Im no longer going to be a Catholic

[qui_est_ce]

I am closer to that, yes. Having been raised in a very religious family I have great difficulty giving up on religion. But I am coming closer. I haven’t taken down my beautiful crucifix above my desk, but I’ve considered doing so. I cannot go that far yet, and maybe never, I don’t know yet. It’s a journey, as you I am sure understand.

Don’t tell Old Scholar you have a Crucifix - he says people who display Crucifixes are recrucifying Christ

Yes it’s a journey. I’ve never fallen away or lost my faith, so I can’t possibley understand what you are going through.

I have heard that some people go through a desert experience and stop believing. (Rob and a few others on this thread tell their stories).

Might I suggest you keep the Crucifix if for no other reason than it’s a beautiful work of art, and a reminder of a most loving thing one human being can do for another?

I just had dinner last with a revert who came back at Easter after being away for 40 years. I love being around her because she is so on fire. A lot of people stay away from her for the same reason. Sad. Now she has to change friends. Kind of like when you stop drinking, you have to leave your old drinking buddies. Lot of people already have enough friends by that age. I’m blessed to be able to call her my friend.

 

[Namesake]

Don’t tell Old Scholar you have a Crucifix - he says people who display Crucifixes are recrucifying Christ

Yes it’s a journey. I’ve never fallen away or lost my faith, so I can’t possibley understand what you are going through.

I have heard that some people go through a desert experience and stop believing. (Rob and a few others on this thread tell their stories).

Might I suggest you keep the Crucifix if for no other reason than it’s a beautiful work of art, and a reminder of a most loving thing one human being can do for another?

I just had dinner last with a revert who came back at Easter after being away for 40 years. I love being around her because she is so on fire. A lot of people stay away from her for the same reason. Sad. Now she has to change friends. Kind of like when you stop drinking, you have to leave your old drinking buddies. Lot of people already have enough friends by that age. I’m blessed to be able to call her my friend.

What a lovely reply and I think you kindly.

 

[Ghoti]

I would say so now if it were true, which it is not.

From an earlier post, you said you don’t believe in God. How does that not make you atheist?

Or are you saying you don’t believe in Yahweh? But might believe in another god? (I doubt the second, because of your dismissive remark re fairies).

Thanks.

 

[estesbob]

I would say so now if it were true, which it is not.

So according to you no rational person in command of the facts of Catholicism could possibly reject Catholicism?

I think we’re parsing words here. No rational person who believes the facts of Catholicism could possibly reject it. And anyone who seriously studies the history of the church would be hard-pressed to reject it also.

I’m glad to hear you’re not an atheist. You will be in my prayers!

 

[qui_est_ce]

I have to admit no such thing. The Catholic Church only supported what was in their best interest, not what was true in a secular sense such as science. The RCC was dragged into the Enlightenment. In fact, the Enlightenment was essentially a rebellion against the RCC that fortunately resulted in freeing the minds of people oppressed by the RCC in Europe for hundreds of years. The RCC lost a lot of control because of the Enlightenment.

I do not have to admit that the RCC was a patron of science at all.

What is your definition of patron? I call it one who supports financially and encouragingly. The CC WAS the enlightenment in the Dark Ages. It was the CC who guarded culture, Scripture, literature and art in her monasteries under the siege of barbarians and Vikings.

As for the Church oppressing people, I see a great many Saints whose great minds made them Doctors of the Church. St. Teresa of Avila, St. Ignatius of Loyola are two that come to mind.

I personally feel very much freedom in my role as a Catholic Christian. Freedom in Truth.

 

[Namesake]

What is your definition of patron? I call it one who supports financially and encouragingly. The CC WAS the enlightenment in the Dark Ages.

We massively disagree. I hold that the RCC was the main reason the Enlightenment was such a big deal because finally after centuries of repression people escaped the bondage of the RCC. Had the RCC not been so interested in keeping people in the dark (to better control them) the Enlightenment wouldn’t have been called that at all, nor would it have been needed.

We massively disagree, but respectfully.

