Atheist gone Catholic!

Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
Atheist gone Catholic!

Well, after much deliberation I am decided to forsake my aliegance to the atheist faith and have taken up sanctuary in my childhood home known as the roman catholic church.  What a great feeling washed over me as I was finally able to settle on a faith system that can provide me with all the wonderful things that make life worth livng.  I instantly feel happier, and more intune with my fellow catholics and now wish to pass on the message of my lord.  

Finally, I do not need to worry about going to hell, because I now have reaffirmed my belief in the one true god and put my faith and love in him and the holy mother.  I do not worry about living a meaningless existance as you atheists do, nor do I need to waste my precious moments on earth prior to going to heaven, or, in the case of all you atheists, agnostis, christians, and others, HELL.

I would like to invite all of you, as god's children, to put your faith in the message delivered by the vatican.  Look upon the good they are doing in the world in great countries like Canada and Africa.  Listen to the pope, heed his message, and embrace the message of your God.  Follow me, and I will help you along your journey! Join me brothers and sisters and I will do my best to show you the true way to salvation! 


wzedi
Theist
Posts: 99
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
You may want to reconsider

You may want to reconsider your position. Study the Bible for yourself and decide whether the Vatican, Pope and holy mother have anything to do with worshipping God.


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
This would be the same

This would be the same Vatican that holds the official position that poverty should not be alleviated, as suffering is good for the soul?

I admired the grace and humility with which John Paul II endured his illness and suffering, and recognized that he truly did believe in the things he was preaching. However, as a former Roman Catholic myself, I cannot in good conscience ascribe to their teachings as good and proper. Nor can I accept them as intellectually honest when they hold to the teachings of the old Testament that say it is a sin against God to follow other gods, worship idols or craft graven images as symbols of worship, and yet fill their churches with icons and statuary, especially the crucifix as a direct representation of Jesus Christ, whom they hold to be God, and continue to venerate saints, including many branches in eastern and northern europe where saints were introduced specifically to occupy the roles of the pagan gods of the region and co-opt their worship into Catholicism

Let them open their vaults, let them sell off all of their ostentatious and gaudy golden chalices. Let them work to end suffering, instead of working to sustain people in their suffering. Let them adhere to their own teachings. Then talk to me about meaninglessness.

My life has meaning. If God exists, then this world is an amazing, incredible, bountiful gift. Why do you insist on wanting more? Why does it matter to you that you avoid "HELL"? Are you seeking virtue, or hoping to get a present from Santa when you die? And if you're in it for the rewards... then that's not virtue... it's graft.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


mobius_thought
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-01-08
User is offlineOffline
BMcD wrote:This would be

BMcD wrote:

This would be the same Vatican that holds the official position that poverty should not be alleviated, as suffering is good for the soul?

I'm going to have to ask for a source on that one. I'm no Catholic, but that's a pretty extreme claim, and I can't help but think it's exaggerated. 

 

This stuff about hell I actually DO find insightful. I think the fear tactics used by Catholics and (some) Protestants alike turns as many people AWAY from religion, as it draws in.

In Judaism, it's not about avoiding hell, but returning to the source of everything, to G-d, who created us all, and with whom we want to spend eternity. Hell is not even a doctrinal matter, although there are Jews that do believe in it. The words typically translated as hell, more literallly mean either "the grave" or refer to a large refuse-burning site outside Jerusalem. I find that the typical Christian view of hell and the devil is based at LEAST as much on Dante's Inferno as it is on anything in the Bible. 


AmericanIdle
Posts: 414
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Well, after much

Quote:
Well, after much deliberation I am decided to forsake my aliegance to the atheist faith

A lack of faith does not = faith.  That's just silly.

Quote:
I instantly feel happier, and more intune with my fellow catholics and now wish to pass on the message of my lord.  

Did Cypher swallow the red pill to forsake reality, or was it the blue pill ?

Quote:
 I now have reaffirmed my belief in the one true god

Said the worst part of the human ego, thereby eliminating all others incompatible & making them "enemies" at the same time.  As I look at the xtian past, it's impossible not to see a love for violence in your future.

Quote:
HELL.
Is it anything like Hope, Arkansas ?

Quote:
 I would like to invite all of you, as god's children

I'm looking forward to a day when humans aspire to be adults and not children.

Quote:
Look upon the good they are doing in the world in great countries like Canada and Africa
 

Africa makes an even greater continent.  Education is fun.  Also, how many millions of humans have died in the "country" of Africa due to the Catholic Church's policy on condoms ? Note that I'm not asking how many millions have died due to Catholic/Religious intolerance.. That number would be dramatically higher.

 

But then maybe you're just joking ! 

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell


JeremiahSmith
Posts: 361
Joined: 2006-11-25
User is offlineOffline
Tarpan wrote: Well, after

Tarpan wrote:

Well, after much deliberation I am decided to forsake my aliegance to the atheist faith and have taken up sanctuary in my childhood home known as the roman catholic church. What a great feeling washed over me as I was finally able to settle on a faith system that can provide me with all the wonderful things that make life worth livng. I instantly feel happier, and more intune with my fellow catholics and now wish to pass on the message of my lord.

