You are jumping between issues here. If the Catholic Church is not of divine origin, then what does it matter whether or not they have married priests or anything else? The whole thing is worthless in that case, so why waste time discussing how to fix it?
[QUOTE]That all true, but only if you accept everything you are force fed. Let's face the facts here. The Bible was put together (at least the stuff relating to Jesus) hundreds of years after his death. Sure they had criteria for what you had to do to get into the book, but people set those criteria, and since people are fallible than the method they used was fallible. You can't build a castle on a foundation of sand.
The pope is also a man, and therefore fallible.[/QUOTE]
According to Scripture and Tradition, Christ established his church and set Peter as its earthly head. He also gave his promise that the gates of hell would never triumph over this church. That seems clear enough to me.
[QUOTE]In the very earliest church, there wans't a pope at all. The only head of the church was God, and there was only a Bishope of Rome, just like there were Bishops of other major cities. The Bishop in Rome came into power and precedence after the EMPORER of the "Holy" Roman Empire decided that it was more convient that way politically.[/QUOTE]
But that is simply not true. The New Testament records Christ giving Peter the authority to lead the Church on Earth. The Acts of the Apostles shows quite clearly that Peter played this role. And he certainly felt he had the authority to pass this office on. Irenaeus records that specifically. That papacy has certainly evolved, played different roles over the centuries, but the office and its core purpose has existed since the time of Christ.
[QUOTE]As for the Pope, his role was established by Paul, who had a mysoginistic attitude towards women and desperately hated the act of sex....thus the not allowing priests to marry.[/QUOTE]
That is outright slanderous. Paul saw great value in celibacy but never devalued women or the sacrament of matrimony (or, by extension, the marital act, which is essential to that). Paul understood love better than you or I ever will.
[QUOTE]If you want some real, empirical evidence of what the early Church and the office of the Pope was like, Read "The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason".[/QUOTE]
I suggest skipping that nonsense and reading the writings of the early Church fathers. There is no better source than, well, the source.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson">Thomas Quinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson">Thomas Quinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Who needs the Catholic church to fight AIDS in Africa?
That would be like expecting Paris Hilton to help fight poverty.[/QUOTE]
The problem is that millions of Africans are devout Catholics; they will listen to Ratzi the Nazi regardless of what he says.[/QUOTE]
Once again, that's a load of bullshit to justify your point of view, Caspar.
First of all, I come from a country where 95% of the people are Catholic, and probably less than 5% of those people agree completely agree with what the Catholic church says.
My grandmother happens to be the most devout Catholic person I know in my family. She goes to church every single Sunday, and prays the rosary all the time. Yet, she agrees with the right to use euthanasia and most of the time she votes for moderate liberals. When the stories of child abuse by priests came on the news, she agreed that if proven guilty they should be prosecuted like anybody else, and the church shouldn't cover up any evidence.
She also agrees that a lot of people twist religion in order to push their own agenda.
So you see, Caspar. Even Catholics are not as narrow minded as you think they are. I suggest you get your facts straight before making accusations based on generalizations.[/QUOTE]
I have a mother who comes from Africa and experienced this first-hand. Whoops. I think I'm qualified.
Religion is a very important aspect of life there, and especially amongst the poor, a large majority, almost all of them black and poorly educated. The only things they hear of the world beyond the borders of their community comes from the priest, who echoes Rome. Of course there are exceptions, but few and far between.[/QUOTE]
That argument still doesn't make much sense when today the majority of people in Africa are not Catholic, and even still most Africans have not received any kind of religious doctrine. Islam remains the dominant religion in Africa (mostly in Northern Africa).
The Western Republic of Congo (which has the biggest Catholic population in Africa) barely has 50% of Catholics from the total population.
True, Catholic missionaries were for hundreds of years the only ambassadors of Western culture to Africa, but they could barely expand Catholicism to the majority population, and could only teach their doctrine on a few designated areas. The Catholic Church is definitely not a driving influence on the African population.
