stand on its own. It supports the countless other pieces of empirical evidence and facts that point to the same truth, i.e. that God exists, and Jesus is God.

The evidence on the Shroud is of supernatural origin, plain and simple. You and they just do not want to accept that. I get it.

 

[Blackrook]

Fundamentalists are making arguments that are 500 years old, and will never be resolved. Meanwhile, the world we live in is becoming more and more dangerous for all Christians. Christian businesses are being forced to pay for birth control and to cater to same-sex weddings. If they refuse, the government imposes huge fines to put them out of business.

My recommendation to fundamentalists: drop the entire anti-Catholic issue. Catholics are not your enemy, we are brothers and sisters in Christ, and we have more in common than you appreciate. We all worship the same God, and we all have faith in Christ's redemption.

 

[aris2chat]

Fundamentalists are making arguments that are 500 years old, and will never be resolved. Meanwhile, the world we live in is becoming more and more dangerous for all Christians. Christian businesses are being forced to pay for birth control and to cater to same-sex weddings. If they refuse, the government imposes huge fines to put them out of business.

My recommendation to fundamentalists: drop the entire anti-Catholic issue. Catholics are not your enemy, we are brothers and sisters in Christ, and we have more in common than you appreciate. We all worship the same God, and we all have faith in Christ's redemption.

The threats to all christians is very real from fanatics
It should be far more important to save lives than worry about some possible un-harmful sin.

There are real crimes/sins happening in the world, real massacres, real abuses, absolution of rights, real forced conversions, real destruction of religious sites, books and relics

Even a threat to smaller religious groups as well as the freedoms to disbelieve in a god

Threats that make this rejection of gay rights seem a bad joke.

Gays are not the threat, they too are threatened by others, threatened with real death not some imagination of hell but by flesh and blood humans.

The threat is hate and violence, not love between those of the same sex

You guys need to get outside and get some real perceptive of the world about what is harmful and what is just personal bigotry.

 

[Liminal]

Fundamentalists are making arguments that are 500 years old, and will never be resolved. Meanwhile, the world we live in is becoming more and more dangerous for all Christians. Christian businesses are being forced to pay for birth control and to cater to same-sex weddings. If they refuse, the government imposes huge fines to put them out of business.

My recommendation to fundamentalists: drop the entire anti-Catholic issue. Catholics are not your enemy, we are brothers and sisters in Christ, and we have more in common than you appreciate. We all worship the same God, and we all have faith in Christ's redemption.

Christian fundamentalism and anti Catholicism are as American as apple pie.....and they go hand in hand.

 

[BluePhantom]

Ok look. Let's me apply some simple logic here. If a Christian is someone who believes that Jesus was the Messiah and believes in the physical resurrection of Jesus, then the first Christians were Mary Magdalene and the disciples. So the earliest form of Christianity was what Peter and the rest were teaching right after the crucifixion

Why do you want to do that? You're making assumptions here that this is fact. It is not. You don't have a historical Jesus to begin witth.

Are you trying to tell me that what they were teaching was Greco-Roman stoicism? You are out of your mind. What they were teaching and what the Catholic Church taught were totally different. The Catholic point of view was accepted by Constantine because it was a highly Romanized for of Christianity. You think Peter was out there teaching a Roman view of Jesus?

Again, you're making the assumption that a Peter taught anything. You're also making the assumption that people would have been isolated. Fisherman or no. It's the primary reason that I said to pick up a book. An actual history book.

I was a history professor Dsir. I think I am pretty solid on history. You are totally off on so much. Earlier, you said that Constantine made Christianity the state religion of Rome. I was going to let that one slide, but again...it's wrong. It was Theodosius I that made Christianity the state religion. Constantine granted the freedom for all Roman subjects to worship as they chose. He ended the persecution of Christians for their faith. It was the Edict of Thessalonica under Theodosius that made Christianity the state religion and branded all non-Nicene branches as officially heretical. You can't even get that straight and you are telling others to pick up a history book. Good Lord.

Regarding Peter teaching. Acts and the undisputed epistles of Paul are pretty clear on this and it's about the only sources we have. According to them, Peter was teaching very quickly after the death of Jesus. As far as being isolated....they were peasants, Dsir. They didn't travel. Travel was dangerous and time spent travelling was time not making money. Of course they were isolated.