Finally, I do not need to worry about going to hell, because I now have reaffirmed my belief in the one true god and put my faith and love in him and the holy mother. I do not worry about living a meaningless existance as you atheists do, nor do I need to waste my precious moments on earth prior to going to heaven, or, in the case of all you atheists, agnostis, christians, and others, HELL.

I would like to invite all of you, as god's children, to put your faith in the message delivered by the vatican. Look upon the good they are doing in the world in great countries like Canada and Africa. Listen to the pope, heed his message, and embrace the message of your God. Follow me, and I will help you along your journey! Join me brothers and sisters and I will do my best to show you the true way to salvation!

So either you're fakeposting or you're dumb as shit.

Götter sind für Arten, die sich selbst verraten -- in den Glauben flüchten um sich hinzurichten. Menschen brauchen Götter um sich zu verletzen, um sich zu vernichten -- das sind wir.


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
AmericanIdle

AmericanIdle wrote:

Quote:
Well, after much deliberation I am decided to forsake my aliegance to the atheist faith

A lack of faith does not = faith. That's just silly.

 That was my favorite part!

Quote:
Quote:
HELL.
Is it anything like Hope, Arkansas ?

I thought hell was 7th grade social studies.

 

Quote:

Quote:
Look upon the good they are doing in the world in great countries like Canada and Africa

Africa makes an even greater continent. Education is fun. Also, how many millions of humans have died in the "country" of Africa due to the Catholic Church's policy on condoms ? Note that I'm not asking how many millions have died due to Catholic/Religious intolerance.. That number would be dramatically higher.

ah yup 

 

Quote:

But then maybe you're just joking !

wink wink nudge nudge saynomore saynomore!


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
JeremiahSmith wrote:

JeremiahSmith wrote:

So either you're fakeposting or you're dumb as shit.

Succinct! I love it! haha

Honestly, I was going to post a 'jk' post early on but then I saw the first response and I laughed so hard that a theist was the first person to seemingly try to talk me out of it that I forgot to hit post comment.

I was just bored...problem solved.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
  hey Tarpan, you atheist

  hey Tarpan, you atheist joker,

seems the joke ain't working? , it's probably just stupid me , I'm old and slow .... what's the punch line ???? Yell 

 


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

hey Tarpan, you atheist joker,

seems the joke ain't working? , it's probably just stupid me , I'm old and slow .... what's the punch line ???? Yell

 

 The punch line? Just trying to make some blood boil for a couple seconds...took me a couple minutes to write...reading back, I still laugh at my wonderful 'atheist faith' line...c'mon...that's an instant classic!

 My kid had a hard time getting to sleep so I'm hiding in a corner being extra quiet so I'm abusing you people for my own entertainment.

So umm..

Thanks! I love you! I'll pray for your forgiveness now!

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
I find that joking with

I find that joking with theists is impossible... as is deciding whether or not a theist is joking.  Any statement about faith, god, etc, sounds like a joke to an atheist.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


JeremiahSmith
Posts: 361
Joined: 2006-11-25
User is offlineOffline
Tarpan wrote:

Tarpan wrote:
Thanks! I love you! I'll pray for your forgiveness now!

maybe you could hook me up with some communion wafers?

gonna get some cheese and little bits of meat or something

make jesus sandwich hors d'oeurves 

Götter sind für Arten, die sich selbst verraten -- in den Glauben flüchten um sich hinzurichten. Menschen brauchen Götter um sich zu verletzen, um sich zu vernichten -- das sind wir.


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
mobius_thought wrote: BMcD

mobius_thought wrote:

BMcD wrote:

This would be the same Vatican that holds the official position that poverty should not be alleviated, as suffering is good for the soul?

I'm going to have to ask for a source on that one. I'm no Catholic, but that's a pretty extreme claim, and I can't help but think it's exaggerated.

Actually, catholics (pope on down to everyone else) take a vow of poverty.  As not true as that may seem due to the nature of the vatican etc, that actually just makes it one of the great peices of comedy about the church.


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
JeremiahSmith

JeremiahSmith wrote:

Tarpan wrote:
Thanks! I love you! I'll pray for your forgiveness now!

maybe you could hook me up with some communion wafers?

gonna get some cheese and little bits of meat or something

make jesus sandwich hors d'oeurves

 Hmmm, in all honesty I am a 'confirmed catholic'.  Odd that I never asked if they accepted to-go or bulk orders. 


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
    I wonder of

    I wonder of catholicism would have cought on in the US if the church offered to super-size their eucharists.

 


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
When going through my first

When going through my first communion I was always told that you're not supposed to 'eat' the eucharist but only to let it dissolve in your mouth....is this because Jesus was a male? You're allowed to suck on him, but not eat him.

If Jesus was a woman would you be able to eat on it? Maybe get a choice?

