The Catholic Church

[michaelimagnus]

Limited number of people?  How do you know?  What constitutes a limited number of people to you?  I have been in many states  accross this country and observed many things as well as things abroad. Why is that less significant or limited?

 

How do I know? Because you referred to your experience in the Bible belt as your criteria for judgement. That's a very small sample to chose one's criteria if they make the judgement that religion is about money and lemmingism in your case. Please tell me all about your knowledge of Catholicism before you declare competance in this discussion as a valid opinion.

 

Furthermore, I never said there were not good Cathlics who help people.  I was responding to your claim it is ignorant to assume lemmings followed organized religion.  You and I have a difference of opinion.

 

It is not wrong to assume that making a judgement without enough background in a certain sphere is incorrect and ignorant. Would you tell a doctor that all medicine is about is stealing money from insurance companies and not taking care of patients and misdiagnose them to get larger coffers? No, because you aren't experienced in medicine to tell a doctor what to say or do. That's not an opinion, it's an error. Being that I studied to be a priest among good men who gave their lives to God in a way that would pale in comparison to anyone that I know because they dedicate their lives to it and in a way that no one in their right mind would do solely on how they feel, I can tell you from experience that it's not an opinion, you are in error. You are on the train for calling people like me a lemming and if you don't like being shown your lack of knowledge please exit stage left -Snaggle Puss

 

Where did I mention protestants in my previous reply?  There are more than just protestants in the bible belt, you know.

 

The Bible-belt is called that because it refers to protestants who believe in sola scriptura (only the Bible). If you do not understand the nuance of what you are saying when you refer to the Bible belt I recommend you stay away from such statements such as:

 

I grew up in the bible belt and AD hit the nail on the head. These moraly righteous hyporcrates could care less about religion.

 

I hope that makes sense to you.

 

How do you know I am non-religious?

 

It's called deductive logic, and as I said all men are religious. As I clarified earlier I should have said non-denominational. To agree with AD that all people who adhere to an organized religion is a lemming and then further your diatribe only shows your animosity towards organized religion. I've never seen anyone who is religiously fervent use such terms, agree that we are lemmings and then claim my ignorance not to know your position.

 

Once again, there are more than just protestants in the bible belt, shouldn't you know that with all your worldly knowledge?

 

You seem to be distraught that you were called out on the floor for your support of calling people lemmings. As I pointed out before, the use of the term Bible belt refers to the Protestants of the south, mostly of the Southern Baptist variety. If you want more info go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_Belt

 

What bugs me is your ability to lay claim that your experiences/views are somehow more valid than others when you don't know anything about them or their experiences

 

It should bug you that you think you have an opinion of a religion you don't know much about, you don't know what you have alluded to when referring to the Bible belt and have the audacity to call me out on the floor, and you think we are lemmings while remaining ignorant of the subject material in question. Being that I have personally given 6 years of my life knowing the Church from the inside out, spending time in Rome, being in a multitude of seminaries, monasteries, dicasteries, not to mention spending my entire life as a Catholic I am exceptionally qualified to speak on the subject material.

 

As it was once said: "The problem with the ignorant is that they are ignorant of their ignorance." -Mortimer Smith

[Alaska Darin]

Being that I have personally given 6 years of my life knowing the Church from the inside out, spending time in Rome, being in a multitude of seminaries, monasteries, dicasteries, not to mention spending my entire life as a Catholic I am exceptionally qualified to speak on the subject material.

362010[/snapback]

Yep, you know the Catholic church "inside and out" after 6 years of study. You must be the smartest man on the whole darn marble.

 

As it was once said: "The problem with the ignorant is that they are ignorant of their ignorance." -Mortimer Smith

Read that over and over again to yourself. Then try and figure out how it applies.

[michaelimagnus]

Having an idea of how I want a society to be is religion? That's a bit of an expansive definition, don't you think?

 

That's the perennial understand of the word religion and the philology of the word bears this defintion from it's use in Greek and Roman culture.

 

 

Before I comment, what do you mean by this part, especially the bold? Are you saying that the selfless people who gave us the foundation of western society are all Catholic? That's what your sentence says- is that your claim?

 

Yup, that's what I'm saying, and it's a fact. Hospitals were non-existant in most parts of the world, and the few that were established during the Dark Ages were destroyed by barbarian sacking until their restoration and founding new ones cared by religious orders of monks and nuns. There increase in western civilization was almost solely their work.

 

The Catholic Church gave rise to many religious orders given solely to the task of hospital labor out of love of God, and certainly not for money as monks and nuns took vows of poverty. In this country read the life of Mother Francis Cabrini and what she did to help immigrants.

