Is Christianity responsible for equality and liberty?

[Aus22]

Dahemit, You seem to base your case on the Catholics you knew. There are many people claiming to be catholic who do not practice their faith. To go drunk to midnight mass is a serious sin. All Catholics must lave their neighbor as themselves. If they do not they are not Catholic.

While you give one example of someone helping a neighbor you must be aware of thousands of Catholic hospitals formed by Catholic orders to help others.

 

[dahermit]

Dahemit, You seem to base your case on the Catholics you knew. There are many people claiming to be catholic who do not practice their faith. To go drunk to midnight mass is a serious sin. All Catholics must lave their neighbor as themselves. If they do not they are not Catholic.

While you give one example of someone helping a neighbor you must be aware of thousands of Catholic hospitals formed by Catholic orders to help others.

"...base your case on the many, many, many, many, Catholics you knew...". Compared to many, many, many, non-catholic, but religious peoples. The trend is inescapable. Catholics go through the motions (practice the rituals), but do not live lives that would indicate any moral influence due to their supposed religion. Mel Gibson?

 

[OldTrapper]

The fact is, the catholic church has two very dominiant traditions -- the religious fervor of the petric tradition and the more cerebral pauline tradition. One can choose to explain christian theology from the two traditions -- depending on the intellectual capacity of the listener.

The RCC was spawned out of one mans fervor for political power, and from its conception it used the force of government to try and quash any "competition". This was true until the late 1800's.

The "petric tradition" is just as false a teaching as is most of the RCC. There is no evidence to support any lineage back to Peter, or even before Constatine. Even the term "pope" did not come into use till approx. 500 A.D., or even as a reference to the Bishop of Rome.

As far as the Pauline traditions as pertaining to the RCC, there is little similarity. Paul, just as Peter, certainly did not support the idea of one "ruler' over all, or even as a "representative" of Christ. Nor would he have supported most teachings of Catholicism.

Your reference to the "intellectual capacity" of the listener speaks of the arrogance in which many of the adherents to Catholicism indulge.

The american fundamentalist 'barn yard' preacher, however, is an entirely different specie of fungus that defies any logical classification -- if that is what you are refering to.

Again we see that arrogance of the "catholic", and their hatred for anyone who might protest against the power, and authority, of the RCC. It is bred into them from the time of birth, and is as easily removed as it is to remove the false beliefs of any other cult.

 

[top gun]

Nonsense.

The doctors of the church responsible for such treatise as summa theologica, civitates dei, etc. and who were crucial in fashioning dogma WERE LEARNED MEN. Augustine's 'civitates' was the first treatise to discuss the role of oganized religion within the political organism. Thomas aquainas' 'summa' expounded theology within an aristotlean frame work.

The fact is, the catholic church has two very dominiant traditions -- the religious fervor of the petric tradition and the more cerebral pauline tradition. One can choose to explain christian theology from the two traditions -- depending on the intellectual capacity of the listener.

The american fundamentalist 'barn yard' preacher, however, is an entirely different specie of fungus that defies any logical classification -- if that is what you are refering to.

No I'm referring to this...

Dinosaur poop is poop.

Cow manure is poop.

Old or new poop is poop. You can believe certain poop is supernatural fairy dust if you like. It's all still poop though.

All religion is man made combining the need to explain things that were not scientifically explainable at the time and a need to govern or control groups of people or tribes. Without this man was scared to death by the great uncertainty of everything around him and only the strongest would survive.

Very similar (almost carbon copy) to what governments were eventually set up to do.

 

[The Scotsman]

Again we see that arrogance of the "catholic", and their hatred for anyone who might protest against the power, and authority, of the RCC. It is bred into them from the time of birth, and is as easily removed as it is to remove the false beliefs of any other cult.

...........what does that mean? As one of the world's mainstream religions it seems rather odd to dismiss Catholicism as a cult!

It is bred into them from the time of birth

.......what sort of effluent is that? Most normal children learn from their parents and the extended family group that's how language, culture and traditions are passed down!! what do you expect to happen?? Any child born to a catholic family should be instantly removed, disinfected, re-programmed and made to vote Republican.............

 

[dahermit]

In my day, the most influential on the kids were the teaching nuns. Also, many of the most critical of the Catholic system are former catholics, some of which refer to themselves as "recovering catholics" (ala, recovering alcoholics).

