Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

driven · Jul 25, 2002, 09:17 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by cheerios:
Earth, good for you. Really. Hard to stick w/ something that... demanding, in this day and age. Catholicism is an easy victim, right now, especially w/ the priest child molestation thing going on.

It's ALWAYS been an easy victim, though, because of the corruptness that is has at times employed. In the middle ages, priests would SELL what amounted to passes to heaven. Buy your way out of hell, Cheap! And then, there's the hierarchy, the ...ancientness, of things like mass done all in latin, of a pope who looks like he'll crumble if you blow on him, and SAINTS! The Catholic church sounds almost pagan! There's chanting that you can't understand, candles, magic (miracles)... It's that otherworldly feeling that makes it so much more susceptible than some other flavors of christianity that don't involve saying Hail Mary's for your sins or eating crackers and wine.

Ca$h... I'd stay away from the skeptics annotated bible, till you've read it on your own first. fanaticism goes both ways, and it's easy to see slights that aren't there, when you take something literally instead of figuratively like it was meant. good luck on your search, and try to keep an open mind. Maybe it's not as bad as you think? try a few of Jesus's parable's out, for example. They're quick and easy reading, but at the same time, you can read a LOT into them.

Problem is, is what you're reading into them what's MEANT to be there? Until I get my medium abilities honed a bit finer, we can't ask the authors, so that's where those grand ole critical thinking skills come into play! g'luck!<hr /></blockquote>Folks are still holding Catholics responsible for what they did several hundered years ago.

I sincerely hope nobody ever holds you responsible for what your grandfather did. (Same thing.)

The Catholic church has reformed quite a bit since Vatican II, and continues to do so.

The fanatical Muslums however are trying to set THAT religion back to the days of the crucades. (Yet I still don't blame all muslums for that ... hate is counterproductive.)

MikeM32 · Jul 25, 2002, 09:51 PM

It's funny how people always refer to Catholicism or Christianity as being *wrong* when it comes to religion. What about Judaisim or the Moslems or whatever?

I personally don't follow any religion. To me Judaiism is the same as christianity minus the whole Jesus as son of god" thing. Every religion is just a bunch of fairy tales and fictional accountings. This include (but is not limited to) Christianity, Judaism, Moslem, Hindu, whatever.

They're all fictional.

There is no "god�".

That is all

Mike

Knof8 · Jul 25, 2002, 10:04 PM

In the context of the orignal questions on Ezekiel. Stories back then were written to shock people. It was (and still is) a great device to get people to listen to what is being said. Why is it not put out so plainly in terms of "Don't do this", is because it is allegorical. It holds onto that idea that it can be used throughout different periods. Simply saying "Jerusalem don't do this anymore" what good would that do the Christian of England, US, or other country. Part of the meaning, originally, for this story goes directly to Jerusalem's history. NO OTHER country is going to have that same background, and so if the bible was written in such a manner that everything was explained precisely, with no stories, then it would only have been valued for that country at that time. Instead the many authors wrote in story form so that people could/would relate to them and learn how these stories taken from hundreds of years ago relate to them in the sense of today and tomorrow.

Think of the area where this was originally written as well. In this area of the world crimes are punished in severe manners. Forget the Christian part here. That is simply their culture. If we think that in terms of today their punishments are harsh; it's nothing compared to what they were. So being explicit in their stories and in some senses gruesome would not have mattered to these people.

The whole explanation of the story was handled well by Mill so I won't go into that. If you're having problems with these explanations go into a church then and speak with a preist on these matters; perhaps they can explain them better. Lastly though, don't confuse Christians with Jews. Jews deal strictly with the old testament (Torah), and don't recognize the new testament. Right now you're having a problem with Judaism not Christianity.

driven · Jul 25, 2002, 10:16 PM

I often like to think of Blase Pascal ... to summarize (briefly) he said:

- If there is no god and I do not believe there is no god, I lose nothing.
- If there is no god and I DO believe, I lose nothing.
- If there is a god and I do NOT believe, I lose eternity.
- If there is a god and I DO belive, I gain eternity.