 

Universities are solely a Catholic invention in western civilization, and the only mention of them in antiquity were some schools in Athens and Alexandria which did not survive with the fall of Greece, and they were built only for aristocracy.

 

The foundations where in Salerno and in Paris. The Dominicans of Paris started universities as well as the scholastic thought.

 

Even the development of law, tribunals, etc. were a carry over from Roman law which disappeared with the Roman empire, only to be re-instituted with Canon law.

 

Many inventions were born in the womb of Christendom. Goutenberg, the founder of the printing press, wanted to print Bibles. Mendel was a monk who wanted to split peas and get to the atomic nature of things. The furthering of astronomy and the inventions of pendulums, microscopes, barometers, etc. all came from Catholic Jesuits. While this may not be the culmination and fullness of science and technology you do not see parallel advances in the eastern world of Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. without an accompanying Christian over-view.

[rockpile]

As it was once said: "The problem with the ignorant is that they are ignorant of their ignorance." -Mortimer Smith

362010[/snapback]

Are you sure it was not Mortimer Snerd who said that?

[michaelimagnus]

Yep, you know the Catholic church "inside and out" after 6 years of study.  You must be the smartest man on the whole darn marble.

 

I said I was the smartest man on the whole marble? Oh that's right, only nebulous Alaskans can make such wise comments.

 

I'm far more qualified than someone who makes himself a sage on a Buffalo Bills message board.

 

Read that over and over again to yourself.  Then try and figure out how it applies.

 

I'll leave that honor to you.

[rockpile]

The furthering of astronomy and the inventions of pendulums, microscopes, barometers, etc. all came from Catholic Jesuits. While this may not be the culmination and fullness of science and technology you do not see parallel advances in the eastern world of Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. without an accompanying Christian over-view.

362024[/snapback]

on the other hand...

Galileo died in early 1642...

 

It was a sad end for so great a man to die condemned of heresy. His will indicated that he wished to be buried beside his father in the family tomb in the Basilica of Santa Croce but his relatives feared, quite rightly, that this would provoke opposition from the Church. His body was concealed and only placed in a fine tomb in the church in 1737 by the civil authorities against the wishes of many in the Church. On 31 October 1992, 350 years after Galileo's death, Pope John Paul II gave an address on behalf of the Catholic Church in which he admitted that errors had been made by the theological advisors in the case of Galileo. He declared the Galileo case closed, but he did not admit that the Church was wrong to convict Galileo on a charge of heresy because of his belief that the Earth rotates round the sun.

link

[michaelimagnus]

Galileo wasn't convicted of heresy because he believed the world went around the sun. He was convicted of heresy because he said the Bible was wrong on account that the earth went around the sun. He wasn't tortured, beaten, or thrown into exile, but he was ordered to do the recitation once a week for three years of the penitential psalms, which he had already been doing anyway and voluntarily continued to do afterwards, a practice that would take only fifteen minutes per week. He admitted that he was wrong for what he did, namely, to start a rebellion by writing in the vernacular to incite the crowd without going through the normal means of scientific critiques of peer review. Strangely, Galileo's theory of the earth going around the sun was found to be incorrect on his basis of discovery by tides of the sea which are not based on the sun, but lunar cycles.

 

If you want to know more about the subject look up the word/name Copernicus and see how his discovery (not Galileo's) was that the world went around the sun. He never ventured to say the Bible was errant on that account and was made a Cardinal for his scientific discovery which was lauded by the Church.

 

Lest we also forget heliocentrism is still theory, not fact.

[Dr. Fong]

Lest we also forget heliocentrism is still theory, not fact.

362043[/snapback]

 

Dude, you have GOT to be kidding there right? Don't fall for the most tired trick in the book. Theory in the world of Science is not the same as the parlance of the layman.

[beausox]

Of course, there's no such thing as a "non-religions curmodgeon", since

  Is this beausox, or are you just learn at his knee?

361961[/snapback]

 

Are you serious? You cannot even copy correctly which is an important skill for you since an original thought has eluded to date. It is "non religIOUS" and curmUdgeon. Admittedly those are minor spelling errors but....... The "are you just learn at his knee" exposes you.

[michaelimagnus]

Dude,

 

definition of theory is not equvalent to a fact. The recent imposition of the scientific community to impose theory as fact is constantly attempted. This attempt to persuade anyone that if you make enough excuses why something is almost a fact it must a fact is pseudo-intellectual activity. So much for science being impartial when imposing itself.

 

Facts are unmistakeable principles. The fact that heliocentrism is still theory means it's not a fact, and no amount of excuses under the guise of nuance or parlance is sufficient to make a theory a fact.

 

I'm a heliocentrist, but I would like to remind you that there are a group of scientists that are becoming geocentrists based on several different angles that show conclusively that it is only a theory.