Catholics should seriously reconsider which part of hte body the eurchaist is if all they are allowed to do is suck it...that's all I'm saying.


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
Do vegetarians take the

Do vegetarians take the eucharist?


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
wzedi wrote: You may want

wzedi wrote:
You may want to reconsider your position. Study the Bible for yourself and decide whether the Vatican, Pope and holy mother have anything to do with worshipping God.

There's a right way and a wrong way to appeal to a malevolent space monster -- get it through your head, man! 


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
So the priest takes the

So the priest takes the bread and puts it in everyones hands or mouths at the choice of the person.  Why did the idea that everyones hands was in that water, and then the priests hands in their hands and in peoples mouths NOT bother me when I was a kid? Ew.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Tarpan wrote: When going

Tarpan wrote:

When going through my first communion I was always told that you're not supposed to 'eat' the eucharist but only to let it dissolve in your mouth....is this because Jesus was a male? You're allowed to suck on him, but not eat him.

If Jesus was a woman would you be able to eat on it? Maybe get a choice?

Catholics should seriously reconsider which part of hte body the eurchaist is if all they are allowed to do is suck it...that's all I'm saying.

http://www.theosophy.com/theos-talk/200408/tt00210.html


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
wzedi wrote:

wzedi wrote:
You may want to reconsider your position. Study the Bible for yourself and decide whether the Vatican, Pope and holy mother have anything to do with worshipping God.

Actually now that Magilum has replied to that it actually made me want to reply semi-honestly...

A lot of, and definitly the ones I grew up in, Roman Catholic churches pray to Mary directly. So, in fact, she has everything do with worshiping God. She is viewed as the a spirtual mother, and an intcessor with god as well as a savior.

Some would go as far to suggest that we are not worthy to speak or pray to God himself so they use Mary as the incessor since she was formerly human.

It's been awhile though.


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
JeremiahSmith wrote: maybe

JeremiahSmith wrote:

maybe you could hook me up with some communion wafers?

gonna get some cheese and little bits of meat or something

make jesus sandwich hors d'oeurves

Dude. I have been trying to get my hands on consecrated hosts for years. They won't give 'em up! But I must get some, so I can perfect my masterpiece!

 

Chili con Dios.

 

Ah well... I'm off for a bit! Via con carne! 

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
So you lost at bingo and now

So you lost at bingo and now you hope to make nice with the big guy? It might work. There's a few priests that respond well to lip service, if you know what I mean.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: So you

wavefreak wrote:
So you lost at bingo and now you hope to make nice with the big guy? It might work. There's a few priests that respond well to lip service, if you know what I mean.

Only if you're MUCH younger 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


shikko
Posts: 448
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: I find

Hambydammit wrote:

I find that joking with theists is impossible... as is deciding whether or not a theist is joking. Any statement about faith, god, etc, sounds like a joke to an atheist.

As PZ Myers said, "the line between Christianity and satire is razor-thin."

--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: I find

Hambydammit wrote:

I find that joking with theists is impossible... as is deciding whether or not a theist is joking. Any statement about faith, god, etc, sounds like a joke to an atheist.

 

 

I'm hurt. 


Conor Wilson
Posts: 451
Joined: 2008-01-07
User is offlineOffline
Tarpan...seriously...did

Tarpan...seriously...did you know:

--That Christian marriages in the sense of a church ceremony presided over by a priest did not happen *at* *all* in Christianity until the eighth century?  (It's kind of hard for me to look at this and call it "institution by Christ" in any theologically meaningful sense.)

 

--That the Catholic Church, despite frequent denials by conservatives, has indeed changed its teaching on the point in an ordination ceremony when a man can be considered fully ordained (a matter of faith,) the teaching on slavery (a matter of morality, supported by more scripture verses, and clearer scripture verses, than the teaching on, say, gay sexEye-wink on ensoulment (granted, *not* a matter of faith or morals, strictly speaking, but nonetheless influential on the abortion debate...and besides...where does any of this come from outside of mental abstractions...anyway...continuing on...) and many other issues?

 

--That the change of teaching on the matter of usury is so certain that conservatives bluntly *lie* about it, and claim that "the only usury condemned was *excessive* interest--when the truth of the matter is that *any* interest was quite explicitly condemned?

 

--That no matter what you believe on the possibility of salvation for non-Catholics, you run afoul of the explicit teaching of an Ecumenical Council?  If you believe that such salvation *is* possible, you...ahem...dissent...from the teaching of the Council of Florence; of you believe it is *not* possible, you contradict the Second Vatican Council.  Isn't it nice of God to give you a quite literal damned-if-you-do-and-damned-if-you-don't dilemma?  And this, apparently, is how the Holy Spirit "protects the doctrine of the Church."

 

--That Scripture has been corrupted?  This simply is not in dispute among scholars; the last 12 verses of the Gospel according to Mark are positively known to be an addition; the same could be said for the scene of the adulteress brought to Jesus in Luke and the opening verses of John.

