Defence Of Catholic Teaching

[fatjim]

Never for one second suggested it was only that those who study it with the vies of trying to prove who wrote it and when have a different timeline for when it was written than most think

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

Any secular writings about him were long after he had supposedly lived though. Which was kinda my point. The Bible isn't proof of Jesus' existence

[Clydeside_Sheep]

So basically, what you are saying is Christianity picks and chooses the bits they want, and ignores the bits that they don't like?

 

It's also fact that they pick and choose which bits they believe as "metaphorical" and which they choose as "fact".

 

Where is it written that Christians must accept every last line in the Bible as literal and authoritative? This is a strange secular notion.

 

If you read a menu in a restaurant and yet only choose one dish of it, can I criticise you for that? Surely you should have ordered everything at once, going by your "all or nothing" logic?

 

As I said to Kelt before, the bible is but one source which informs out faith, it is not the be all and end all.

 

You could say we ignore bits of the Jewish Torah (Old testament) which are to do with ancient Jews and not us. I dont think thats unreasonable!

 

It would seem strange to me, if there was nothing in an ancient book, (OT), produced by a different culture and faith tradition, which we disagreed with.

 

The Bible was originally put together by the early Catholic Church (compiling the New Testament and adding this to the Old)...........for Catholics.

 

Accordingly its us who get to say how the contents are interpreted, as least so far as our own faith goes. I dont think thats unreasonable either.

[StandFree1982]

 

Where is it written that Christians must accept every last line in the Bible as literal and authoritative? This is a strange secular notion.

 

If you read a menu in a restaurant and yet only choose one dish of it, can I criticise you for that? Surely you should have ordered everything at once, going by your "all or nothing" logic?

 

As I said to Kelt before, the bible is but one source which informs out faith, it is not the be all and end all.

 

You could say we ignore bits of the Jewish Torah (Old testament) which are to do with ancient Jews and not us. I dont think thats unreasonable!

 

It would seem strange to me, if there was nothing in an ancient book, (OT), produced by a different culture and faith tradition, which we disagreed with.

 

The Bible was originally put together by the early Catholic Church (compiling the New Testament and adding this to the Old)...........for Catholics.

 

Accordingly its us who get to say how the contents are interpreted, as least so far as our own faith goes. I dont think thats unreasonable either.

The difference is, I believe that all items on a menu are to be taken literally. A Burger is a Burger, a Steak is a steak. I don't look at a menu, see something I don't like and think "oh, well I dislike Pork Chops...so i'll just assume that it's not meant to be taken literally and it's actually a cheese salad"

[Foster14]

I am glad the Catholic Church exists.

 

Otherwise, we'd never have got Father Ted.

[StandFree1982]

I am glad the Catholic Church exists.

 

Otherwise, we'd never have got Father Ted.

true. But we'd have just had Ted instead, which was very funny as well.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

I have to say CS I disagree on pretty much every level

And I completely respect your opinion, it is equally as valid as mine.

 

In some ways, it is good we disagree - otherwise the world would be very bland we would not get to have these interesting discussions.

However, I can't tell you where the universe came from any more than you can tell me where God came from

God didnt come from anywhere, God "just exists". He exists in and of Himself.

 

Just like Truth "just exists" and Beauty "just exists".

 

For example, 2 + 2 = 4, thats the truth. It isnt the truth because someone arranged it like this, its the truth because truth "just exists".

 

Truth and Beauty are aspects of God.

One thing that might be a more fruitful area for such opposing ideas (faith and non-faith). Might be the effect positive or negative of religion and the impact on human development?

Yeh that would be an interesting discussion indeed.

 

It would probably be necessarily to ask the question (positive or negative)of individual rleigions, rather than of "religion" as a monolithic concept.

 

I am sure there are positive and negative examples for each individual religion, but certainly it is obvious than some have been mostly "bad" overall and some mostly "good".

 

Looking back over 2,000 years, there are often times we can see where the Catholic Church has deserved criticism. But undoubtedly its massive contribution to humanity outweighs this.

 

I think most fair minded people would recognise this, though certainly in many places people have a very false impression of Catholicism (they think it is 100% negative) due to many smears over many years.

 

In 2007, an atheist businessman (Robert Wilson) donated $22.5 million to Catholic Education in NYC. Mr Wilson explained his motivation for the donation by saying that, without the Catholic Church, there would be no western civilisation.