 

[qui_est_ce]

We massively disagree. I hold that the RCC was the main reason the Enlightenment was such a big deal because finally after centuries of repression people escaped the bondage of the RCC. Had the RCC not been so interested in keeping people in the dark (to better control them) the Enlightenment wouldn’t have been called that at all, nor would it have been needed.

We massively disagree, but respectfully.

I respectfully submit it was the age and had nothing to do with the CC repressing people. Some of the greatest thinkers in the world were and are Catholic. Many popes were extremely scholarly. (Some were evil, no question).

I just don’t see how you can say the CC was not a patron of the arts and learning. Look at the Cathedrals, Michael Angelo, the Sistine Chapel.

In St. Louis, nuns would take black kids to islands in the Miississippi to teach them, because it was illegal to educate blacks during slavery.

"The Catholic Church has a long history in St. Louis education. Fr. Augustin Paris organized a school for black Catholic girls in 1845 at 3rd and Poplar, most of whom were daughters of free blacks, but closed the following year under the pressures of the controversy over educating African-Americans. The Christian Brothers opened a school in 1849 in the new three-story addition on the north side of the Cathedral (now the Old Cathedral) as well.

**The biggest of them, and the largest school system in Missouri, is the Archdiocese of St. Louis, established in 1886. **"

“Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka decision in 1954, the court reversed itself, saying that separate education was, by definition, unequal. Amidst a rising tide of social awareness about racial equality, Catholic schools in St. Louis had already figured this out, desegregating the Archdiocese system in 1948.”

stlouis.missouri.org/government/heritage/history/education.htm

More than 70 parents protested at the archdiocesan school officse. Cardinal Ritter threatened excommunication to any parent who refuse to cease the protest.

And they think Archbshp Burke is bad.

 

[Namesake]

I respectfully submit it was the age and had nothing to do with the CC repressing people. Some of the greatest thinkers in the world were and are Catholic. Many popes were extremely scholarly. (Some were evil, no question).

I just don’t see how you can say the CC was not a patron of the arts and learning. Look at the Cathedrals, Michael Angelo, the Sistine Chapel.

You might be on to something about the time relative to science. But, the RCC was the major influence in all things in Europe during the Dark Ages. Regarding art there really is no question that the RCC has promoted the arts as much or more than any other organization. But then I think of great art in non Christian cultures predating Christ by a lot, so it isn’t by any stretch exclusive or new.

 

[qui_est_ce]

You might be on to something about the time relative to science. But, the RCC was the major influence in all things in Europe during the Dark Ages.

Thank goodness, because without her, civilization would have been lost to the Barbarians.

Regarding art there really is no question that the RCC has promoted the arts as much or more than any other organization. But then I think of great art in non Christian cultures predating Christ by a lot, so it isn’t by any stretch exclusive or new.

See, we don’t massively disagree at all!

 

[reen12]

I agree as long as it’s humanistic Judaism. The OT is quite simply not true at all and thankfully so.

I do understand what you are saying, Namesake.

Parts of the OT do reflect historical realites. Events that
actually took place. [building of the 1st Temple,
captivity in Babylon, Cyrus permitting the return of Israel, etc.]

The book of Genesis was man’s attempt to understand
why life was so hard, and so often bitterly unfair.
And what of tragedy? Great evil? How can all of this be?
And so now we are offered a garden, a tree, and a snake.
[Man will live, henceforth, ‘East of Eden.’]

1500 years after the Exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt,
we find something new, in the realm of faith. Now man needs
saving - from something that does not exist. [original sin.]

All in all, religions try to ‘explain’ life, in all of it’s
mysteries and sufferings. Is there a God? I think that there is.
[intelligent design] So I posit the existence of a Creator, on
that basis. Not a big fan of random design. Yet any qualities
that I attribute to God, are just that. My attributions. I expect
no one to share these beliefs.

When I consult the faith-based claims of Judaism and
Christianity, I find Judaic thought far more credible.
Why? Because man is seen in all his/her humanity.
The teachings of Judaism ring true to human experience.
[This is seen, with greatest clarity, in the Psalms.
Every human emotion is addressed and expressed.]