So ... according to Pascal's "cost-benefit" analysis here, it's hard to find any disadvantage in believing that the possibility of God may in fact exist.

Relgion is a matter of faith ... you either have it, or you don't.

I don't know what the fuss is about.

cheerios · Jul 25, 2002, 11:19 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by driven:
Folks are still holding Catholics responsible for what they did several hundered years ago.

I sincerely hope nobody ever holds you responsible for what your grandfather did. (Same thing.)

The Catholic church has reformed quite a bit since Vatican II, and continues to do so.

The fanatical Muslums however are trying to set THAT religion back to the days of the crucades. (Yet I still don't blame all muslums for that ... hate is counterproductive.)<hr /></blockquote>I'm not saying I personally am holding catholics responsible for stuff done in the middle ages. I'm just pointing out some examples of past corruption and reasons why THEY'RE targeted.

mr. natural · Jul 25, 2002, 11:24 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Lerkfish:
This is not about whether one hates God, this is all about whether one is afraid to stand at the point of the infinite, and contemplate whether one chooses to face that they are afraid of a supreme being. It is not about anger, or hatred, or contempt or disdain. It is all about fear, and whether one faces that fear like a man, or a scared little boy.<hr /></blockquote>I'll quibble with Lerkfish on the idea of standing at the point of the infinite, and contemplating whether one chooses to face that they are afraid of a "supreme being," but otherwise agree with Lerkfish that Cash's bible/god bashing (or questing for faith of some sort?) has to do with his inner and unrecognized fear of being just another miniscule drop in the bucket of life, and ultimately, fear of just being another "nobody" among 6+ billion other nobody's pissing in the wind. Aren't we all!

(Of course, here in the lounge of MacNN, Cash68 is *somebody*! Heck, he's even listed among the "favorite MacNN posters" thread. Whoopee!)

A favorite quote of mine is this: "Existence has no given significance. This is precisely what makes our situation so interesting." (Edward Abbey)

I agree completely. I'm agnostic and I'm quite content to stay so.

However, I do believe that we are *spiritual* beings (IE., imbued with longing for meaning), and there are those of us who accept the proposition as expressed above (and try to do so gracefully, by retaining one's skepticism about any given *meaning*, and yet find enough of it in one's own life and the world as it is to not succumb to madness), and there are those for whom this isn't enough to get by on; therefore God exists for them (and this is where faith leaps the gap which the skeptic retains).

There is nothing right or wrong in either stance.

The problem with religion (or lack thereof) is not in the individual's belief, but when it is (and has been) used to justify all manner of human cruelty against others. Apart from Buddhism, all other major religions have fallen into this meglomanic/ego trap.

Live and let live is the best we can hope for.

[ 07-26-2002, 12:08 AM: Message edited by: mr. natural ]

Earth Mk. II · Jul 26, 2002, 01:20 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by cheerios:
...a pope who looks like he'll crumble if you blow on him...<hr /></blockquote>ROFL!

You don't know how true that is.. and everyone in the Church knows it too. I was walking around the National Basilica here in DC, and a little kid sees a recent picture of the Pope and yells out, "Mommy, he's old!" I had to chuckle, and seeing everyone trying not to laugh was classic too.

And - yeah, the Church has some problems, and, yeah.. historically, we've had some big ones (I'm sorry - but nothing, but nothing can justify the crusades, inquisitions, and indulgences). Personally I think the conversion of the Roman Empire had a lot to do with entangling the Church with politics and sort of opening a pandora's box. (actually, how the Church's authority came to be assembled in Rome and how the Eastern and Western Churches divided are interesting bits of history - but for another post, if not thread)

But the we're getting better, the Mass is said in the vernacular language now and you can be a member of another faith and still get into heaven. So things are moving along nicely if not slowly.