 

[OldTrapper]

...........what does that mean? As one of the world's mainstream religions it seems rather odd to dismiss Catholicism as a cult!

Not at all. First off, it's teachings are antithetical to Christ. No way did any of the apostolic leaders declare that a priest could not be married. In fact, one of the qualifications for a deacon, or bishop, is that that be married to one woman. Paul did express a desire that all could be as him, a eunuch, however, it was not a command. No where is there a command that one person, in this case the "pope" be infallible. That was a creation of man. Then we have the idea that the "pope" is a special "representative" of Christ. Any Christian is a representative of Christ.

Then there is the historical fact that the RCC would not even exist if not for the power of government which it controlled particularly in France, Spain, Portugal, and then South America, etc. The use of the Inquizition gave them further control over the people. If you were to see what happened during the 400 years of the "Midnight of the Dark Ages", and the "Rule of Harlots", you can begin to understand how the RCC is a cult, and not a denomination of Christianity.

.......what sort of effluent is that? Most normal children learn from their parents and the extended family group that's how language, culture and traditions are passed down!! what do you expect to happen?? Any child born to a catholic family should be instantly removed, disinfected, re-programmed and made to vote Republican.............

LOL, would not be a bad idea. Perhaps it would have been best for me, and my siblings to have it that way. Then perhaps I would not have ended up in the situations I fouind myself in, and maybe my 4 brothers would not have ended up drug addicts, and alcoholics, a common failing of RCC children.

I know you want to use extremes to support your somewhat fanciful argument, however, I could go into a long dissertation about how the false teachings of the RCC lead one to believe in a form of salvation that is not biblical. Purgatory, praying to the "saints", selling of indulgences, reciting the rosary, reciting prayers as penance for sins, and the list goes on. This leads many people to believe in the power of the "church" rather then the saving grace of Christ.

It is a cult.

BTW, I graduated from a catholic school as did two of my brothers. Being the oldest I was prepped for the priesthood, and seminary. The RCC does not teach the Bible. It teaches catholic tradition, and all one has to do is look at the catechism to find thatout.

 

[The Scotsman]

Then perhaps I would not have ended up in the situations I fouind myself in, and maybe my 4 brothers would not have ended up drug addicts, and alcoholics, a common failing of RCC children.

............and possibly doubtfull parenting skills.......

It is a cult.

No it isn't,

Incidentally, railing at a religion just because you seem to blame it for your siblings apparent dubious upbringing and for that matter apparently every other catholic with a penchant for mind oggling substances doesn't make it so.........

 

[OldTrapper]

............and possibly doubtfull parenting skills.......

True, and that has been confronted also. However, it does not answer the question as to why so many Catholic children end up such more so then any of the other denominations.

No it isn't,

Incidentally, railing at a religion just because you seem to blame it for your siblings apparent dubious upbringing and for that matter apparently every other catholic with a penchant for mind oggling substances doesn't make it so.........

Heck no. I was just using that as one example, and you ignored all of the others. No "denomination" within the Christian realm has had so much political influence on governments as the RCC. None have been responsible for so many deaths due to torture, assssinations, etc. None claim to be the sole "representative" of Christ. None have had their "popes" placed in office by the assasination of another "pope", or had that position "bought". None have tried to murder entire groups of people such as the RCC did to the Huguenots, the Albigenses, etc. And the list goes on.

Jefferson even feared the power of the "priesthood" which was a reference to the RCC, and the Church of England.

The Mafia greatly supported the RCC, and the RCC supported the Mafia.

One of the characterisitics of a cult is its ability to brainwash its adherents, and obviously the RCC has been quite successful at it.

Now, lest you think it is only the RCC I "rail" against you would be wrong. In modern society many denominations have fallen from the original intent of Christ, and the Apostles. The Methodists with their support for homosexuals, and women as pastors. The Church of Christ with their support for secularism. Even many Baptist divisions have fallen for the seductive nature of a secular world. Then there are the others who support abortions such as the Lutheran church that allowed the partial birth abortion doctor, Tiller, to be a member of their congregation. "Shunning", as taught by the Apostle Paul, has been ignored.