 

In the book The Biggest Bangs: The Mystery of Gamma-Ray Bursts, Jonathan I. Katz, professor of physics at Washington University, states in his chapter titled, The Copernican Dilemma:

 

The uniform distribution of burst arrival directions tells us that the distribution of gamma-ray-burst sources in space is a sphere or spherical shell, with us at the center (some other extremely contrived and implausible distributions are also possible). But Copernicus taught us that we are not in a special preferred position in the universe...

 

In 1975, astrophysicist J. P Varshni stunned astronomers with his evidence that earth was in the center of the universe. Varshni writes:

 

...the quasars in the 57 groups...are arranged on 57 spherical shells with the Earth as the center....The cosmological interpretation of the red shift in the spectra of quasars leads to yet another paradoxical result: namely, that the Earth is the center of the universe. The arrangement of quasars on certain spherical shells is only with respect to the Earth. These shells would disappear if viewed from another galaxy or quasar (1976, Astrophysics and Space Science, 43:3).

 

Astronomist Fred Holye, a heliocentrist had this to say:

 

So we come back full circle to what was said at the beginning of this book. Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is “right” and the Ptolemaic theory “wrong” in any meaningful physical sense. The two theories, when improved by adding terms involving the square and higher powers of the eccentricities of the planetary orbits, are physically equivalent to one another. What we can say, however, is that we would hardly have come to recognize that this is so if scientists over four centuries or more had not elected to follow the Copernican point of view. The Ptolemaic system would have proved sterile because progress would have proven too difficult.

 

See? No proof, just theory, although highly probable. I know a guy who will give you $1,000 if you can prove that heliocentrism is a fact. I don't agree with his geocentrist position at all, but he puts his money where his mouth is. Maybe you should go for his $1,000 challenge and show him it's just parlance.

[michaelimagnus]

Are you serious? You cannot even copy correctly which is an important skill for you since an original thought has eluded to date. It is "non religIOUS" and curmUdgeon. Admittedly those are minor spelling errors but....... The "are you just learn at his knee" exposes you.

362062[/snapback]

 

 

May I add that anyone who calls himself a "crap throwing monkey" shows their own disposition of intelligence.

[Chilly]

I've read this board for 5 years now and I've never made a post before but this thread got me disturbed.

 

I know you probably don't believe this, but religion is something inherent in all of us. Most definitions of a religion pertain to an organized group of people that have certain beliefs or doctrines. In it's essential definition a religion is a public belief of societal laws and government for the good of man. Just because you don't believe in an organized religion doesn't mean you don't have a religious ideology of society. LA and Darin I know you have a very specific idea of how you want society to be and that is a religious outlook, although not a specific denominational outlook.

 

I'm a Catholic, and I'm not a normal Catholic in the sense that I just go to Church on Sundays because it's what I do or how I'm raised. I believe God gave us supernatural truth and I have to follow that truth to achieve salvation. God doesn't need me, but I need Him in order to know things which are not knowable in the natural sphere. To claim lemmings follow organized religions is simply ignorant.

 

I'm acutely aware of the politics and money struggles within the Catholic faith (as I once studied to be a priest among men who were devoted to the poor and impoverished and lived a true life of poverty), and in an analogous way I'm familiar with the same struggles within our government. In neither case does that cause me to stop being a Catholic or being an American because I'm deeply against their politics and money-devouring ways. There are more good men and women giving their lives to God for the good of all of us on earth in one state than all the non-religious curmudgeons who protest things they don't understand, and claim all those who are not of their ilk are sheeple. 

 

I recommend you look up the many groups of Catholics who have done nothing but benefit the lives of many people who otherwise would be left to destruction, and the many selfless people who gave us the foundation of western society (hospitals, universities, experimental sciences, etc.), who are all Catholic FYI.

361949[/snapback]

 

 

Dude are you mentally retarded?

[Dr. Fong]

Dude,

 

definition of theory is not equvalent to a fact. The recent imposition of the scientific community to impose theory as fact is constantly attempted. This attempt to persuade anyone that if you make enough excuses why something is almost a fact it must a fact is pseudo-intellectual activity. So much for science being impartial when imposing itself.

 

Facts are unmistakeable principles. The fact that heliocentrism is still theory means it's not a fact, and no amount of excuses under the guise of nuance or parlance is sufficient to make a theory a fact.

 

362063[/snapback]

 

Here

 

That's another group that likes to argue the semantics of theory and fact. It should keep you busy for a while.

[beausox]

Do I hear the baying of the wolves?

[RkFast]

If I may go back to Toms original point.....