Judaism doesn’t seem overly interested in theologizing.
Judaism is comfortable, I think, with mystery -
in the way that Christian Orthodoxy is also at home,
in this regard.

Perhaps it is that God’s chosen people really are
His chosen. In each claim or detail? No. But the
haunting prayer of Israel speaks my own heart.

Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One.

Sh’ma Yis’ra’eil Adonai Eloheinu Adonai echad.

reen12

 

[Namesake]

Thank goodness, because without her, civilization would have been lost to the Barbarians. See, we don’t massively disagree at all!

Yes we do massively disagree. I maintain that the RCC repressed people to the benefit of the RCC, and that a very major part of that repression was in science. Science attacked the very underpinnings of the control the Church had. The Church couldn’t control people once the truth of matters like geocentrism were known because the RCC dictated that people believe in geocentrism. Heliocentrism refuted RCC teachings and that weakened the authority of the RCC. If the RCC was proved wrong in such a fundamental teaching she might be wrong in other things. So of course the RCC fought that tooth and nail to maintain her control, because that is really what the RCC (popes and other high officials) needed, and wanted, and demanded.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Yes we do massively disagree. I maintain that the RCC repressed people to the benefit of the RCC, and that a very major part of that repression was in science. Science attacked the very underpinnings of the control the Church had. The Church couldn’t control people once the truth of matters like geocentrism were known because the RCC dictated that people believe in geocentrism. Heliocentrism refuted RCC teachings and that weakened the authority of the RCC. If the RCC was proved wrong in such a fundamental teaching she might be wrong in other things. So of course the RCC fought that tooth and nail to maintain her control, because that is really what the RCC (popes and other high officials) needed, and wanted, and demanded.

But we massively agreed that the CC was and is a patron of learning and the arts.

 

[Namesake]

I do understand what you are saying, Namesake.

Parts of the OT do reflect historical realites. Events that
actually took place. [building of the 1st Temple,
captivity in Babylon, Cyrus permitting the return of Israel, etc

.]

The book of Genesis was man’s attempt to understand
why life was so hard, and so often bitterly unfair.
And what of tragedy? Great evil? How can all of this be?
And so now we are offered a garden, a tree, and a snake.
[Man will live, henceforth, ‘East of Eden.’]

1500 years after the Exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt,
we find something new, in the realm of faith. Now man needs
saving - from something that does not exist. [original sin.]

All in all, religions try to ‘explain’ life, in all of it’s
mysteries and sufferings. Is there a God? I think that there is.
[intelligent design] So I posit the existence of a Creator, on
that basis. Not a big fan of random design. Yet any qualities
that I attribute to God, are just that. My attributions. I expect
no one to share these beliefs.

When I consult the faith-based claims of Judaism and
Christianity, I find Judaic thought far more credible.
Why? Because man is seen in all his/her humanity.
The teachings of Judaism ring true to human experience.
[This is seen, with greatest clarity, in the Psalms.
Every human emotion is addressed and expressed.]

Judaism doesn’t seem overly interested in theologizing.
Judaism is comfortable, I think, with mystery -
in the way that Christian Orthodoxy is also at home,
in this regard.

Perhaps it is that God’s chosen people really are
His chosen. In each claim or detail? No. But the
haunting prayer of Israel speaks my own heart.

Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One.

Sh’ma Yis’ra’eil Adonai Eloheinu Adonai echad.

reen12

What a beautiful expression of faith. I applaud you sincerely. And I disagree almost completely.

But never mind because one of my best friends in the world is a Jew. He grew up in Brooklyn and recalls carp in his grandmother’s bathtub a few days before Passover. The carp was being cleansed before it was turned into a meal of course (gefilte fish). He was raised very Jewish. He taught me about humanistic Judaism (cultural Judaism) and that was a major epiphany for me. Really!

 

[Namesake]

But we massively agreed that the CC was and is a patron of learning and the arts.

No, just learning about science. I have already told you that the RCC was a wonderful supporter of the arts.