Now, when it comes to the AIDS and condoms issue, the Catholic Church has its own dogmatic point of view and it barely has an influence (even in the most Catholic countries in the world).
If you expect Catholic missionaires to start giving away condoms in Africa, then keep dreaming. The day that happens, will be the day Muslim women in the Middle East will be allowed to wear bikinis on the beach.
It's no surprise that the Catholic Church's dogma doesn't promote sex, and condoms are a part of it. On the other hand, the Catholic Church is not in a position to ban condoms in any nation. So there's no reason to whine.
The Pope or any other high official of the Catholic Church could say anything he wants about how evil is sex, but barely anyone will listen.
From my very own personal experience I was raised Catholic and I went to a Catholic church. The reason why many kids like me didn't get laid in their teens was because we were too nerdy, too ugly, or too immature to get chicks to pay attention to us.
Never once it was the Catholic Church the reason why we didn't get nookie.
That would be like expecting Paris Hilton to help fight poverty.[/QUOTE]
The problem is that millions of Africans are devout Catholics; they will listen to Ratzi the Nazi regardless of what he says.[/QUOTE]
Once again, that's a load of bullshit to justify your point of view, Caspar.
First of all, I come from a country where 95% of the people are Catholic, and probably less than 5% of those people agree completely agree with what the Catholic church says.
My grandmother happens to be the most devout Catholic person I know in my family. She goes to church every single Sunday, and prays the rosary all the time. Yet, she agrees with the right to use euthanasia and most of the time she votes for moderate liberals. When the stories of child abuse by priests came on the news, she agreed that if proven guilty they should be prosecuted like anybody else, and the church shouldn't cover up any evidence.
She also agrees that a lot of people twist religion in order to push their own agenda.
So you see, Caspar. Even Catholics are not as narrow minded as you think they are. I suggest you get your facts straight before making accusations based on generalizations.[/QUOTE]
I have a mother who comes from Africa and experienced this first-hand. Whoops. I think I'm qualified.
Religion is a very important aspect of life there, and especially amongst the poor, a large majority, almost all of them black and poorly educated. The only things they hear of the world beyond the borders of their community comes from the priest, who echoes Rome. Of course there are exceptions, but few and far between.[/QUOTE]
That argument still doesn't make much sense when today the majority of people in Africa are not Catholic, and even still most Africans have not received any kind of religious doctrine. Islam remains the dominant religion in Africa (mostly in Northern Africa).
The Western Republic of Congo (which has the biggest Catholic population in Africa) barely has 50% of Catholics from the total population.
True, Catholic missionaries were for hundreds of years the only ambassadors of Western culture to Africa, but they could barely expand Catholicism to the majority population, and could only teach their doctrine on a few designated areas. The Catholic Church is definitely not a driving influence on the African population.
Now, when it comes to the AIDS and condoms issue, the Catholic Church has its own dogmatic point of view and it barely has an influence (even in the most Catholic countries in the world).
If you expect Catholic missionaires to start giving away condoms in Africa, then keep dreaming. The day that happens, will be the day Muslim women in the Middle East will be allowed to wear bikinis on the beach.
It's no surprise that the Catholic Church's dogma doesn't promote sex, and condoms are a part of it. On the other hand, the Catholic Church is not in a position to ban condoms in any nation. So there's no reason to whine.
The Pope or any other high official of the Catholic Church could say anything he wants about how evil is sex, but barely anyone will listen.
From my very own personal experience I was raised Catholic and I went to a Catholic church. The reason why many kids like me didn't get laid in their teens was because we were too nerdy, too ugly, or too immature to get chicks to pay attention to us.