And ask yourself the following: What was the larger community? Who ruled the land? Who ruled the land before that? What was the language de joure? What did they do for cash? What would have been a tourist destination and/or cosmopolitan city? Who had libraries? What kind of schools were there? And what about the law? What did they eat? Where did they go? How did they live? What was ghetto? How did they travel?

Well Galilee was a highly rural area filled with Aramaic speaking peasants. There was no education to be had. Educations were for the wealthy because only the wealthy could afford to have their children going to school instead of working to help support the family. Educations were found in urban areas, not in the sticks which is what Galilee was. People in Galilee didn't speak Greek. If they knew any Greek at all it would have been just enough to get by with the few Romans who wandered into the area. Palestine was not a tourist area. It was a shithole. The only reason the Romans had any interest in it at all was because they needed to go through it to move their armies against the Persians. There was no investment of Greco-Roman culture in Palestine by the Romans. All they cared about was that the Jews paid their taxes, didn't start shit, and kept out of the army's way when it marched through to the front.

I have seen some estimates that the literacy rate in rural Galilee during the 1st century CE was about 3% and that would have been in Aramaic, not Greek. Trying to suggest that the disciples knew the first thing about Plato is flat out laughable.

 

[zaangalewa]

... how many people are turned off to Christianity because of the Catholic church? ...

Today about minus 1.2 - 1.3 billions?

 

[Bonzi]

Worshipping idols, icons and images violates the 2nd commandment.
- Catholics regularly bow down to idols, icons and images of Jesus, Mary and the apostles, kissing the feet of the statues and praying to them. The Bible teaches that WE ONLY PRAY TO DEITY and Christians considers it paganism and polytheism to pray to anyone EXCEPT the Father, Son or Holy Spirit. So while Catholics pray to Mary, they fail to comprehend that only deity is to be prayed to. The Bible clearly teaches that all dead humans, though conscious in the spirit world, are unable to know anything, much less hear prayers addressed to them. Bowing down to icons and kissing them etc. so closely resembles idol worship it is actually shocking that any Roman Catholic would attempt to defend the practice.

 

[irosie91]

Worshipping idols, icons and images violates the 2nd commandment.
- Catholics regularly bow down to idols, icons and images of Jesus, Mary and the apostles, kissing the feet of the statues and praying to them. The Bible teaches that WE ONLY PRAY TO DEITY and Christians considers it paganism and polytheism to pray to anyone EXCEPT the Father, Son or Holy Spirit. So while Catholics pray to Mary, they fail to comprehend that only deity is to be prayed to. The Bible clearly teaches that all dead humans, though conscious in the spirit world, are unable to know anything, much less hear prayers addressed to them. Bowing down to icons and kissing them etc. so closely resembles idol worship it is actually shocking that any Roman Catholic would attempt to defend the practice.

Its not their fault The roman pig CONSTANTINE did it to them

 

[zaangalewa]

Worshipping idols, icons and images violates the 2nd commandment.
- Catholics regularly bow down to idols, icons and images of Jesus, Mary and the apostles, kissing the feet of the statues and praying to them. The Bible teaches that WE ONLY PRAY TO DEITY and Christians considers it paganism and polytheism to pray to anyone EXCEPT the Father, Son or Holy Spirit. So while Catholics pray to Mary, they fail to comprehend that only deity is to be prayed to. The Bible clearly teaches that all dead humans, though conscious in the spirit world, are unable to know anything, much less hear prayers addressed to them. Bowing down to icons and kissing them etc. so closely resembles idol worship it is actually shocking that any Roman Catholic would attempt to defend the practice.

Do you speak with me?

 

[zaangalewa]

Worshipping idols, icons and images violates the 2nd commandment.
- Catholics regularly bow down to idols, icons and images of Jesus, Mary and the apostles, kissing the feet of the statues and praying to them. The Bible teaches that WE ONLY PRAY TO DEITY and Christians considers it paganism and polytheism to pray to anyone EXCEPT the Father, Son or Holy Spirit. So while Catholics pray to Mary, they fail to comprehend that only deity is to be prayed to. The Bible clearly teaches that all dead humans, though conscious in the spirit world, are unable to know anything, much less hear prayers addressed to them. Bowing down to icons and kissing them etc. so closely resembles idol worship it is actually shocking that any Roman Catholic would attempt to defend the practice.

Its not their fault The roman pig CONSTANTINE did it to them

Yea - was a lot of suffer the pig Constantine caused for the not any longer existing Christians in the Iraq and Syria when he accomplished the mission to attack the Iraq on an aircraft carrier.