 

Thats a pretty good endorsement and from a perhaps unlikely source.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

The difference is, I believe that all items on a menu are to be taken literally. A Burger is a Burger, a Steak is a steak. I don't look at a menu, see something I don't like and think "oh, well I dislike Pork Chops...so i'll just assume that it's not meant to be taken literally and it's actually a cheese salad"

So what is wrong with the concept of analogy or allegory?

 

They are useful literary devices, commonly employed in all aspects of human endeavour - especially teaching.

 

There is only a problem when someone starts insists that an allegory is real.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

I am glad the Catholic Church exists.

 

Otherwise, we'd never have got Father Ted.

I loved Father Ted.

 

I liked the one where he had to "boot Bishop Brennan up the arse" and also the "A song for europe" episode.

[spamspamspam]

 

Where is it written that Christians must accept every last line in the Bible as literal and authoritative? This is a strange secular notion.

 

If you read a menu in a restaurant and yet only choose one dish of it, can I criticise you for that? Surely you should have ordered everything at once, going by your "all or nothing" logic?

 

"Christianity lite"?

 

While I think some people these days are far too black or white with far too many subjects I dont think being a Catholic, Protestant, Jew or Muslim is something you can enter into without taking the full package on board.

 

Just like Muslims disagree when it comes to the interpretation of the Quran Catholics can also disagree but as a member of an organised religion you have to at the very least agree with the basics of that religion, the basics are laid down in the religious texts, in the case of Catholics thats the bible.

 

Saying that times have changed and Catholicism has changed with them is tantamount to admitting that the book itself is wrong, is it not? How can you believe that the 10 commandments still apply but other teaching dont, for example?

 

If your faith was your own, based initially on the Catholic churches teachings but when you looked into it more you turned your back on the church and instead practised your faith in your own way then you may be able to defend some of the positions you have taken a lot easier. Here though you are suggesting that as a Catholic you can and do pick and choose the parts of the bible you follow. How can any Catholic claim this, they follow 1 man who is picked by other men and that man then decides whether or not condoms are good or bad, AIDS is a punishment, who is a good person in the churches eyes and who isnt, kiddy fiddling is OK if you wear the right clothes... you get my drift. That to me is not the word of God nor is it having faith in Gods teachings, its believing that 1 man, no different from you or I can and does decide some of the fundamentals in your life. You may not see it like that but thats how it is. If the Pope made a speech tomorrow that stated that the Catholic church now believe that condoms are in fact OK then within 5 years most Catholics would follow that belief, no questions asked.

 

I think thats my biggest issue with any organised religion. It isnt the religion itself but how people then use it to justify being cunts to a certain groups of people while handing power in their lives to others and using that as an excuse not to think for themselves.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

People have casual sex, live with it, lets make it as safe as possible.

Hi robbojunior

 

Your statement above shows what is so wrong with secular societys understanding of sex.

 

You say "make it safe" - you know, sex isnt inherently dangeous.

 

Sex is beautiful, enjoyable, satisfying, fun, delightful, all of these things. It isnt "dangeous". Of all the times ive had sex, never once have I or my partner been injured, nor has there been any collaterol damage of any form.

 

The concept of "danger" appears only when people want to misuse sex. That is, treat it as a toy where they want the pleasure of sex, but are not prepared to accept the possible consequences of having sex.

 

You would surely agree that it is only fair and reasonable to expect people to take responsibility for their own choices (on any matter)? Is that not the basis of civilisation?

 

"danger" also comes when people misue their bodies and call it "sex". Earlier I showed how what is known as anal "sex" can causes physical injury and is a hugely efficient transmitter of disease.

 

If we as a society had a more informed and realistic view of sex, we would not think it was "dangeous".

The biggest problem with religious belief is its inability to see beyond itself.

You cant criticise religion as a monolith / "all the same" in this case. Sometimes what you say is true, yes.

 

But you could only accuse me of "not seeing beyond myself" if I was basing argument on what the Bible says, or what Jesus did i.e making arguments which are wholly irrelevant to non-Christians and - worse - actually insulting to their intelligence.

 

But I am not basing my arguments on those things, I am basing them on empirical data, expert opinion and scientific consensus. These are things which no-one can deny.

 

If any two people are to have a fruitful discussion, they both must be on the same playing field to start with.

 

The absence of this 'same playing field' is why many people find discussions with bible-literalist protestants to be so enraging - because these people do not understand is that what they regard as a supreme and literal moral authority, is just an irrelevant old book for other people.