 

So...to review...at least some of the sacramental life of Catholicism is built on a falsehood; the Bible is not trustworthy, and neither is Tradition.  It may be true that many Popes have been holy...but don't forget...many were anything but.  Not to mention that the Saints of which Catholicism is so fond sometimes have very mixed records.  I'm not talking about, say, Augustine's lifestyle choices prior to his conversion; I'm talking about his unholy comment about "just persecution" *after* his conversion.  And what about the *extremely* nasty comments St. John Chrysostom made about Jewish synagogues (..."The synagogue is a brothel....&quotEye-wink

 

And on...and on...and on.

 

Even things that don't necessarily constitute arguments against Catholicism look funny when put up against the modern reality of the Church.  Did you know that at one time it was definitely permitted, and in some cases, *obligatory* for *lay* Catholics to administer the sacraments of Confession and Anointing of the Sick?

 

I don't know about you, but I finally couldn't stand the cognitive dissonance anymore.  That's why I moved in the exact opposite direction from you: from a Catholic to being an atheist.

 

Think about it. Please.

Conor

________________________________________________________________________________________

"Faith does not fear reason."---Pope Pius XII

"But it should!"--Me


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
Conor Wilson

Conor Wilson wrote:

Tarpan...seriously...did you know:

--That Christian marriages in the sense of a church ceremony presided over by a priest did not happen *at* *all* in Christianity until the eighth century? (It's kind of hard for me to look at this and call it "institution by Christ" in any theologically meaningful sense.)

 

--That the Catholic Church, despite frequent denials by conservatives, has indeed changed its teaching on the point in an ordination ceremony when a man can be considered fully ordained (a matter of faith,) the teaching on slavery (a matter of morality, supported by more scripture verses, and clearer scripture verses, than the teaching on, say, gay sexEye-wink on ensoulment (granted, *not* a matter of faith or morals, strictly speaking, but nonetheless influential on the abortion debate...and besides...where does any of this come from outside of mental abstractions...anyway...continuing on...) and many other issues?

 

--That the change of teaching on the matter of usury is so certain that conservatives bluntly *lie* about it, and claim that "the only usury condemned was *excessive* interest--when the truth of the matter is that *any* interest was quite explicitly condemned?

 

--That no matter what you believe on the possibility of salvation for non-Catholics, you run afoul of the explicit teaching of an Ecumenical Council? If you believe that such salvation *is* possible, you...ahem...dissent...from the teaching of the Council of Florence; of you believe it is *not* possible, you contradict the Second Vatican Council. Isn't it nice of God to give you a quite literal damned-if-you-do-and-damned-if-you-don't dilemma? And this, apparently, is how the Holy Spirit "protects the doctrine of the Church."

 

--That Scripture has been corrupted? This simply is not in dispute among scholars; the last 12 verses of the Gospel according to Mark are positively known to be an addition; the same could be said for the scene of the adulteress brought to Jesus in Luke and the opening verses of John.

 

So...to review...at least some of the sacramental life of Catholicism is built on a falsehood; the Bible is not trustworthy, and neither is Tradition. It may be true that many Popes have been holy...but don't forget...many were anything but. Not to mention that the Saints of which Catholicism is so fond sometimes have very mixed records. I'm not talking about, say, Augustine's lifestyle choices prior to his conversion; I'm talking about his unholy comment about "just persecution" *after* his conversion. And what about the *extremely* nasty comments St. John Chrysostom made about Jewish synagogues (..."The synagogue is a brothel....&quotEye-wink

 

And on...and on...and on.

 

Even things that don't necessarily constitute arguments against Catholicism look funny when put up against the modern reality of the Church. Did you know that at one time it was definitely permitted, and in some cases, *obligatory* for *lay* Catholics to administer the sacraments of Confession and Anointing of the Sick?

 

I don't know about you, but I finally couldn't stand the cognitive dissonance anymore. That's why I moved in the exact opposite direction from you: from a Catholic to being an atheist.

 

Think about it. Please.

Conor

________________________________________________________________________________________

"Faith does not fear reason."---Pope Pius XII

"But it should!"--Me

Okay, I'm convinced. You are right. I renounce my religion.


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Tarpan wrote:  Someone

Tarpan wrote:

 Someone didn't keep reading the thread Eye-wink

Yeah.  But still it was a really good post by Conor anyway.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Conor Wilson

Conor Wilson wrote:

Tarpan...seriously...did you know:

--That Christian marriages in the sense of a church ceremony presided over by a priest did not happen *at* *all* in Christianity until the eighth century? (It's kind of hard for me to look at this and call it "institution by Christ" in any theologically meaningful sense.)

 

--That the Catholic Church, despite frequent denials by conservatives, has indeed changed its teaching on the point in an ordination ceremony when a man can be considered fully ordained (a matter of faith,) the teaching on slavery (a matter of morality, supported by more scripture verses, and clearer scripture verses, than the teaching on, say, gay sexEye-wink on ensoulment (granted, *not* a matter of faith or morals, strictly speaking, but nonetheless influential on the abortion debate...and besides...where does any of this come from outside of mental abstractions...anyway...continuing on...) and many other issues?