 

[Liminal]

Worshipping idols, icons and images violates the 2nd commandment.
- Catholics regularly bow down to idols, icons and images of Jesus, Mary and the apostles, kissing the feet of the statues and praying to them. The Bible teaches that WE ONLY PRAY TO DEITY and Christians considers it paganism and polytheism to pray to anyone EXCEPT the Father, Son or Holy Spirit. So while Catholics pray to Mary, they fail to comprehend that only deity is to be prayed to. The Bible clearly teaches that all dead humans, though conscious in the spirit world, are unable to know anything, much less hear prayers addressed to them. Bowing down to icons and kissing them etc. so closely resembles idol worship it is actually shocking that any Roman Catholic would attempt to defend the practice.

More petty distinctions that God just doesn't give a shit about.

 

[Meriweather]

Well that's a point of great controversy. As I know you are Catholic, and I respect that belief, I know that is how you would like to see it, but to make that stick you have to say that Peter and the other Apostles were teaching the same thing that the sect that would become the Catholic Church (as a noun) taught. With respect to you, Meriwether (because you know I respect the hell out of you), I don't see how anyone can support such a claim because the Catholic Church (as a noun) after Constantine was so heavily Romanized.

To me, it stretches credulity to the breaking point to suggest that Peter endorsed a Roman view of Jesus. But we are free to disagree, of course.

Been away for a couple of days. Where do you see the Catholic Church as being heavily Romanized? I see a lot of Jewish influence (Purgatory for one), but I'll need a bit of help seeing the Roman influence, other than dietary laws and art work.

 

[Meriweather]

Worshipping idols, icons and images violates the 2nd commandment.
- Catholics regularly bow down to idols, icons and images of Jesus, Mary and the apostles, kissing the feet of the statues and praying to them. The Bible teaches that WE ONLY PRAY TO DEITY and Christians considers it paganism and polytheism to pray to anyone EXCEPT the Father, Son or Holy Spirit. So while Catholics pray to Mary, they fail to comprehend that only deity is to be prayed to. The Bible clearly teaches that all dead humans, though conscious in the spirit world, are unable to know anything, much less hear prayers addressed to them. Bowing down to icons and kissing them etc. so closely resembles idol worship it is actually shocking that any Roman Catholic would attempt to defend the practice.

Worshiping idols is about the worship of totems and carved objects, believing them to have special powers. For that reason, as a child, we were discouraged from possessing rabbit's feet and other "lucky" pennies/charms or icons. That was idol worship--the believing an object had special powers.

Catholics do not believe statues have special powers. They are used to focus the mind on prayer, like sacraments, that visible sign of the invisible reality. Kissing, bowing, or praying before statues/art/icons is simply a visible sign. It is not a belief that the image has any power.

It appears it cannot be emphasized enough that Mary, the Saints, the saints, those who have passed on, and those living, all make up the Body of Christ. Just as we ask/petition/pray the living pray for/with us, Catholics have no hesitation in asking/petitioning/praying those who have passed on to pray with/for them as well. We as Mary to pray for us, just as we ask those around us to pray for us.

Let's take a look at two of the various definitions for pray:

* to offer devout petition, praise, thanks, etc., to God.
* to make earnest petition to a person.

Prayer to God is defined in the first. Asking others (including those who have passed on, still members of the living Body of Christ), is defined in the second.

With these two definitions in the dictionary, and Catholics continually explaining that "praying" (asking) those who passed on is no different from praying (asking) the living for prayers it is astonishing any non-Catholic would still continue to confuse this with idolatry.

 

[aris2chat]

Worshipping idols, icons and images violates the 2nd commandment.
- Catholics regularly bow down to idols, icons and images of Jesus, Mary and the apostles, kissing the feet of the statues and praying to them. The Bible teaches that WE ONLY PRAY TO DEITY and Christians considers it paganism and polytheism to pray to anyone EXCEPT the Father, Son or Holy Spirit. So while Catholics pray to Mary, they fail to comprehend that only deity is to be prayed to. The Bible clearly teaches that all dead humans, though conscious in the spirit world, are unable to know anything, much less hear prayers addressed to them. Bowing down to icons and kissing them etc. so closely resembles idol worship it is actually shocking that any Roman Catholic would attempt to defend the practice.

Other christian pray before a cross as well, and often wear one on a chain