Questions from a Southern Baptist

[Cairisti]

Welcome Manphibian!

Can’t add to what others have said. As a former Southern Baptist, I’d recommend Rod Bennet’s “The Four Witnesses” to see the early Church (and Jurgen’s Faith of the Early Fathers). And Steve Ray’s book “Crossing the Tiber”. I know that Bennet and Ray are former Baptists, so maybe that might help. (It sure helped me in deciding to Come Home to the Catholic Church.) Also, Born Fundamentalist ?Born Again Catholic is great.

Also, you might want to check out an RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults) program at the local Catholic Church. They start in Aug/Sept and the first few months are an inquiry section. There is NO pressure to convert in RCIA, but if at Easter you feel you want to take the step, you can.

Good luck and God Bless you on your journey.

 

[Sherlock]

Wormwood:

Seconly the two main reasons I hear people denounce catholicism (outside of crazy talk like idolitry) are 1) historical abuses of power and perversion of doctrine (like selling indulgences among other perversions) 2) the self righteous and dismissive nature of so many catholics towards any other faith.
The only people that KNOW they are God’s people are the Isrealites…try as you might to make some obscure reference seem like it is talking about the catholic church in some respect, but it is stated outright that the Jews are God’s choosen people…in fact, Jesus, Mary, and most of the apostles were Jews. That should be proof enough who his favorites are. You wanna play it safe? Try Jews for Jesus…safety net built right in both ways.

Historical abuses of power re real (and regrettable), but hardly unique to Catholicism. Protestantism’s history, though obviously shorter, is as stained in this regard. So this doesn’t quite stand up as a reason for anti-Catholicism. Also, the doctrine of indulgences is alive and well—that there were local abuses of this, against the teaching of the Church, might explain the outrage of the local individuals affected but does not explain anti-Catholicism. Again, the fact that there are sinners in the Church should not surprise anyone, and unless all other religions are pure as the wind-driven snow, then it’s hardly unique and so does not explain anti-Catholicism.

As for #2—this is overly subjective, as it depends on what an individual might judge as “the self righteous and dismissive nature” of Catholicism. For some people, the very claim that Jesus us God and he built a Church is self-righteous. Yet the claim remains and we can’t duck from it. If there are offensive Catholics who really are self-righteous and dismissive, well, shame on them. But my experience (having been an atheist and a Protestant) self-righteousness is not confined to Catholics.

As for the second paragraph: I suppose, being an agnostic, that this strikes you as very clever since you are not taking the subject seriously. Catholicism sees itself as Judaism in flower; it is not cut off from Judaism. As for “wanna play it safe?”— since Judaism promises a Messiah, it’s a bit cavalier to suggest that rejecting the Messiah is “playing it safe”—but frankly, I’ll leave that sort of thing to God.

I don’t think you’ve given a good explanation.

 

[TNT]

Manphibian:

To try and answer a question posed to me:

The Baptist, and I assume other denominations beliefs on Mary are pretty short and sweet. she’s rarely mentioned, except during Christmas and whenever her name comes up in the scripture we’re reading. We also believe in the Immaculate Conception, but not as Catholicism see’s it. We believe Christ was conceived of a virgin through the Holy Spirit,** but not that Mary was conceived free from original sin.** It’s sort of a play on words.
I’ve been praying that if God wants me to be Catholic that he would show me, or let me know. Thanks for the help friends.

Be Gods,
Matt

To put it in simple logic which the OT type points to and the NT approves, is that God would not and did not “become flesh” from the flesh corrupted by Satan through Adam. His Flesh or Incarnation was in the purity of Adam & Eve before the fall, His original intended creation.
Unless God stopped the contagion of Original Sin from Mary to Jesus, then Mary’s conception had to have the contagion stopped. This He did.
In either case that contagion had to be stopped before transferring to His Body and soul, we agree. Catholic teaching is that it was stopped in Mary.
So the debate with protestants who still believe in Original Sin transmission (and there are fewer every year), is where it was stopped, not whether it was stopped.
The OT Ark of the Covenant, its contents, and Sacred nature tells alot about the New Ark (carrier) of the New Covenant - the womb of Mary.
The anti- type being always Superior to and the reality of, the OT type
The question that Catholic teaching answers is" How was the cooperation and participation of Eve (the female) in the Fall corrected, not just Adam’s (male)?"
Mary is the 2nd Eve, and of equal innocence who said Yes which counters Eve’s No which was the human root of the fall of Adam. Mary is the human root of the correction to be accomplished by the New Adam. In Catholic teaching it all fits and nothing is left open to incompletion.
See? We NEVER get weary of explaining Mary’s part in Salv. History.