...now all we need to do is ordain women priests, and allow priests to marry, and modify our stance on contraception, and... ok, so we've got a way to go, but they're not matters of faith and Papal Authority has no influence on them so they're fully open to debate within the Church and have been in the past. (the Pope can only be infallible on matters directly related to faith, and it's only been invoked twice.) Isn't it good to know that a Catholic doesn't have to agree with everything Rome says? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> Heck, I've talked to priests and bishops that disagree with Rome on a number of hot issues.

And... getting back on topic...

Ca$h - if there's anyway you can, see about taking a biblical history course at a Jesuit college, or one with a prof that has a Jesuit background. You'll probably get a lot of historical information (from sources other than the Bible too) relating to the Old Testament and how it affected the writers of various books along with all the other nitty gritties there. And, if you ask a well formulated question, you'll probably get a pretty good answer. Assuming you have a good teacher, of course.

The Old Testament is actually pretty interesting, and there are two versions: translations based on the Hebrew texts of the Jewish cannon (formed around 200 AD, I believe) and translations based on the Greek Septuigent (formed around 300-200 BC). Catholic Bibles tend to use the Septuigent based translations, and Prostantant Bibles tend to use the Jewish cannon. The difference is that the texts are somewhat different and the Septuigent includes more books than the Jewish cannon does (Tobit, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, and Sirach).

Mmm... <a href="http://www.testamints.com/" target="_blank">Testamints!</a>

driven · Jul 26, 2002, 01:38 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by cheerios:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by driven:
Folks are still holding Catholics responsible for what they did several hundered years ago.

I sincerely hope nobody ever holds you responsible for what your grandfather did. (Same thing.)

The Catholic church has reformed quite a bit since Vatican II, and continues to do so.

The fanatical Muslums however are trying to set THAT religion back to the days of the crucades. (Yet I still don't blame all muslums for that ... hate is counterproductive.)<hr /></blockquote>I'm not saying I personally am holding catholics responsible for stuff done in the middle ages. I'm just pointing out some examples of past corruption and reasons why THEY'RE targeted.<hr /></blockquote>I realize that. (But thanks for making it clear.) But, the fact that they are targeted for this means that SOMEONE is still holding a several hundred year old grudge. That's just not right.

We forgive Germany and Japan for what they did less than 70 years ago, but the Catholics are still wrong for a mistake centuries old.

driven · Jul 26, 2002, 01:43 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Earth Mk. II:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by cheerios:
[qb]

...now all we need to do is ordain women priests, and allow priests to marry, and modify our stance on contraception, and... ok, so we've got a way to go, but they're not matters of faith and Papal Authority has no influence on them so they're fully open to debate within the Church and have been in the past. (the Pope can only be infallible on matters directly related to faith, and it's only been invoked twice.) Isn't it good to know that a Catholic doesn't have to agree with everything Rome says? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> Heck, I've talked to priests and bishops that disagree with Rome on a number of hot issues.
<hr /></blockquote>That is SO true. Thank you for pointing that out.

Today (at least in my experience) I find more priests that DO follow their own callings. IMHO this is a good thing.

Earth Mk. II · Jul 26, 2002, 03:25 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by driven:
...But, the fact that they are targeted for this means that SOMEONE is still holding a several hundred year old grudge. That's just not right...<hr /></blockquote>Personally.. I can't say that I've ever experienced any hatred or discrimination because I was Catholic...well... not in real life at least. But, that kind of thing is easy to simply not mention, plus I did grow up in Upstate, NY... which has a relatively high number of Catholics per capita, and attended Catholic schools (still do actually... though, the religious element had little to do with my college choice).

However, a friend of mine has a story where she was working at a day care center, and a kid comes up to her and asks if she's a Christian. So the kid asks he what kind of Christian she is, and my friend answers, "I'm a Catholic." Then the kid looks at her and says, "You're not a Christian, Catholic's aren't Christians." So yeah, I guess it starts young, just like everything else.