You also mentioned in an earlier post that Religious school should exist because there is a demand for them. Well there's quite clearly a fucking massive demand for casual sex out there, so you can't use popularity as a valid argument.

I can too use popularity as a valid argument.

 

Many taxpayers desire a faith school for their kids. They fund it, they want it, and - also importantly- it doesnt affect the choices of anyone else, who may have different ideas. Thats an open and shut case.

 

Yes, casual sex is popular, but then (as per earlier) the massive human cost of casual sex - in terms of unwanted lives destroyed in the womb, or lives permantly blighted by incurable disease, and the knock effects of all this in society, morally and financially - means that it is not difficult to identify it as immoral or problematic.

 

I dont think all this human cost is at all justifiable, for what is ultimately a few meaningless shags. Not even nearly justificable.

 

Some people say its not realistic to expect people not to have meaningless sex constantly - but in fact that was the way of the world up to our Granfathers generation. Our view and use of sex diminishes it, in my opinion.

 

So it isnt the fact that casual sex is popular that means its wrong, its the results of it.

 

I personally would not ever criticise for someone just having casual sex - indeed I have a few stories myself from my own Godless-pig days lol - but I would most certainly criticise them if they refuse to accept the results of it.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

Who's to say there wasn't a 3 legged Sea Lion called Geraldine who tricked those poor buggers thousands of years ago into thinking there was a bearded man in the sky with a son who performed magic tricks.

 

Pffft - I can see right through that, you old snake-oil salesman.

 

Sea Lions dont have legs - they have flippers.

 

What do you take us for? lol

 

[spamspamspam]

 

Sea Lions dont have legs - they have flippers.

 

 

And there was me thinking God made anything possible.

[StandFree1982]

 

Pffft - I can see right through that, you old snake-oil salesman.

 

Sea Lions dont have legs - they have flippers.

 

What do you take us for? lol

 

Damn.....foiled!

 

Ah but wait, those are metaphorical legs!

[Clydeside_Sheep]

You never did reply to my Noahs ark post.

Hi there, sorry for the delay replying, once Kelt gets his teeth into you, you need to crowbar him off haha!

 

Atheists have an obsession with the old testament. You probably know more about it than me!

 

Noah's ark is a story to teach people about salvation, which is what the Ark represents.

 

Oh and the fig tree n Jesus?

If I properly understand the passage you refer to, its simply a represntation of Christs dominion over nature.

Wiping out the dinosaurs - harsh

Thats a new one on me? Do you know the differences between Mainstream Christianity and protestantism?

 

Mainstream Christianity doesnt teach God "wiped out the dinosaurs". In 35 years, Ive never heard dinosaurs mentioned in the same breadth as Christianity. Why would they be?

Isn't this just an early metaphor for Thrush?

a fantasy story written by people who didn't know any better about the world and could only explain science by using "God", because they didn't understand. Now we do understand and the God theory isn't required.

 

Why is it that you regard religion and science as competitors or enemies?

 

I dont see that they are especially related at all, to be honest.

 

Science allows us to understand our physical environment - it doesnt tell us anything about where we came from, why we are here, where we are going, how we should conduct ourselves etc.

 

The idea of these two things as natural enemies is a canard pushed by the likes of Dawkins for the end of making a few fast bucks and personal celebrity.

 

Dawkins ia a brilliant man, but he is not qualified to talk about anything other than biology.

 

To see him attempt to deal with philosophy / religion is like watching an elephant trying to ballet dance.

And then you have to look at other religions. You must think that other religions are nonsense? in the same way that atheists think Christianity is nonsense?

I am not really well qualified to comment on other religions, at least non-Abrahamic religions.

 

I do not regard, for example, Judaism and Islam as simple nonsense, rather I would say they are flawed to varying degrees.

 

I would tend to regard non-abrahamic religions as bogus.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

And there was me thinking God made anything possible.

Thats true.

 

But its also true that Sea Lions have flippers, not legs.

[StandFree1982]

Science might not tell us exactly where we came from, but just assuming it was a God doesn't either.

[StandFree1982]

Ok, what makes you believe there is a God? What was it that made you think "Ah yes...must be God"? It's not like deciding on your favourite movie, there is nothing concrete to look at and go "I like the cut of his Jib" other than the Bible. Which is flawed in so many ways, you've said that yourself with your remarks on the Old Testament.