The recently released Gallup Poll on the Confidence in Institutions shows that only 48% of the American people have confidence in organized religion. This is down from 54% in 1994, and about 90% in 1900. IMO, this is the result of the secularization of traditional Christianity.

So, ignore all that I have said, and focus only on one factor if you care to.

 

[The Scotsman]

What is one supposed to focus on? All you're doing is running a muli-rant against Catholicism....big deal!

As far as organised religion is concerned there's an oxymoron ranking up there with military intelligence!!!

 

[dahermit]

What is one supposed to focus on? All you're doing is running a muli-rant against Catholicism....big deal!

He has given you several specific examples. If they are not true, you should be able to counter each one. All you have done is provided a defensive and generalized pro-Catholic rant typical of Catholics who still are unwilling to see the "Holy Mother Church", for what it is.

Take apart his arguments against the RCC one, by one, and I will convert.

Here they are:

Not at all. First off, it's teachings are antithetical to Christ. No way did any of the apostolic leaders declare that a priest could not be married. In fact, one of the qualifications for a deacon, or bishop, is that that be married to one woman. Paul did express a desire that all could be as him, a eunuch, however, it was not a command. No where is there a command that one person, in this case the "pope" be infallible. That was a creation of man. Then we have the idea that the "pope" is a special "representative" of Christ. Any Christian is a representative of Christ.

Then there is the historical fact that the RCC would not even exist if not for the power of government which it controlled particularly in France, Spain, Portugal, and then South America, etc. The use of the Inquizition gave them further control over the people. If you were to see what happened during the 400 years of the "Midnight of the Dark Ages", and the "Rule of Harlots", you can begin to understand how the RCC is a cult, and not a denomination of Christianity.

I know you want to use extremes to support your somewhat fanciful argument, however, I could go into a long dissertation about how the false teachings of the RCC lead one to believe in a form of salvation that is not biblical. Purgatory, praying to the "saints", selling of indulgences, reciting the rosary, reciting prayers as penance for sins, and the list goes on. This leads many people to believe in the power of the "church" rather then the saving grace of Christ.

 

[Cookie Parker]

That is a very good article. And points out very clearly that without Christianity we might find slavery acceptable today and many other forms of barbarism. Christianity resulted in a new enlightenment and freedoms for the individual. And who wants to destroy Christianity and what groups work day and night to accomplish it's destruction? Of course, it is the Left.

And this is why does the elitist Left hates Christianity and has worked to discredit it. They want to replace faith in God with faith in big government and they have been very successful. Many Westerners now fail to believe and even despise those who do. Of course, this includes many DF American liberals.

TIP - You needn't post the entire article. You can post bits of it and include the link.

No, it points out that the republican made born again anti-Christ evangelists who want to do away with social programs, give it all to the rich, have really stopped the spread of Christianity in order to preach the "God loves the rich" mantra...it's only through the Democratic Christian that we are now turning our attention to the uninsured, homeless, the unemployed....in other words, what Christ called "the least of these."

 

[numinus]

Not at all. First off, it's teachings are antithetical to Christ. No way did any of the apostolic leaders declare that a priest could not be married. In fact, one of the qualifications for a deacon, or bishop, is that that be married to one woman. Paul did express a desire that all could be as him, a eunuch, however, it was not a command. No where is there a command that one person, in this case the "pope" be infallible. That was a creation of man. Then we have the idea that the "pope" is a special "representative" of Christ. Any Christian is a representative of Christ.

Do you even know what 'anti-thesis' means????? I don't suppose you'd care to expound on hegelian dialectics and demonstrate just how a priest's vow of chastity is 'antithetical' to christ, eh?

The simple fact is, the priesthood, as far as the rcc is concerned, is not merely a job BUT A CALLING -- in much the same way that married life is a calling. God is supposed to be 'calling' you for a higher purpose for which you must devote your entire life to. That isn't very hard to understand, now, is it?

When one enters the priesthood, he vows to devote himself to the church in much the same way that when one marries a woman, he devotes himself to that woman and the family that results from that union. The requirements for both devotions are more often than not -- irreconcilable.

And if one feels he cannot devote himself one over the other, then, it is a simple matter to be freed from the vow and serve god in some other manner.