RE: he would show me, or let me know.
He is, has and will. For He desires all men to be saved.

 

[BibleReader]

Oh, my Heavens! Sooooo many questions!

Why so much stock put into the Blessed Virgin’s life after conceiving Christ? What makes the Church so certain of things such as her…Perpetual Virginity…?
I think that the thinking behind Mary’s virginity after conceiving Christ is very basic: Would someone, knowing that the Son of God has issued from Mary’s loins, want to have sex with Mary? Or, instead, would both Mary and Joseph have viewed Mary as God’s “spouse”?

Many, in the face of such thinking, respond with Biblical references to Jesus’ “brothers and sisters.”

However, they are not reading the context with sufficient care.

To avoid controversy, we’ll use the KJV.

Let’s begin with Mark 15:40-41…

**[40] There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and **Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome;
[41] (Who also, when he was in Galilee, followed him, and ministered unto him

---

So, note the portions in red: In Galilee was a woman named Mary who was the mother of a James, a Joses, and a Salome.

We know that this Mary was not Jesus’ mother. Explaining who Mary is by explaining that she is the “mother of James the less and Joses and Salome,” is like explaining that Lincoln “was some man married to Mary.”

For this reason, commentators are unanimous that this Mary isn’t Mary who is Jesus’ mother.

Now, let’s go to one of the verses actually naming Jesus’ alleged siblings…

[3] Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him. Mark 6:3.

Do those names sound familiar? James. Joses. Salome isn’t named, but the text here says that they had “sisters.” That’s consistent.

And they are in the same order is the James and Joses of Mary 15:40-41.

And note well where Mark 6:3 occurred…

[1] And he went out from thence, and came into his own country; and his disciples follow him. Mark 6:1.

Jesus grew up in Nazareth in Galilee!!! “His own country” was Galilee!!!

Hey, that’s exactly where Mary not the mother of Jesus but rather the mother of James and Joses and a sister wandered with Jesus, in Mark 15:40!!!

Now, why would the children of this other Mary have been with Mary the mother of Jesus???

Simple: Because they are her nephews and nieces, and with Jesus out of the house and Joseph dead, she is a “woman alone.” So that when Mary the mother of Jesus goes to look for Jesus, she asks her sister-in-law Mary if she can borrow James and Joses and Salome to accompany her in her search.

Bottom line: Mark 15:40 gently suggests that the Church’s interp of the Greek terms for the Aramaic terms referring to these relatives of Jesus is correct: They are cousins of Jesus – not brothers and sisters.

**

**

 

[Wormwood]

Historical abuses of power re real (and regrettable), but hardly unique to Catholicism. Protestantism’s history, though obviously shorter, is as stained in this regard. So this doesn’t quite stand up as a reason for anti-Catholicism

This is true, but as I’ve stated I am agnostic so using protestants as a sheild won’t work. I think you’re all equally crazy for the record All organized religion seems to be a corrupt industry and little else. It seem like priests are a lot like sports agents, there is no real need but they convince you that you need them to make the team you want…and sports agents only get 4% not 10% like priests.

As for #2—this is overly subjective, as it depends on what an individual might judge as “the self righteous and dismissive nature” of Catholicism. For some people, the very claim that Jesus us God and he built a Church is self-righteous. Yet the claim remains and we can’t duck from it. If there are offensive Catholics who really are self-righteous and dismissive, well, shame on them. But my experience (having been an atheist and a Protestant) self-righteousness is not confined to Catholics.