Never once it was the Catholic Church the reason why we didn't get nookie.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson">Thomas Quinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]One slight problem: in the gospels, Jesus told Peter he'd get 'the keys to the kingdom of heaven', and that whatever Peter would make law on earth, God would make law in heaven.[/QUOTE]
And this is all based on the wrong meaning of the word "heaven". The early church adapted the "three-tiered universe" idea of heaven, whereas, to one who studies the historical Jesus and takes his non-early-church-tainted voice seriously, the original meaning of "kingdom of heaven" was an ideal which could be found right here on earth. The writers made Jesus into whoever they saw fit. All four gospel accounts are very different, not to mention Paul, who wrote before the gospels, and knows virtually nothing about the life of Jesus... because it was all made up (and/or taken from other earlier traditions) later on. It's amazing how so many people believe the stuff, yet they know so little about the history. Honestly, the only way people can keep believing these days is to be ignorant of all well-informed modern commentary and scholarship on the subject.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Farlander wrote: [/QUOTENAME]If we raised our children to be good Catholics, to live lives of love and charity, not to be selfish, and to explore fully the will of God in their lives, we would have plenty of priests.[/QUOTE]
Three cheers for the open-mindedness of catholics like you. So you're saying if everyone is indoctrinated with your beliefs which include discrediting relativism and free choice, then we'd all be so much better off? In other words, you're saying there's no alternative theology or philosophy can possibly match or better the catholic ones? That's just plain ignorance of the world around you. Here's the short of it: if we raise our children without monotheistic religion, then they will grow up to be emotionally and spiritually self-sufficient, rather than feeling the need to rely on an unearthly deity. They will grow up to seek justice and do their best to solve the problems of the world all on their own, like adults, without the need of a parent-like being in the sky.
And for the record, this world does not need "charity" as you suggested. Charity is like a band-aid; it runs out. Justice, on the other hand, is long-term solution to global issues. This should be fairly common knowledge by now.
As for the "will of God"... I've really had enough of people who use the word "God" to describe something or someone that is an absolute, as if we are required to act according to such a will of a such being. The idea of God is a philosophical one, not a scientific one. Until this God you speak of is proven to be an absolute, then you people have no business cramming it down anyone's throat. It's a philosophy, and your philosophy, not mine.
[QUOTE]The Church has no right to ordain women. This is not a law that can be changed; it is a matter of the nature of the sacrament of Holy Orders.[/QUOTE]
That's only if you choose to believe they are orders. One possible alternative is to consider the possibility that these may not be laws. You and your church are choosing to treat men different than women. Nobody has forced you.
[QUOTE]If the Catholic Church is not of divine origin, then what does it matter whether or not they have married priests or anything else? The whole thing is worthless in that case, so why waste time discussing how to fix it?[/QUOTE]
That is exactly the reason to discuss. It is a very valid discussion in this day and age. Today's world questions the validity of the church. Day after day, the world of rationality is winning people from the church. If one is aware of modern scholarship, it is not difficult to see that every doctrine and dogma was created by the church. One can only see it if they are brave enough to read the right books and study the
And this is all based on the wrong meaning of the word "heaven". The early church adapted the "three-tiered universe" idea of heaven, whereas, to one who studies the historical Jesus and takes his non-early-church-tainted voice seriously, the original meaning of "kingdom of heaven" was an ideal which could be found right here on earth. The writers made Jesus into whoever they saw fit. All four gospel accounts are very different, not to mention Paul, who wrote before the gospels, and knows virtually nothing about the life of Jesus... because it was all made up (and/or taken from other earlier traditions) later on. It's amazing how so many people believe the stuff, yet they know so little about the history. Honestly, the only way people can keep believing these days is to be ignorant of all well-informed modern commentary and scholarship on the subject.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Farlander wrote: [/QUOTENAME]If we raised our children to be good Catholics, to live lives of love and charity, not to be selfish, and to explore fully the will of God in their lives, we would have plenty of priests.[/QUOTE]
Three cheers for the open-mindedness of catholics like you. So you're saying if everyone is indoctrinated with your beliefs which include discrediting relativism and free choice, then we'd all be so much better off? In other words, you're saying there's no alternative theology or philosophy can possibly match or better the catholic ones? That's just plain ignorance of the world around you. Here's the short of it: if we raise our children without monotheistic religion, then they will grow up to be emotionally and spiritually self-sufficient, rather than feeling the need to rely on an unearthly deity. They will grow up to seek justice and do their best to solve the problems of the world all on their own, like adults, without the need of a parent-like being in the sky.