 

Tom...I think youre off base here a bit. What you picked up on, especially with the collections was the Parish taking care of its business. Every Mass there is an offering, sometimes two for this or that, and the Priest or Deacon or whomever made the announcement was just making sure the Parishoners knew what was going on. WHEN those annoncements are made really doesnt matter. Dont look too much into that.

 

The homily? Thats always the Priest's time to speak openly, out of The Book. If he wanted to devote it to a fund drive or something else, he was totally within bounds to do so. A little wierd, I admit. Actually, quite strange on a day like today. But again, nothing way, way out of line.

[beausox]

Galileo wasn't convicted of heresy because he believed the world went around the sun. He was convicted of heresy because he said the Bible was wrong on account that the earth went around the sun. He wasn't tortured, beaten, or thrown into exile, but  he was ordered to do the recitation once a week for three years of the penitential psalms, which he had already been doing anyway and voluntarily continued to do afterwards, a practice that would take only fifteen minutes per week. He admitted that he was wrong for what he did, namely, to start a rebellion by writing in the vernacular to incite the crowd without going through the normal means of scientific critiques of peer review. Strangely, Galileo's theory of the earth going around the sun was found to be incorrect on his basis of discovery by tides of the sea which are not based on the sun, but lunar cycles.

 

If you want to know more about the subject look up the word/name Copernicus and see how his discovery (not Galileo's) was that the world went around the sun. He never ventured to say the Bible was errant on that account and was made a Cardinal for his scientific discovery which was lauded by the Church.

 

Lest we also forget heliocentrism is still theory, not fact.

362043[/snapback]

 

Catholicism adopted a solar calendar long before Great Britain who persisted and insisted on a calendar which by mid- eighteenth century was eleven days behind(sic). I refer you to the Calendar Riots of 1752 for amusement.

[Alaska Darin]

I said I was the smartest man on the whole marble? Oh that's right, only nebulous Alaskans can make such wise comments.

I guess you have a hard time with sarcasm - which along with your abject defensiveness pretty much proves you are Catholic. Congrats. Since you seem to be confused (which is one of your stronger traits), you never stated you were the smartest man on the whole marble. Let me know if I need to explain anything else you think you said.

 

Oh that's right, only nebulous Alaskans can make such wise comments.

Nebulous? Not sure what you're getting at but for someone who has supposedly read this board for 5 years you either don't know much about the posters or are trying to impress people with big words no matter how wrong the usage. I doubt quite seriously anyone else here would use nebulous to describe me, of all people.

 

I'm far more qualified than someone who makes himself a sage on a Buffalo Bills message board.

Narcissism, thy name is michaelimagnus. At least you have a high opinion of yourself. That's gotta count for something. It's more than a little humorous that someone who misuses the term nebulous about a certain poster can come back not even a sentence later and make comparisons about one's own wisdom.

 

I'll leave that honor to you.

362028[/snapback]

Super. You tolerant Hypocrites, err...Catholics sure are swell.

[michaelimagnus]

I guess you have a hard time with sarcasm - which along with your abject defensiveness pretty much proves you are Catholic. 

 

Wasn't trying to be sarcastic. I guess intellectual acuity in Alaska is running thin these days.

 

 

Since you seem to be confused (which is one of your stronger traits), you never stated you were the smartest man on the whole marble.  Let me know if I need to explain anything else you think you said.

 

For someone who calls me confused over nothing, and then pokes around with insults hoping to get some kind of diatribe from me you're wasting your time. If you think you are half the intellect you think you are I recommend spending more time reading something useful for a change than reading your own sarcasm. Who knows you might do some self-realization that anyone who spends their life posting 18,000 times + might not have a life to begin with.

 

Nebulous?  Not sure what you're getting at but for someone who has supposedly read this board for 5 years you either don't know much about the posters or are trying to impress people with big words no matter how wrong the usage. 

 

I know what the word means quite well thanks for asking. I've never seen anyone put down others views without putting your own on paper for others to critique clearly and definitively. Look how you played the political season of critiques. You fit a mold of finding chinks (at least in your own mind) in others' armor while not exposing yourself for criticism with what you really stand for. You critique positions more than you stand for things. If you want an example look in this thread. Self-realization might be more than you bargained for.

 

Narcissism, thy name is michaelimagnus.  At least you have a high opinion of yourself.

 

Or so you believe standing aloft so many posts of one-liners. Look in the mirror, or maybe you haven't moved from it yet.

 

You tolerant Hypocrites, err...Catholics sure are swell.

 

I tolerate the person, not the stupidity, which apparently is your specialty.

[jimshiz]

The Roman Catholic Religion is often very different than the human beings, priests and elders of the church, who manage it on a local parish or diocese level. It is unfortunate what some humans do while they "represent" the religion. But, please don't condemn an entire religion due to human frailties.

[Rubes]

This thread rocks.