 

--That the change of teaching on the matter of usury is so certain that conservatives bluntly *lie* about it, and claim that "the only usury condemned was *excessive* interest--when the truth of the matter is that *any* interest was quite explicitly condemned?

 

--That no matter what you believe on the possibility of salvation for non-Catholics, you run afoul of the explicit teaching of an Ecumenical Council? If you believe that such salvation *is* possible, you...ahem...dissent...from the teaching of the Council of Florence; of you believe it is *not* possible, you contradict the Second Vatican Council. Isn't it nice of God to give you a quite literal damned-if-you-do-and-damned-if-you-don't dilemma? And this, apparently, is how the Holy Spirit "protects the doctrine of the Church."

 

--That Scripture has been corrupted? This simply is not in dispute among scholars; the last 12 verses of the Gospel according to Mark are positively known to be an addition; the same could be said for the scene of the adulteress brought to Jesus in Luke and the opening verses of John.

 

So...to review...at least some of the sacramental life of Catholicism is built on a falsehood; the Bible is not trustworthy, and neither is Tradition. It may be true that many Popes have been holy...but don't forget...many were anything but. Not to mention that the Saints of which Catholicism is so fond sometimes have very mixed records. I'm not talking about, say, Augustine's lifestyle choices prior to his conversion; I'm talking about his unholy comment about "just persecution" *after* his conversion. And what about the *extremely* nasty comments St. John Chrysostom made about Jewish synagogues (..."The synagogue is a brothel....&quotEye-wink

 

And on...and on...and on.

 

Even things that don't necessarily constitute arguments against Catholicism look funny when put up against the modern reality of the Church. Did you know that at one time it was definitely permitted, and in some cases, *obligatory* for *lay* Catholics to administer the sacraments of Confession and Anointing of the Sick?

 

I don't know about you, but I finally couldn't stand the cognitive dissonance anymore. That's why I moved in the exact opposite direction from you: from a Catholic to being an atheist.

 

Think about it. Please.

Conor

________________________________________________________________________________________

"Faith does not fear reason."---Pope Pius XII

"But it should!"--Me

 

And everyone made fun of the Theist for not getting the joke Smiling

 


Conor Wilson
Posts: 451
Joined: 2008-01-07
User is offlineOffline
OK...you're right...I

OK...you're right...I completely missed what was going on.

 

(...wiping the egg off of my face...)

 

Ah, well...there are worse fates in life than being wrong, aren't there?

 

And thanks for the kind comment about my post, Watcher.

Conor

_______________________________________________________________________________

"Faith does not fear reason."--Pope Pius XII

"But it should!"--Me


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Conor Wilson

Conor Wilson wrote:

OK...you're right...I completely missed what was going on.

 

(...wiping the egg off of my face...)

 

Ah, well...there are worse fates in life than being wrong, aren't there?

 

And thanks for the kind comment about my post, Watcher.

Conor

I wasn't being "kind", Conor.  I was giving credit where credit was due.

I'm a former baptist so I don't have the same experience reasoning out the catholic faith as you.  I thought you brought out some really good points there.

You've only been here a couple days and already you are kicking some ass.

Misplaced ass-kicking, but you've got some skills, bro.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Conor Wilson
Posts: 451
Joined: 2008-01-07
User is offlineOffline
Call it what you will,

Call it what you will, Watcher...I still appreciate the fact that you said it at all.

 

My gaffe reminded me of a quote from...of all things...Chapter 1 of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:"

"They don't have sarcasm on Betelgeuse, and Ford Prefect often failed to notice it unless he was concentrating."

 

At last! A fictional character that I can deeply sympathize with!

 

Though I'm not from Betelgeuse.  At least, not as far as I know...

Conor

_____________________________________________________________________________

"Faith does not fear reason."--Pope Pius XII

"But it should!"--Me


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Conor Wilson wrote: --That

Conor Wilson wrote:
--That Christian marriages in the sense of a church ceremony presided over by a priest did not happen *at* *all* in Christianity until the eighth century?  (It's kind of hard for me to look at this and call it "institution by Christ" in any theologically meaningful sense.)

Nor is the presence of a priest, or the performance of the marriage ceremony in a Church a strict requirement of the Sacrament today.  The ordinary ministers of the Sacrament are the spouses themselves.  The requirement is for the priest to act as a witness on behalf of the Church.  The Canon Law also calls for two other witnesses, who particiapte on behalf of the community. 

The sacrrament is established by Christ in Matt 19.  The sacramental nature of matrimony has been held from the beginnings of the Church, Paul demanding that it be contracted "in the Lord" (1 Cor 7:39), proclaiming its indissolubility (1 Cor 7:10).  He establishes its dignity and sanctity in Eph 5:32.

In the late first of early second century, Ignatius of Antiock writes, "It befits the bridegroom and the bride to enter the nuptial relationship with the approval of the bishop so that marriage may be according to the Lord..."