Then there is the historical fact that the RCC would not even exist if not for the power of government which it controlled particularly in France, Spain, Portugal, and then South America, etc. The use of the Inquizition gave them further control over the people. If you were to see what happened during the 400 years of the "Midnight of the Dark Ages", and the "Rule of Harlots", you can begin to understand how the RCC is a cult, and not a denomination of Christianity.

Eh? What nonsense. The rcc, for all intents and purposes, is a political organization with its own constitution, legal apparatus and, yes, political power. Shouldn't you have read civitates dei before graduating from a catholic college?

Oh, and the dark ages was called that because the only remaining 'light' of reason and learning during that time was confined within the church. Everyone else went around ignorant by comparison.

LOL, would not be a bad idea. Perhaps it would have been best for me, and my siblings to have it that way. Then perhaps I would not have ended up in the situations I fouind myself in, and maybe my 4 brothers would not have ended up drug addicts, and alcoholics, a common failing of RCC children.

LOL. Now, its the rcc's fault that you are stupid enough to stoop to drug addiction and alcoholism????

I know you want to use extremes to support your somewhat fanciful argument, however, I could go into a long dissertation about how the false teachings of the RCC lead one to believe in a form of salvation that is not biblical. Purgatory, praying to the "saints", selling of indulgences, reciting the rosary, reciting prayers as penance for sins, and the list goes on. This leads many people to believe in the power of the "church" rather then the saving grace of Christ.

It is a cult.

LOL. The church believes that god's self-revelation IS AN ON-GOING process. Its not like god stopped trying to bridge the gap between the divine and the human condition, now, is it? So why do you suppose theology should confine itself to the bible, hmmmm?

What exactly about purgatory, indulgences, and the rest do you object to, eh? Strictly from a theological point of view, the church is the PEOPLE OF GOD. Yep. That means EVERYONE. What the rcc teaches -- before anything else -- IS THE PRIMACY OF AN INDIVIDUAL'S CONSCIENCE. If, in all honesty, one cannot accept a certain dogma, then one can do nothing else except FOLLOW HIS OWN CONSCIENCE. God ought to know -- he put it there in the first place.

BTW, I graduated from a catholic school as did two of my brothers. Being the oldest I was prepped for the priesthood, and seminary. The RCC does not teach the Bible. It teaches catholic tradition, and all one has to do is look at the catechism to find thatout.

Of course the rcc teaches the bible -- among other things. If theology is a matter of reciting biblical passages verbatim, then we all ought to be parrots. That isn't the case, now, is it?

 

[OldTrapper]

Do you even know what 'anti-thesis' means????? I don't suppose you'd care to expound on hegelian dialectics and demonstrate just how a priest's vow of chastity is 'antithetical' to christ, eh?

The simple fact is, the priesthood, as far as the rcc is concerned, is not merely a job BUT A CALLING -- in much the same way that married life is a calling. God is supposed to be 'calling' you for a higher purpose for which you must devote your entire life to. That isn't very hard to understand, now, is it?

When one enters the priesthood, he vows to devote himself to the church in much the same way that when one marries a woman, he devotes himself to that woman and the family that results from that union. The requirements for both devotions are more often than not -- irreconcilable.

And if one feels he cannot devote himself one over the other, then, it is a simple matter to be freed from the vow and serve god in some other manner.

Why do you spell God with a small "g" rather then a capital "G"? Scripturally speaking, the use of a small "g" signifies a pagan deity.

However, can you cite any scripture either in the OT, and the word of God the Father, or in the NT, and the Word of Christ, that even indicates any reference to the concept that a high priest, priest, deacon, pastor, or whomever, was not to be married? In fact, does not the scripture indicate just the opposite so that a man may not be tempted by the fleshly desires?

Christ was the one exception, and He did so to perform his "calling", and to remain perfect, without sin, or blemish. Paul was the other exception, and he was born a eunuch so he either had not the desire, or was unable to perform.

Eh? What nonsense. The rcc, for all intents and purposes, is a political organization with its own constitution, legal apparatus and, yes, political power. Shouldn't you have read civitates dei before graduating from a catholic college?

Never said I graduated from a Catholic college. Said I was prepared to do so by my family. However, is there any other example of a Christian Church before the RCC having such power? And, setting aside Calvin in Geneva, and the Church of England, has any other wielded such power?