 

[estesbob]

Yes we do massively disagree. I maintain that the RCC repressed people to the benefit of the RCC, and that a very major part of that repression was in science. Science attacked the very underpinnings of the control the Church had. The Church couldn’t control people once the truth of matters like geocentrism were known because the RCC dictated that people believe in geocentrism. Heliocentrism refuted RCC teachings and that weakened the authority of the RCC. If the RCC was proved wrong in such a fundamental teaching she might be wrong in other things. So of course the RCC fought that tooth and nail to maintain her control, because that is really what the RCC (popes and other high officials) needed, and wanted, and demanded.

The only problem with the above is the only evidence you presented is easlity refuted by anyone with even a cursory knowledge of church history. Your comments about Copernicus were wrong. Your comments about Mendel were wrong. Your comments about Galileo were a simplistic examination of a complex situation. If you have evidence the Church systematically tried to suppress science please present it. So far you have given three examples, none of which proved your point.

The truth is the matter is that for most of its history the Church has been the greatest champion of science in the Western world . Knowledge was passed from generation to generation mainly by the efforts of Monks painstakingly copying scientific books and Bibles. Almost all the great universities founded in Europe prior to the 16th century were founded by the Catholic Church. Great artists artists like Davinci and Michelangelo were were supported by the church. The Church backed great expeditions of discovery over the entire world. How anyone can call the church anit-science is beyond comprehensive

 

[Namesake]

The only problem with the above is the only evidence you presented is easlity refuted by anyone with even a cursory knowledge of church history. Your comments about Copernicus were wrong. Your comments about Mendel were wrong. Your comments about Galileo were a simplistic examination of a complex situation. If you have evidence the Church systematically tried to suppress science please present it. So far you have given three examples, none of which proved your point.

The truth is the matter is that for most of its history the Church has been the greatest champion of science in the Western world . Knowledge was passed from generation to generation mainly by the efforts of Monks painstakingly copying scientific books and Bibles. Almost all the great universities founded in Europe prior to the 16th century were founded by the Catholic Church. Great artists artists like Davinci and Michelangelo were were supported by the church. The Church backed great expeditions of discovery over the entire world. How anyone can call the church anit-science is beyond comprehensive

Catholics always do the same thing. No matter what anyone says that is not in line with RCC teaching is attacked as false. No matter what. Every time.

I can’t provide evidence that you will accept because for you to do that would weaken the position of the RCC. No matter what the evidence is the RCC will always be above it and have an explanation that refutes it. Galileo was systematically destroyed by the RCC. That is a well accepted historical fact outside the RCC. Within the RCC it is refuted. I can’t help you if you insist on adherence to RCC taught history. The control that the RCC so covets is still operating well and you appear to be instrumental thereto, with all due respect…

 

[jmcrae]

Galileo was systematically destroyed by the RCC. That is a well accepted historical fact outside the RCC.

This is a popular myth, but the fact that we have all heard of Galileo, in and of itself, explodes the myth. Children read his work and study his theories in schools of every kind, including Catholic schools, so how, again, was he “destroyed”?

He’s doing better than a lot of people who think they’re doing just fine.

 

[reen12]

What a beautiful expression of faith. I applaud you sincerely. And I disagree almost completely.

But never mind because one of my best friends in the world is a Jew. He grew up in Brooklyn and recalls carp in his grandmother’s bathtub a few days before Passover. The carp was being cleansed before it was turned into a meal of course (gefilte fish). He was raised very Jewish. He taught me about humanistic Judaism (cultural Judaism) and that was a major epiphany for me. Really!

I know. I grew up, from the age of 10, in a neighborhood where
those of Irish descent and Jewish descent lived. I was so touched
in heart, seeing an elderly neighbor going to the synagogue
each day, to help form a minyan. He was kindness itself.
Soft-spoken, as well, which I truly appreciated. That man
spoke more of the faith of Judaism, than all of the texts that
I read in college, 40 years ago. [a degree in philosophy]

Over these decades, I have read broadly and deeply.
Orthodoxy’s saints, hesychasm, Gestalt psychology,
many many volumes of professional level works in psychology,
tales of the Hasidim, existential thought, Eastern thought,
[Buddhism, Taoism]. You can do a lot of reading, in 40 years.
Blessed with a splendid intellect, I drank it all in, focusing like a laser.