And for the record, this world does not need "charity" as you suggested. Charity is like a band-aid; it runs out. Justice, on the other hand, is long-term solution to global issues. This should be fairly common knowledge by now.
As for the "will of God"... I've really had enough of people who use the word "God" to describe something or someone that is an absolute, as if we are required to act according to such a will of a such being. The idea of God is a philosophical one, not a scientific one. Until this God you speak of is proven to be an absolute, then you people have no business cramming it down anyone's throat. It's a philosophy, and your philosophy, not mine.
[QUOTE]The Church has no right to ordain women. This is not a law that can be changed; it is a matter of the nature of the sacrament of Holy Orders.[/QUOTE]
That's only if you choose to believe they are orders. One possible alternative is to consider the possibility that these may not be laws. You and your church are choosing to treat men different than women. Nobody has forced you.
[QUOTE]If the Catholic Church is not of divine origin, then what does it matter whether or not they have married priests or anything else? The whole thing is worthless in that case, so why waste time discussing how to fix it?[/QUOTE]
That is exactly the reason to discuss. It is a very valid discussion in this day and age. Today's world questions the validity of the church. Day after day, the world of rationality is winning people from the church. If one is aware of modern scholarship, it is not difficult to see that every doctrine and dogma was created by the church. One can only see it if they are brave enough to read the right books and study the
You know what my favorite source of stories about sex and violence is?
The old testament.
The old testament.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Paul McCartney Junior wrote: [/QUOTENAME]You know what my favorite source of stories about sex and violence is?
The old testament.[/QUOTE]
Haha, yeah... in Genesis, Jacob is what we would call in modern terms a "slut". He knocks up four or five women in two pages.
The old testament.[/QUOTE]
Haha, yeah... in Genesis, Jacob is what we would call in modern terms a "slut". He knocks up four or five women in two pages.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Paul McCartney Junior wrote: [/QUOTENAME]You know what my favorite source of stories about sex and violence is?
The old testament.[/QUOTE]
Haha, yeah... in Genesis, Jacob is what we would call in modern terms a "slut". He knocks up four or five women in two pages.
[/QUOTE]
Then there's a guy named David, and he wants this other guy's wife, so he orders him to take the frontline in a battle so he gets killed.
Then another favorite is a dude called Abraham; and he tries to sacrifice his son but angels make him kill the goat instead.
The old testament.[/QUOTE]
Haha, yeah... in Genesis, Jacob is what we would call in modern terms a "slut". He knocks up four or five women in two pages.
[/QUOTE]
Then there's a guy named David, and he wants this other guy's wife, so he orders him to take the frontline in a battle so he gets killed.
Then another favorite is a dude called Abraham; and he tries to sacrifice his son but angels make him kill the goat instead.
Soddomah and Gomorrah make a Motley Crue backstage party look like Sesame Street.
Is that fun to read or what?
Is that fun to read or what?
[QUOTE]So you're saying if everyone is indoctrinated with your beliefs which include discrediting relativism and free choice, then we'd all be so much better off?[/QUOTE]
Yes. Of course, Catholic teaching does not deny "free choice" - quite the contrary. It also teaches that your choices will have consequences. But I was speaking of Catholic parents here. Why non-Catholics would be concerned with how to encourage priestly vocations in their children, I have no idea.
[QUOTE]In other words, you're saying there's no alternative theology or philosophy can possibly match or better the catholic ones? That's just plain ignorance of the world around you.[/QUOTE]
What I think is that Catholicism is the only divinely established religion, and so it and it alone contains the fullness of truth revealed to man by God. The exception is Judiasm, which was also divinely established, but has been superseded. That is not to say study of other religions and philosphies is worthlesss. Quite the opposite. But you can't dump all of that on a little child. You just have to do the best you can to teach the child the truth as you know it best. Children grow and learn, and no matter what you say or do, they will eventually have to decide things for themselves.