Tertullian attests to this fact as well ,"How shall I be able to describe the happiness of a marriage whi the Church performs, the offering of the scarafice ratifies, and the blessing seals, to which the angels assent, and which the Heavenly Father recognizes."

St Augustine mounts a lively defense of matrimony as a Sacrament against the Manicheans who rejected it as a source of evil.

That matrimony has always been recognized as a Sacrament is undeniable.  That the canon law regarding its administration has changed does not affect its validity.

Quote:
--That the Catholic Church, despite frequent denials by conservatives, has indeed changed its teaching on the point in an ordination ceremony when a man can be considered fully ordained (a matter of faith,) ...

Again, this is a very minor point.  Let's argue about at which point in the course of an hour long ceremony a man is considered a priest.  What possible impact could this have? 

The matter of faith involved in the priesthood is those pwers conferred on a man by ordination, that is, the power to confect the Eucahrist (ie, change bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ), and the power to absolve sins.  The rubrics of ordination (ie, anointing with chrism, laying on of hands, presentation of instruments) have all been observed in ordination rites (although you are correct that there was disagreement as to which action conferred the Sacrament).  It has since been defined by Pius XII in an Apostolic Constitution, "Sacramentum Ordinis" as the laying on of hands.  Bear in mind that this Apostolic Constitution is a juridical decision only and has no retroactive power.

Quote:
the teaching on slavery (a matter of morality, supported by more scripture verses, and clearer scripture verses...

First, it's necessary to distinguish between two types of slavery.  Slavery in title is that form of slavery imposed by states upon persons such as criminals and prisoners of war.  This form of slavery is justifiable, but does not excuse the state from the requirement for the humane treatment of such persons.

It is the second form of slavery, that is chattel slavery, the outright ownership of one person by another that primarily concerns the Church.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church states,";">2414 The seventh commandment forbids acts or enterprises that for any reason - selfish or ideological, commercial, or totalitarian - lead to the enslavement of human beings, to their being bought, sold and exchanged like merchandise, in disregard for their personal dignity. It is a sin against the dignity of persons and their fundamental rights to reduce them by violence to their productive value or to a source of profit. St. Paul directed a Christian master to treat his Christian slave 'no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother, . . . both in the flesh and in the Lord.'"

Paul wrote regarding the humane treatment of slaves, and implied that Christian brotherhood was incompatible with chattel slavery, writing in Gal 3:27-28 "there is neither slave nor free . . . you are all one in Christ Jesus".

In the Early Church, writers such as Gregory of Nyssa and John Chrysostom strongly denounced chattel slavery, many Christians liberated slaves, Christain congregations redeemed slaves with Church funds.  Where salvery was not outright repudiated, slaves were given equal access to the ministrations of the Chruch.  Many clerics, including two popes, had slave backgrounds.

The Church attempted to ameliorate the suffering of slaves in the Empire by laws until its virtual disappearance from the Imperial scheme and the rise of serfdom.

Slavery did re-emerge onto the European scene as Europe interacted with Islam (and its slave traders) and the discovery of the Americas.  It was, in fact, the colonization of th Canary Islands and the enslavement of the inhabitants there which led Pope Eugene IV ti issue the Papal Bull Sicut Dudum in 1435, in which he directed "all and each of the faithful of each sex, within the space of fifteen days of the publication of these letters in the place where they live, that they restore to their earlier liberty all and each person of either sex who were once residents of [the] Canary Islands . . . who have been made subject to slavery. These people are to be totally and perpetually free and are to be let go without the exaction or reception of any money."

A century later, Pope Paul III applied the same principle to the newly encountered inhabitants of the West and South Indies in the bull Sublimis Deus (1537). Therein he described the enslavers as allies of the devil and declared attempts to justify such slavery "null and void." Accompanying the bull was another document, Pastorale Officium, which attached an automatic excommunication remittable only by the pope himself for those who attempted to enslave the Indians or steal their goods.

The Response to the Holy Office, 230, March 20, 1686 rejected the enslavement of blacks.  This teaching was reiterated by Pope Gregory XVI in 1839, and by Pope Leo XIII in 1888 and 1890.

To be continued....

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


Blind_Chance
Blind_Chance's picture
Posts: 124
Joined: 2008-01-09
User is offlineOffline
  I  already posted it in

 

I  already posted it in other place, but it applies here in same way. 

I am always amazed by human nature to forgot facts which doesn't fit in his/her point of view.

As well Christians are not immune for that common amnesia. You usually forgot facts like Inquisition rampage,supporting Conquistadors and Church position in matters like: slavery through ages. As you can see below position of Church is not so clear like you would like to think:

-Circa 400 CE: St. Augustine [354 - 430 CE] speaks of the granting of freedom to slaves as a great religious virtue, and declares the Christian law against regarding God's rational creation as property.

- 595 CE: Pope Gregory dispatched a priest to Britain to purchase Pagan boys to work as slaves on church estates.