Oh, and the dark ages was called that because the only remaining 'light' of reason and learning during that time was confined within the church. Everyone else went around ignorant by comparison.

First off, the RCC refused education to the vast majority of the people. Only the priests, and the privileged, were allowed an education.

Secondly, is it your contention that the "Rule of Harlots", which occured during this time, was driven by God? Do you actully think that while "popes" are living with concubines, and whores, having bastard children, killing each other off to gain power, etc., is being the "light of the world"?

LOL. The church believes that god's self-revelation IS AN ON-GOING process. Its not like god stopped trying to bridge the gap between the divine and the human condition, now, is it? So why do you suppose theology should confine itself to the bible, hmmmm?

Where in scripture is that philosophy stated?

What exactly about purgatory, indulgences, and the rest do you object to, eh? Strictly from a theological point of view, the church is the PEOPLE OF GOD. Yep. That means EVERYONE. What the rcc teaches -- before anything else -- IS THE PRIMACY OF AN INDIVIDUAL'S CONSCIENCE. If, in all honesty, one cannot accept a certain dogma, then one can do nothing else except FOLLOW HIS OWN CONSCIENCE. God ought to know -- he put it there in the first place.

First off, scripture does not mention purgatory; the buying of "indulgences" as a means of getting into heaven; praying to anyone other then Jesus for ones needs; confession of ones sins to a Priest, and then saying a few prayers for absolution of sin; etc. Scripture does teach that the believer should confess ones sins "to another", however, the act of forgiveness is for the one offended, or for Christ, not for some Priest.

Secondly, the Church is the "body of Christ" if you had read the scripture.

As to the "conscience", it was placed there to tell one of the righteousness of his actions. The knowledge of good, and evil, is stored within that concept. Each individual is faced with those choices, and then he has free will to decide if he should follow those dictates, or not.

Of course the rcc teaches the bible -- among other things. If theology is a matter of reciting biblical passages verbatim, then we all ought to be parrots. That isn't the case, now, is it?

It was till the RCC came along. That was the purpose of the letters of the Apostles.

 

[numinus]

Why do you spell God with a small "g" rather then a capital "G"? Scripturally speaking, the use of a small "g" signifies a pagan deity.

There is no particular reason for it.

However, can you cite any scripture either in the OT, and the word of God the Father, or in the NT, and the Word of Christ, that even indicates any reference to the concept that a high priest, priest, deacon, pastor, or whomever, was not to be married? In fact, does not the scripture indicate just the opposite so that a man may not be tempted by the fleshly desires?

Christ was the one exception, and He did so to perform his "calling", and to remain perfect, without sin, or blemish. Paul was the other exception, and he was born a eunuch so he either had not the desire, or was unable to perform.

Why should I cite scripture when I already told you that the vow of celibacy doesn't come from scripture? In fact, classical greek philosophy is embeded in christianity (thanks to the pauline tradition). Do you also have a problem with greek philosophy synthesizing with judaism and early christianity to form what christianity is today?

Never said I graduated from a Catholic college. Said I was prepared to do so by my family. However, is there any other example of a Christian Church before the RCC having such power? And, setting aside Calvin in Geneva, and the Church of England, has any other wielded such power?

That explains it then.

What you do not seem to realize is that ALL ORGANIZED RELIGIONS ARE POLITICAL ENTITIES. That is why augustine of hippo's civitates dei is considered a political treatise. There is a distinct relationship between the 'city of man' and the 'city of god' -- obviously, since the church exists within the political order.

And since the 'people of god' is political in nature, it would necessarily demonstrate some (if not all) functions of the political association.

First off, the RCC refused education to the vast majority of the people. Only the priests, and the privileged, were allowed an education.

Of course it would refuse the vast majority of the people. The idea of free, compulsary public education wouldn't come for hundreds of years. The ancient greeks had educational institutions confined to the privileged class and you think of them as the epitome of culture and learning, do you not?

Secondly, is it your contention that the "Rule of Harlots", which occured during this time, was driven by God? Do you actully think that while "popes" are living with concubines, and whores, having bastard children, killing each other off to gain power, etc., is being the "light of the world"?