[QUOTE]Here's the short of it: if we raise our children without monotheistic religion, then they will grow up to be emotionally and spiritually self-sufficient, rather than feeling the need to rely on an unearthly deity. They will grow up to seek justice and do their best to solve the problems of the world all on their own, like adults, without the need of a parent-like being in the sky.[/QUOTE]
What will happen in that senario is that we will raise a crop of fools stumbliing around in the dark to whom truth and justice have no meaning whatsoever, except for what they arbitrarily decide for themselves.
[QUOTE]And for the record, this world does not need "charity" as you suggested. Charity is like a band-aid; it runs out. Justice, on the other hand, is long-term solution to global issues. This should be fairly common knowledge by now.[/QUOTE]
The theological meaning of "charity" is not (only) aid for the poor. It is "love", meaning selfless devotion to the good of others. There is no charity without justice.
[QUOTE]As for the "will of God"... I've really had enough of people who use the word "God" to describe something or someone that is an absolute, as if we are required to act according to such a will of a such being. The idea of God is a philosophical one, not a scientific one. Until this God you speak of is proven to be an absolute, then you people have no business cramming it down anyone's throat. It's a philosophy, and your philosophy, not mine.[/QUOTE]
Since I was speaking as a Catholic as to how Catholic parents might encourage priestly vocations in their Catholic children, I cannot fathom what this has to do with you at all.
[QUOTE]That's only if you choose to believe they are orders. One possible alternative is to consider the possibility that these may not be laws. You and your church are choosing to treat men different than women. Nobody has forced you.[/QUOTE]
"Holy Orders" is the sacrament of priesthood. "Orders" does not mean "commands." For each sacrament the form and matter must be correct, otherwise there is no sacrament. Holy Orders can only be conferred on men. In the same way, a priest could not use Wonderbread and grape juice for the Sacrament of Eucharist. There is nothing anyone, including the pope, can do to change that. It is an incident of the sacrament.
[QUOTE]That is exactly the reason to discuss. It is a very valid discussion in this day and age. Today's world questions the validity of the church. Day after day, the world of rationality is winning people from the church. If one is aware of modern scholarship, i
Yes. Of course, Catholic teaching does not deny "free choice" - quite the contrary. It also teaches that your choices will have consequences. But I was speaking of Catholic parents here. Why non-Catholics would be concerned with how to encourage priestly vocations in their children, I have no idea.
[QUOTE]In other words, you're saying there's no alternative theology or philosophy can possibly match or better the catholic ones? That's just plain ignorance of the world around you.[/QUOTE]
What I think is that Catholicism is the only divinely established religion, and so it and it alone contains the fullness of truth revealed to man by God. The exception is Judiasm, which was also divinely established, but has been superseded. That is not to say study of other religions and philosphies is worthlesss. Quite the opposite. But you can't dump all of that on a little child. You just have to do the best you can to teach the child the truth as you know it best. Children grow and learn, and no matter what you say or do, they will eventually have to decide things for themselves.
[QUOTE]Here's the short of it: if we raise our children without monotheistic religion, then they will grow up to be emotionally and spiritually self-sufficient, rather than feeling the need to rely on an unearthly deity. They will grow up to seek justice and do their best to solve the problems of the world all on their own, like adults, without the need of a parent-like being in the sky.[/QUOTE]
What will happen in that senario is that we will raise a crop of fools stumbliing around in the dark to whom truth and justice have no meaning whatsoever, except for what they arbitrarily decide for themselves.
[QUOTE]And for the record, this world does not need "charity" as you suggested. Charity is like a band-aid; it runs out. Justice, on the other hand, is long-term solution to global issues. This should be fairly common knowledge by now.[/QUOTE]
The theological meaning of "charity" is not (only) aid for the poor. It is "love", meaning selfless devotion to the good of others. There is no charity without justice.