 

So, Noahs Ark is "just a story" and yet the other elements of the bible can be taken as Gospel? How so?

[dervish]

God didnt come from anywhere, God "just exists". He exists in and of Himself.

 

Just like Truth "just exists" and Beauty "just exists".

 

For example, 2 + 2 = 4, thats the truth. It isnt the truth because someone arranged it like this, its the truth because truth "just exists".

 

Truth and Beauty are aspects of God.Yeh that would be an interesting discussion indeed.

 

It would probably be necessarily to ask the question (positive or negative)of individual rleigions, rather than of "religion" as a monolithic concept.

 

I am sure there are positive and negative examples for each individual religion, but certainly it is obvious than some have been mostly "bad" overall and some mostly "good".

 

Looking back over 2,000 years, there are often times we can see where the Catholic Church has deserved criticism. But undoubtedly its massive contribution to humanity outweighs this.

 

I think most fair minded people would recognise this, though certainly in many places people have a very false impression of Catholicism (they think it is 100% negative) due to many smears over many years.

 

In 2007, an atheist businessman (Robert Wilson) donated $22.5 million to Catholic Education in NYC. Mr Wilson explained his motivation for the donation by saying that, without the Catholic Church, there would be no western civilisation.

 

Thats a pretty good endorsement and from a perhaps unlikely source.

 

The bold bit I, as you might expect, disagree with. What is the sum that = God? The underlined bit I really don't get. Surely God did?

 

To a person who doesn't believe in God religion is just another form of control (either perceived or real) and tribalism. Is humanity better off for that? Probably actually (well if current civilisation is the goal) though the more we drag our selfs up maslows needs we need religion less I believe. Fear or lack of acceptance of death just seems to be a major major driver for having religion to me. Either meeting dead folk again or never dying yourself.

 

The concept of a soul seems crazy to me. Anyone (like me) who has seen a relative with a brain injury will tell you they aren't the same person. If they had a soul how is a relatively minor (compared to death) capable of transforming them like that before they even die?

[Jocky Balboa]

While CS has stoically defended his belief and its teachings and has every right to stand by them, I care not for the ideology. It dismays me to see so many people in the Celtic nations in particular, fighting over differing factions of said religion, especially when that belief system is foreign to these shores in the first place. Not to mention that religion's irrational and misguided love for supporting Zionism (Jesus may have been a Hebrew, but most of his Tribe hated him and continue to be hostile to the West as a result).

[Guest]

(Jesus may have been a Hebrew, but most of his Tribe hated him and continue to be hostile to the West as a result).

 

Holy fuck. I'm nae even sure the cunt existed but you ken his ain folk thocht he wiz a choclate.

 

Nae idea what you mean by his tribe and who is being hostile to the west these days.

 

I just simplistically thought it was US foreign policy that bred hatred in most of the world towards them and their allies, including us.

[robbojunior]

Jesus was a black man.

 

No, Jesus was batman.

 

No no no that was Bruce Wayne.

[fatjim]

And I completely respect your opinion, it is equally as valid as mine.

 

In some ways, it is good we disagree - otherwise the world would be very bland we would not get to have these interesting discussions.God didnt come from anywhere, God "just exists". He exists in and of Himself.

 

Just like Truth "just exists" and Beauty "just exists".

 

For example, 2 + 2 = 4, thats the truth. It isnt the truth because someone arranged it like this, its the truth because truth "just exists".

 

Truth and Beauty are aspects of God.Yeh that would be an interesting discussion indeed.

 

 

 

What did God do before he botched making stuff? Did he always exist? Who made God?

 

Obviously man invented God because he was too stupid to comprehend the world around him.

[Jones]

So how do you guys choose which bits to take seriously and which bits to dismiss as allegory?

[spamspamspam]

Jesus was a black man.

 

No, Jesus was batman.

 

No no no that was Bruce Wayne.

Don't talk to me about heros!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[StandFree1982]

So how do you guys choose which bits to take seriously and which bits to dismiss as allegory?

That's my point exactly.

 

Picking and choosing which bits because certain areas don't quite "fit". Such as talk of slavery and the whole of the old testament

[Jocky Balboa]

 

Holy fuck. I'm nae even sure the cunt existed but you ken his ain folk thocht he wiz a choclate.

 

Nae idea what you mean by his tribe and who is being hostile to the west these days.