Yet when it all ‘settles out,’ I can say, near the end of my life,
[maybe another 10 or 15 years] that God is. For all the
confusion, for all the wretched things that have been done
in His Name, I believe God exists. I have often found that
those who speak loudest, in His defense, reflect not at all
the attributes of the God Whom they purport to serve.
There’s a poignant irony in that.

It does help to go through life - with a heightened sense of the
absurd. http://bestsmileys.com/nono/9.gif

Kindest regards, Namesake, http://bestsmileys.com/waving/5.gif

reen12

 

[Namesake]

This is a popular myth, but the fact that we have all heard of Galileo, in and of itself, explodes the myth. Children read his work and study his theories in schools of every kind, including Catholic schools, so how, again, was he “destroyed”?

He’s doing better than a lot of people who think they’re doing just fine.

Galileo was destroyed by the RCC *in that time. He was kept under house arrest and suffered because of the isolation imposed by the RCC. He was excommunicated! If he wasn’t mistreated why would the RCC later apologize for the way he was treated? The RCC even admits mistreatment of him and you don’t agree? What a shame.

 

[RobHom]

Catholics always do the same thing. No matter what anyone says that is not in line with RCC teaching is attacked as false. No matter what. Every time.

Non-Catholics always do the same thing. No matter what anyone says that not in line with the anti-Catholic teaching is attacked as false. No matter what. Every time.

I can’t provide evidence that you will accept because for you to do that would weaken the position of the RCC. No matter what the evidence is the RCC will always be above it and have an explanation that refutes it. Galileo was systematically destroyed by the RCC. That is a well accepted historical fact outside the RCC. Within the RCC it is refuted. I can’t help you if you insist on adherence to RCC taught history. The control that the RCC so covets is still operating well and you appear to be instrumental thereto, with all due respect…

That Galileo was “destroyed” by the Catholic Church is a fantasy created by those opposed to Catholicism. Its like much of the other baloney and blather…

Here is what got Galileo in trouble with the Church:

But Galileo said that in the Scriptures “are found propositions which, taken literally, are false; that Holy Writ out of regard for the incapacity of the people, expresses itself inexactly, even when treating of solemn dogmas; that in questions concerning natural things, philosophical argument should avail more than sacred.”

Taken from here: elfinspell.com/LiesandErrorsGalileo.html This was written in 1893.

Of particular interest is what Martin Luther and Melancthon had to say on the subject:

But if the Church was not hostile to purely scientific innovations, Luther and Melancthon were not so liberal. In his “Table Talk” Luther says: “Men pay heed to an astrologer who contends that it is the earth that moves, and not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. If a man yearns for a reputation as a profound scientist, he should invent 98 some new system. This madman would subvert the whole science of astronomy; but Scripture tells us that Joshua bade the sun, and not the earth, to stand still.” In his “Principles of the Science of Physics,” Melancthon says: “The eyes testify that the heavens revolve every twenty-four hours; and nevertheless some men, either from love of novelty or to parade their genius, insist that the earth moves, and that the eighth sphere and the sun do not revolve. Every true believer is obliged to accept the truth as revealed by God, and to be contented with it.”

Weird huh? And the “Catholic Church” is the “bad guy”?

Oh, here’s a “secular” piece or article on the issue which goes very deep into the issue…its a bit of a read, but it will give you some facts that you may not be aware of…
csulb.edu/~crsmith/whitepapers/galileo.htm

Bottom line…Galileo said things that he shouldn’t have. He spoke “heresy”…and it came back and bit him. It had zilch to do with anything else…unless you consider his false sense of confidence coupled with the devious machinations and intrigues of his “peers” who were jealous and would do just about anything to drag him down…

True history is very interesting, isn’t it.

Peace!!