Circa 610: Isidore of Seville wrote: "I can hardly credit that a friend of Christ, who has experienced that grace, which bestowed freedom on all, would still own slaves." In his writing "Regula monachorum" which describes the monastic life, he wrote that "God has made no difference between the soul of the slave and that of the freedman."

BUT....

- Circa 600 CE: Pope Gregory I wrote, in Pastoral Rule: "Slaves should be told...not [to] despise their masters and recognize that they are only slaves."

- 655 CE: In an attempt to persuade priests to remain celibate, the 9th Council of Toledo ruled that all children of clerics were to be automatically enslaved. This ruling was later incorporated into the canon law of the church.

-13th century CE: Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) accepted the teachings of the ancient Greek Pagan philosopher, Aristotle, that slavery is "natural."

-1404 CE: After Spain discovered the Canary Islands the Spanish colonized the islands In 1435 Pope Eugene IV wrote a bull to Bishop Ferdinand of Lanzarote titled "Sicut Dudum." In it, he noted that the black inhabitants of the Islands had been converted to Christianity and either baptized or promised baptism. Subsequently, many of the inhabitants were taken from their homes and enslaved. He commanded that all enslaved Christians who were inhabitants of the Canary Islands be freed from slavery. The Pope's concern appears to have been over the enslavement of Christians by Christians, not the institution of human slavery itself.

- 1452/4 CE: Pope Nicholas V wrote Dum Diversas which granted to the kings of Spain and Portugal the right to reduce any "Saracens [Muslims] and pagans and any other unbelievers" to perpetual slavery.

-1519: Bartholomew De Las Casas, a Dominican, argued against slavery. "No one may be deprived of his liberty nor may any person be enslaved" He was ridiculed, silenced and ignored. 3

- 1537 CE: Pope Paul III wrote in Sublimis Deus about the enslavement of persons in the West and South Indies. He wrote that Satan:

"... the enemy of the human race...has thought up a way, unheard of before now, by which he might impede the saving Word of God. ... Satan has stirred up some of his allies ... who are presuming to assert far and wide that the Indians be reduced to our service like brute animals. And they reduce them to slavery, treating them with afflictions we would scarcely use with brute animals. ... Rather, we decree that these same Indians should not be deprived of their liberty and are not to be reduced to slavery." only hostile non-Christians, captured in just wars, could become slaves.

- 1548 CE: Pope Paul III confirmed that any individual may freely buy, sell and own slaves. Runaway slaves were to be returned to their owners for punishment.

-1660: Charles II of Britain urged the Council for Foreign Plantations to teach Christianity to slaves.

-1629 to 1661 CE: Pope Urban VIII in 1629, Pope Innocent X in 1645 and Pope Alexander VII in 1661 were all personally involved in the purchase of Muslim slaves.

Ecrasez l'infame!


Conor Wilson
Posts: 451
Joined: 2008-01-07
User is offlineOffline
Totus tuus:   I've thought

Totus tuus:

 

I've thought about how to respond to your post for a couple of days, and I'm not going to B.S. you: this is going to be a bit more difficult for me than it should, as I have literally thrown away much of the information which would help me here.

 

That doesn't mean that I'm backing off of my position.  It does, however, mean that I will be slow to respond to you.  So...please bear with me.

 

As a kind of first response--admittedly inadequate--I will say these things:

 

1.  *I* seem to remember (...and I will have to find the reference for this...) Pope John Paul II asserting that the matrimony of a couple is in a sense "earned" for them by the celibacy of the priest.  So...no priest...no marriage.  In fact, no *celibate* priest...no marriage.  Not only does this flatly contradict the Western Christian idea of the couple making the marriage, with the priest only as a witness, but it also flatly contradicts the Eastern Christian teaching that the priest *does* *indeed* confect the sacrament of Crowning (i.e., the Eastern term for "marriage.&quotEye-wink  Oh...I wasn't saying that marriage wasn't a sacrament...the issue was whether Christ could be said in any theologically meaningful way to have "instituted" it.  Think about it: if we say that Christ "instituted" marriage in the sense of creating a specific ceremony with which to bless it...then Christians simply ignored the teachings of their Master for centuries on end, even after the establishment of Christianity in the Roman Empire.  If we say that Christ established marriage in a general way, with Adam and Eve, then he equally established *all* *human* marriage, and thus there is no difference, in Catholic theology, between the marriage of two Catholics on the one hand, and, say, the marriage of two Hindus on the other. 

There is also a horrendous misuse of the Bible to support the idea of Christ "instituting" marriage.  Your own reference to Matthew 19 is a case in point; Jesus there did not command a ceremony, or appoint anyone to "witness" anything with regard to marriage.  He did, however, express disapproval of divorce, by appealing to the Genesis account of Adam and Eve.  Other such abuses (which, for the record, I do *not* say came from you) are references to John 2 (where Jesus could certainly be said to approve of celebrations and probably also marriage, in a general way, but still no "institution" of anything,) and John 19:25-27 (which was always a WTF moment for me: how does establishing a mother/son bond constitute a "marriage," in any meaningful sense?)