No. I already told you -- the church is THE PEOPLE OF GOD. These popes were mainly vain and greedy people who inflicted injury to the people of god. That is why it was necessary for pope john paul 2 to issue the millenium apology, no?

Where in scripture is that philosophy stated?

LOL.

Its called soteriology. The bible is a collection of written accounts spanning more than 5 thousand years, is it not? Its general theme or outline (what we call salvation history) is how god CONTINUOUSLY AND UNILATERALLY try to bridge the gap between the divine (himself) and the created order -- a gap brought about by the fall of man in genesis, is it not?

If that is the case, then it would be reasonable to think that salvation history does not stop at the crucifixion, resurrection nor even at the time of revelations (believed to have been written at about the time of emperor nero's reign). Now, unless you consider mankind saved from the radical evil of the human condition presently, there is no reason to believe god's self-revelation abruptly stopped two thousand years ago, no? And if god's self-revelation is happening presently (a time beyond the scope of the scripture), what do you propose to make out of this self-revelation?

First off, scripture does not mention purgatory;

Correct, its not in scripture. It is a way by which a fallible human mind comes to term with the concept of divine justice -- which is unknowable in the first place.

I don't see how thinking about purgatory contradicts revealed truth.

the buying of "indulgences" as a means of getting into heaven;

Who said indulgences were meant to bribe one's self into heaven? 'Salvation is from god's grace alone'. After all this time being a catholic, didn't anyone tell you this?

praying to anyone other then Jesus for ones needs;

Sigh.

Prayer is merely a conversation. Have you not heard of an officer of the court 'pray' for a favorable decision? You need to read the late pope john paul 2 best selling book 'crossroad...' if you are interested in a more philosophical explanation of prayer.

In catechism, however, prayer is categorized by either adoration (which is the manner of prayer reserved for god) and veneration (which is the manner of prayer addressing the saints).

The idea, of course, comes from jesus himself when he interceded to the father on mankind's behalf and entrusted the apostles to do as he did after the resurrection. All this comes from the petric tradition, the rock on which jesus built his church, and his commandment to the apostles to go forth and proclaim the good news at the expense of their very lives.

confession of ones sins to a Priest, and then saying a few prayers for absolution of sin; etc. Scripture does teach that the believer should confess ones sins "to another", however, the act of forgiveness is for the one offended, or for Christ, not for some Priest.

Sigh.

Reconciliation is a SACRAMENT. It is a ritual symbolizing a higher truth. The act itself pales to irrelevance compared to the theological truth it is meant to represent -- that god's forgiveness is UNIVERSAL and that there is no need to beat yourself senseless to gain it.

You think mouthing the 'act of contrition' does anything spiritual to an individual if he does not contemplate and genuinely ask forgiveness for his sins while reciting it????

Here's a news flash for you -- god forgives the sins you haven't even committed yet and even those you are not even aware are sins. What the sacrament intends for you to do is to forgive yourself.

Secondly, the Church is the "body of Christ" if you had read the scripture.

Same banana -- since EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US IS INVITED TO PARTAKE OF IT.

What's your point?

As to the "conscience", it was placed there to tell one of the righteousness of his actions. The knowledge of good, and evil, is stored within that concept. Each individual is faced with those choices, and then he has free will to decide if he should follow those dictates, or not.

Correct. It is the 'semina verbi', the 'seeds of the word' that is present in every single individual regardless of religious affiliation. Your conscience is the faculty by which god speaks to you.

The catholic church recognizes the existence of the semina verbi in ALL religions. And in recognizing this -- that god speaks to all people -- that RESPECT AND RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE BECOMES A FUNDAMENTAL IMPERATIVE.

I forgot the title but I'm fairly certain this is covered in a church encyclical.

It was till the RCC came along. That was the purpose of the letters of the Apostles.

You think that mindlessly conforming to scriptural text is the end-all, be-all of christianity?????? Unbelieveable!!!!!

Christianity was a radical departure from judaism simply because the law was placed within a dimension of love -- a previously unheard of and preposterous concept.

Within this context, the difference between not stealing from your neighbor because you fear god's punishment and not doing the same thing out of genuine respect for your neighbor's well-being, becomes CLEAR.

The former merely satisfies the requirement of the law while the latter satisfies the requirement of the commandment of love.

Get it?