And as for Papal Infallibility, It's probably one of the most misunderstood elements of the Catholic Church, or at least it is in my experience. Even on campus here, we have students who think the Pope can just say whatever he wants and that's as good as law, and that's just not the case.

Priests following their own callings and views (with due reflection and thought, of course) is defiantly a good thing. Vatican II was a HUGE step in the right direction, and in many cases the repercussions haven't been fully felt yet. So the rest, I hope, will trickle through as people see that the Church can change.

That sort of leads itself into the growing issue of the shortage of priests in the American Catholic Church. It's going to have to be addressed somehow and sometime soon, and no one quite knows how. So that may force a change in some policies, or that may be wishful thinking. Either way, it should be interesting to observe, if nothing else.

Anyway, I'm horribly tired and this post is going horribly off topic, even though it's horribly fascinating (at least for me). So....
</post>

Captain Obvious · Jul 26, 2002, 04:08 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Earth Mk. II:
Personally.. I can't say that I've ever experienced any hatred or discrimination because I was Catholic...well... not in real life at least. But, that kind of thing is easy to simply not mention, plus I did grow up in Upstate, NY... which has a relatively high number of Catholics per capita, and attended Catholic schools (still do actually... though, the religious element had little to do with my college choice).

However, a friend of mine has a story where she was working at a day care center, and a kid comes up to her and asks if she's a Christian. So the kid asks he what kind of Christian she is, and my friend answers, "I'm a Catholic." Then the kid looks at her and says, "You're not a Christian, Catholic's aren't Christians." So yeah, I guess it starts young, just like everything else.
<hr /></blockquote>Then you haven't met enough people yet. I'm catholic and I've seen it. Its mostly amongst WASPs and Jews I've seen the bias (And which Country Clubs you can join) . But each group has two totally different reasons - although it still adds up to not breeding with their daughters. Its OK though, the daughter's don't seem to care.

Granted its not just towards Catholics but as the single largest religious denomination in the country we are an easy group to single out. Its a carry over from a couple of generations back in my opinion. For WASPs its the huge influx of Eastern European, Irish, German, and Spanish Catholics in the first half of the 20th century that were poor hence of lower class. For the Jews its just a matter of keeping more authentic Jewish blood lines and religious ties.

I don't think its so much the "sins" that happened 200 years ago people hold over us not in the United States anyway. Plus come on how big a target are we? Who else had such a centralized religious organization? I don't know of any other religion with such a defined and agreed upon hierarchy.

cheerios · Jul 26, 2002, 08:49 AM

Capn' obvious's right... and the funny thing is, the worst offenders that I've heard, are people who were raised Catholic. :Shrug: Maybe it's part of being 18 and defying mom, part of that being denouncing her religion. Maybe not, but it's definitely real.

As for the little kid's comment, maybe he was confused like me, as to what christian and catholic, not to mention episcopalian and lutheran, and protestant etc etc, WERE and how they related to eachother. Until about the 6th grade, when I met a friend who was catholic, and willing to explain all this to me be, I was baffled. Plus, Christian/Catholic... it's a dyslexic's nightmare to keep straight!

denim · Jul 26, 2002, 09:03 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by MikeM32:
There is no "god�".<hr /></blockquote>That is your belief, or "opinion" if you prefer.

denim · Jul 26, 2002, 09:06 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by driven:
Relgion is a matter of faith ... you either have it, or you don't.<hr /></blockquote>Then the question becomes, what kind of God, how many, and what do they want. I have my own answers for these which are not explicitly covered in the Old Testament as far as I know.

Ca$h68 · Jul 26, 2002, 09:35 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by cheerios:
try a few of Jesus's parable's out, for example. They're quick and easy reading, but at the same time, you can read a LOT into them. <hr /></blockquote>Jesus said he speaks in confusing parables to confuse people and send them to hell.

Great.

- Ca$h

Lerkfish · Jul 26, 2002, 10:15 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Ca$h68:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by cheerios:
try a few of Jesus's parable's out, for example. They're quick and easy reading, but at the same time, you can read a LOT into them. <hr /></blockquote>Jesus said he speaks in confusing parables to confuse people and send them to hell.