 

2. Sorry...but the ordination point is categorically *not* "minor." In this, you are simply wrong.  Perhaps you do not understand what I am getting at.  I will review the idea more completely, even parts that I think you do understand, so as to bring everyone up to speed.

Catholicism believes in what could be (...and has been...) called a "chain theory of apostolic succession."  The obvious question is: what does this phrase mean?  Well...the "apostolic succession" part basically means that once the Apostles knew that the Church was going to have to continue without them, they gave their position of teaching authority, and the "sacred power" from ordination by Jesus, over to others, so that the teachings would be preserved in the Church for as long as human history continued.  The "chain theory" part of this is that, in order for someone to really have this authority and power, they *must* be ordained validly.  This raises a huge question: how do we know that someone has been ordained validly?  For an answer, I'll simplify matters by dealing only with Catholic persons ordained by Catholic rites.  (In other words, I'm ignoring issues about the validity of, say, Eastern Orthodox and Anglican orders.)  If, say, the ordination ceremony is done properly, there is in theory no problem: the man who was not a priest before the ceremony is a priest afterwards.  But what if the ceremony should be interrupted?  This is not as farfetched as it may seem; our relatively tranquil society is an utterly modern creature.  In, say, the Middle Ages it was entirely possible for such an interruption to occur, and be quite violent.  Thus, there is a huge question: at what point, exactly, does a man stop being, say, a deacon, and start being a priest?  (Or, for that matter, stop being merely a priest, and start being a bishop.)  An Ecumenical Council of the Church answered: the point is when the chalice and paten are handed over to the candidate for ordination.  (Again, I will have to do more research for exact references.)  An excommunication formula ("anathema sit," in Latin) was appended for anyone who denied that this was true.  Such excommunication formulae have, for many years, been seen as an unfailing sign of an *infallible* teaching from a Council.  So, what's the problem, you say?  Simple: in the early twentieth century, Catholic historians of the sacraments found ordination ceremonies which predated the Council in question...which did not even have such a "handing over of paten and chalice"...at all.  Which, by the lights of conciliar teaching...would logically render all such ordinations invalid...meaning that men ordained in this manner were *not* actually deacons, priests, or bishops...at all.  And since in matters like this, "you can't give, what you don't have" well...all subsequent ordinations would likewise be invalidated.  Meaning: there is no such thing as a validly ordained Catholic deacon, priest or bishop.  So as you can see, totus tuus...this is *extremely* far from being a "minor" point.  The resolution of this difficulty occured during the reign of Pope Pius XII (who, roughly speaking, reigned during World War II.  That doesn't do justice to the length of his reign, but it will do to have some idea of when he was Pope.)  Pius simply declared that what had been "lawfully arranged" in the past...no longer need be followed.  Henceforth, Catholics were to understand "the moment of ordination" as being the moment when the ordaining bishop put his hands on the candidate, and prayed for the reception of the Holy Spirit.  (So much for infallible pronouncements!)  Calling this a "juridical pronouncement" is what is known as a "fast shuffle."  One cannot appeal to the infallibility of the Pope to remove the infallibility of the Council...as the one Holy Spirit is supposed to be responsible for protecting *both* from teaching error.  Obviously in this instance, either the Pope taught error, or the Council did, or both did, but in no event is it possible for both to be right.  And error in *either* instance disproves the infallibility of the Church.

 

3. As for slavery, most of what I would say has already been posted.  At this time, I will add only that theologians of the Church used to believe in "four just titles" to slavery.  In other words, there were, according to Catholic theologians, four reasons that one might legitimately own slaves.  Two of them you allude to under the rubric of "slavery in title:" a response by the State to criminal activity, and the capturing of prisoners of war.  But one you left off was...birth.  That's right...if you had the rotten luck to be born to a slave....*you* were a slave.  (I forget the fourth; again, I have to re-do my research.)  One of the less proud moments of the American episcopacy was when Pope Gregory XVI objected to the African slave trade, (which he did, much to his credit, as you noted,) and the response of the American bishops was to say that Gregory's teaching "didn't apply" to the American situation.  (A note to the uninitiated: that's a bit like saying that the Constitution "doesn't apply to" the federal government of the United States of America.)  One bishop added another remark to the effect that slavery in America was a political issue...and thus, the bishops couldn't get involved.

 

I do apologize about not having all of my shit in one sock on this matter.  Had I not thrown so much stuff away, I would have referenced this material much better.  Ah, well...live and learn.  I'll try to get as much info on this in the near future as I can.

 

Conor

_________________________________________________________________________________________

"Faith does not fear reason."--Pope Pius XII]

"But it should!"--Me


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Conor, thanks for getting

Conor, thanks for getting back to me.  I actually meant to post more, but got caught up in other issues.  I just wnated to let you know that I'm still reading and intend to speak to these issues more, hpoefully later today.  Thanks again for your polite and thoughtful response.

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II