 

I just simplistically thought it was US foreign policy that bred hatred in most of the world towards them and their allies, including us.

 

I doubt his existence also, but the story clearly shows he was a Jew (thus making Christian "White Supremacists" hypocrites, incidentally). His tribe - THE tribe - have been a hostile elite in the West for over a century now, through their invention of Communism/Bolshevism, the Frankfurt School, radical post-feminism, mass immigration (EXCEPT for Israel, of course. Oh no, they do the opposite for themselves!!!), the duplicity of multi-culturalism, Israeli Apartheid, the ADL, AIPAC, the SPLC, Chabad Lubavitch, among many other extremist groups... the murderous attack on the King David Hotel, the Lavon Affair, the cowardly "false flag" attack on the USS Liberty, the Julius and Ethel Rosenberg spying, the Pollard spy scandal, the war in Iraq, planned attacks on Syria and Iran...

 

The list of culprits looks like a Bar Mitzvah invitation list!

 

Historically, an anti-semite was someone who hated Jews. Now, it's anyone Jews hate. Which, in the case of Zionist Jews, is the majority of gentiles.

 

All of course aided and abetted by their Christian/Catholic Zionist lackeys.

[Henry]

More than half of all complaints of abuse received by the Catholic Church in Scotland over a six-year period were sex-related, according to a report.

The church has published the results of its Diocesan Safeguarding Audits from 2006/12, giving a breakdown of incidents reported during that time.

A total of 46 allegations were reported, of which 55% related to sexual abuse, 19% to physical abuse, 11% were allegations of verbal abuse and 15% were in connection with emotional abuse.

Of those accused, 56% were priests, 22% were volunteers, 11% were parishioners and the remainder were staff or other people connected to the church.

There have been no prosecutions in relation to 61% of all cases reported, the church said. A further 15% resulted in a prosecution, 10% are still under investigation and the remaining 14% are described as "unknown historical cases".

More than a quarter of all the accused reported (27%) are now dead, according to the audit report prepared for the Scottish Catholic Safeguarding Service.

The church also announced a further audit of all cases of historic abuse allegations between 1947 and 2005, and a full review of its safeguarding procedures.

The three initiatives, it says, were launched "in a spirit of openness and transparency".

[StandFree1982]

Dirty bastards.

 

I'd never trust a fully grown man who believes in Santa, the tooth fairy or fairies in general. Let alone a man who basis his whole life around a book about a man who looks vaguely like Santa that has a son who does magic tricks. Especially when they have a vow to not do the most natural and NORMAL thing on the planet....to procreate! It's no wonder they go crazy and shag kids.

[Ke1t]

So how do you guys choose which bits to take seriously and which bits to dismiss as allegory?

 

Their shamans tell them which parts to believe and which parts to ignore/treat as allegory/change the meaning of.

 

"Of course there's a hell, and little demony wizards,, and if you don't believe exactly what you're told it's burny burny for you, I'm afraid. No, really, little demony wizards, dude.. I'm telling you, they exist. Yeah, Hell, it's all down there.

 

What's that? A talking snake? Shit, no, that's allegorical and stuff. How do WE know? Because we fucking do.

 

Noah's ark? Yeah, okay, that was allegory, except when the pope says it's not... then it's real. We'll fucking decide if it happened and if it didn't, and currently it didn't happen , okay? Well if the next Pope says it DID happen then it fucking happened.. I don't see what the problem is."

 

In certain African tribes the guy with the longest cock gets to decide what their gods say, in Catholicism it's the guy with the biggest hat.

 

A religious hierarchy based on hat-size.

 

"What's that? Oh, you think your hat knows more than my hat? Look at the fucking size of my hat. Yeah, your hat knows dick about shit. Keep walking, queerbait."

[Jings Crivvens]

I'm Catholic. But I don't go to church anymore. Stopped when I was about 16, much to my mother's dismay, especially when she works for the church. I ain't exactly a model catholic any way, 2 kids before marriage, married outwith a church, since separated and will be divorced sometime in the future. So I fairly went against the grain!!

 

The thing that annoys me now after watching a programme is not letting priests marry. They did hundred's of years ago, but a pope stopped it. reason being was that the church couldn't support wives/children. But we are now in an age when wives can have a job that they don't need to rely on the church to help them out financially. So they should reverse this old rule and let them marry. They say there is a shortage of priests, and there is all this sex cases. it might help put a stop to it. makes so much sense in my mind.