Great.

- Ca$h<hr /></blockquote>A parable has multiple, and multi-layered meanings. The purpose is to enlighten through analogy or allegory, not confuse.

Knof8 · Jul 26, 2002, 10:17 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Jesus said he speaks in confusing parables to confuse people and send them to hell.Great.
- Ca$h<hr /></blockquote>I'd love to see the quote on that one. Especially the part on Jesus purposefully sending others to hell.

digimage · Jul 26, 2002, 10:28 AM

Cash, you'll have a field day with the song of soloman.

May I also recommend Job: A comedy of Justice, By Heinlein.

Very inspirational, right readers?

anarkisst · Jul 26, 2002, 10:35 AM

driven · Jul 26, 2002, 11:27 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by denim:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by driven:
Relgion is a matter of faith ... you either have it, or you don't.<hr /></blockquote>Then the question becomes, what kind of God, how many, and what do they want. I have my own answers for these which are not explicitly covered in the Old Testament as far as I know.<hr /></blockquote>It's personal. It matters to you. It shouldn't affect others that do not care.

thunderous_funker · Jul 26, 2002, 12:45 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by driven:
I realize that. (But thanks for making it clear.) But, the fact that they are targeted for this means that SOMEONE is still holding a several hundred year old grudge. That's just not right.

We forgive Germany and Japan for what they did less than 70 years ago, but the Catholics are still wrong for a mistake centuries old.

<hr /></blockquote>As Americans with a history of only 226 years, it's easy to miss how strong persistant historical grudges can be. If you don't believe me, spend some time in the Balkans.

I'm not saying it's good or right or healthy. It just is. Historical grudges (and even boiling hatred) are passed from generation to generation and can last for centuries.

There's some Catholic bashing going on and I think it's inaccurate to say that it happens *because* of what happened hundreds of years ago. It's more accurate to say that Catholics get picked on because they still claim Papal Infallibility at the same time that they discuss the horrors of the past. Can't have both.

That sort of cognitive dissonance will always be subject to ridicule by some. Sorry.

Millennium · Jul 26, 2002, 12:49 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Ca$h68:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by cheerios:
try a few of Jesus's parable's out, for example. They're quick and easy reading, but at the same time, you can read a LOT into them. <hr /></blockquote>Jesus said he speaks in confusing parables to confuse people and send them to hell.

Great.<hr /></blockquote>Verses, please. No where have I ever seen anything to support this claim.

You know what? I think I've figured out your problem. You accuse us of having blind faith in the Bible. But you, too, have blind faith in this SAB, which seems to be a rather flawed reading of what was an incredibly poor translation.

There is only one person who can interpret the Bible for you, Ca$h, and that is yourself. The SAB is a good tool, and can give you a lot of things to think about as you come to a better understanding, but you're using it as a crutch. That's little better than having a priest/minister/etc. do your interpretation for you, and just accepting everything they say -dare I say it- on faith. In fact, scratch that; it's no better at all; it can't be, because it's exactly the same thing.

An honest challenge for you, if you really want to understand this stuff. Get any Bible. Any translation you want. Read it for yourself once through, cover to cover. Then start looking on sites like the SAB, and see what they have to say about it. But get your own ideas first; don't just blindly glom onto someone else's.

Zimphire · Jul 26, 2002, 01:02 PM

BTW Christians were NOT apart of the Crusades. You see, Christianity is a way of life. If you aren't following that way of life, you aren't a Christian. The people who were part of the Crusades therefore..

It's all a lie, and it's out to deceive the weak minded.

And with that I will leave you with this one Cash, read it carefully

Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and divine nature, so that they are without excuse,

Rom 1:21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

Rom 1:22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,

Have a nice day.

denim · Jul 26, 2002, 01:05 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by driven:
It's personal. It matters to you. It shouldn't affect others that do not care.<hr /></blockquote>Correct!