[QUOTE]As for the "will of God"... I've really had enough of people who use the word "God" to describe something or someone that is an absolute, as if we are required to act according to such a will of a such being. The idea of God is a philosophical one, not a scientific one. Until this God you speak of is proven to be an absolute, then you people have no business cramming it down anyone's throat. It's a philosophy, and your philosophy, not mine.[/QUOTE]
Since I was speaking as a Catholic as to how Catholic parents might encourage priestly vocations in their Catholic children, I cannot fathom what this has to do with you at all.
[QUOTE]That's only if you choose to believe they are orders. One possible alternative is to consider the possibility that these may not be laws. You and your church are choosing to treat men different than women. Nobody has forced you.[/QUOTE]
"Holy Orders" is the sacrament of priesthood. "Orders" does not mean "commands." For each sacrament the form and matter must be correct, otherwise there is no sacrament. Holy Orders can only be conferred on men. In the same way, a priest could not use Wonderbread and grape juice for the Sacrament of Eucharist. There is nothing anyone, including the pope, can do to change that. It is an incident of the sacrament.
[QUOTE]That is exactly the reason to discuss. It is a very valid discussion in this day and age. Today's world questions the validity of the church. Day after day, the world of rationality is winning people from the church. If one is aware of modern scholarship, i
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson">Thomas Quinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]One slight problem: in the gospels, Jesus told Peter he'd get 'the keys to the kingdom of heaven', and that whatever Peter would make law on earth, God would make law in heaven.[/QUOTE]
And this is all based on the wrong meaning of the word "heaven". [/QUOTE]
Yes, I agree. I know enough of biblical science for that, but the church refuses to bend to it.
And this is all based on the wrong meaning of the word "heaven". [/QUOTE]
Yes, I agree. I know enough of biblical science for that, but the church refuses to bend to it.
I must go part the red sea now, please excuse me
Time to drop this debate, I think.
You can't have a logical debate with people who are brainwashed into not accepting logic
You can't have a logical debate with people who are brainwashed into not accepting logic
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Time to drop this debate, I think.
You can't have a logical debate with people who are brainwashed into not accepting logic[/QUOTE]
While Farlander is a very good and tactful communicator, I just don't see eye to eye with him 90% of the time. It's impossible to debate a topic with someone when both parties have a completely different starting point.
CMU, check your email!
You can't have a logical debate with people who are brainwashed into not accepting logic[/QUOTE]
While Farlander is a very good and tactful communicator, I just don't see eye to eye with him 90% of the time. It's impossible to debate a topic with someone when both parties have a completely different starting point.
CMU, check your email!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Time to drop this debate, I think.
You can't have a logical debate with people who are brainwashed into not accepting logic[/QUOTE]
While Farlander is a very good and tactful communicator, I just don't see eye to eye with him 90% of the time. It's impossible to debate a topic with someone when both parties have a completely different starting point.
CMU, check your email!
[/QUOTE]
That's true. If I were more awake, I'd probably be a better debator...it made sense in my head when I typed it, but I had been about 20 hours with no sleep at the time...
Checked my e-mail. Nothing there. Did you send me something? Try the cmuhistorygirl@queenzone.com one if you did.
You can't have a logical debate with people who are brainwashed into not accepting logic[/QUOTE]
While Farlander is a very good and tactful communicator, I just don't see eye to eye with him 90% of the time. It's impossible to debate a topic with someone when both parties have a completely different starting point.
CMU, check your email!
[/QUOTE]
That's true. If I were more awake, I'd probably be a better debator...it made sense in my head when I typed it, but I had been about 20 hours with no sleep at the time...
Checked my e-mail. Nothing there. Did you send me something? Try the cmuhistorygirl@queenzone.com one if you did.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Checked my e-mail. Nothing there. Did you send me something? Try the cmuhistorygirl@queenzone.com one if you did.[/QUOTE]
Oh no! Well, I forgot what it was about now! Haha... maybe it'll come to me later!
Oh no! Well, I forgot what it was about now! Haha... maybe it'll come to me later!