Agreed. This response is highly subjective and hardly defendable.
Also it usually comes from the “catholic church is the whore of babylon” people, but I was stating that it is a reason that I have heard more than once, explaining people being turned off by the catholic church. And certainly self righteousness is NOT limited to catholics or your church. Good call, and well played

As for the second paragraph: I suppose, being an agnostic, that this strikes you as very clever since you are not taking the subject seriously. Catholicism sees itself as Judaism in flower; it is not cut off from Judaism. As for “wanna play it safe?”— since Judaism promises a Messiah, it’s a bit cavalier to suggest that rejecting the Messiah is “playing it safe”—but frankly, I’ll leave that sort of thing to God.

Well I do fancy myself quite clever but, not for the reason you’ve stated. Just because I am agnostic, doesn’t mean I don’t take the debate seriously. Also I am looking for some truth, so I must ask the questions on my mind. My point: Catholicism can see itself as whatever it likes, but that doesn’t make it so. It was spelled out quite clearly that the nation of Isreal were God’s choosen…not Italy. I am not trying to be cute or facetious, I just read the bible without interpreting it to fit my needs, and it doesn’t really agree.
The meek inherit the earth and his killers inherit his church? Or could it be that the declining Rome of the 400’s just traded one method of control for another, using christianity as a means of holding power in their shrinking empire? Is that why cathedrals look like the temples for the cult of Rome?

 

[Tim_Hayes]

wormwood.

Ultimately the main reaosn why people hate the Catholic Churches is a combination of misinformation and secondly a very human characteristic of pride.

Most people when it comes to faith will actually seek out that which fits in with what they allready believe or want to believe about life etc. The reason why people bring up abuses of power etc is that it allows them to attempt to justify to themselves as to why the group is wrong, so they can attempt to avoid being convicted by their consciounce.

If I can convince myhself that Catholicism is wrong becasue of some bad people who are catholic then I can avoid the pain associated with accepting that I am wrong.

Whilst God is ultimtely a matter of faith, we can by using logic and reasoning take us someway down the path towards enlightenment as to who might really be Gods reps, but if that path is not the path I am on then there is a good chance I will reject it becasue to accpet it means I am wrong and hardly anyone wants to do that.

PRIDE gets us all.

 

[Atreyu]

Wormwood:

Well I do fancy myself quite clever but, not for the reason you’ve stated. Just because I am agnostic, doesn’t mean I don’t take the debate seriously. Also I am looking for some truth, so I must ask the questions on my mind. My point: Catholicism can see itself as whatever it likes, but that doesn’t make it so. It was spelled out quite clearly that the nation of Isreal were God’s choosen…not Italy. I am not trying to be cute or facetious, I just read the bible without interpreting it to fit my needs, and it doesn’t really agree.
The meek inherit the earth and his killers inherit his church? Or could it be that the declining Rome of the 400’s just traded one method of control for another, using christianity as a means of holding power in their shrinking empire? Is that why cathedrals look like the temples for the cult of Rome?

Yes the Jews are the chosen people of God, yet the New Testament clearly spells out that God is now for the gentiles as well as the Jews. I find it incredibly hard to believe that somebody could have read the Bible and not come up with that conclusion, unless they had an insurmountable bias. If you have read the entire Bible, then I suggest you reread Acts (for starters). Also, the early church fathers would disagree with you about Rome trading one method of control for another. People long before the year 400 thought that the church at Rome held some kind of primacy. Check out this link to see this

Manphibian here is another good link, Catholic Outlook. I found the articles there very logical (which I like).

 

[James_2_24]

God Bless you and congratulations on your search. I would love to help you with your questions but I know a few apologists who can do a better job than myself.

If you check your messages, i will send you there my email address… should you decide to email me, I will direct you to some of the good apologetics material that helped me during my conversion to Catholicism.

God Bless you!

 

[Wormwood]

Ultimately the main reaosn why people hate the Catholic Churches is a combination of misinformation and secondly a very human characteristic of pride.

This seems like a method of passing the blame. You are saying that the only reason people find fault with your church is because THEY have the problem. This is a complete fallacy. People’s perceptions will shape their faith. Like the thread weaver is a southern baptist, now if he went to some church where people were dancing and singing that might make him uncomfortable because most southern baptists think it sinful to dance. He might even think those people are just wrong and misguided on some level or another. Does that mean he would be right? No. It is just his perception of religion, which was formed early on in childhood development. Just like if you were raised with a bible that was completely normal except Jona and the whale was removed and replaced with jack in the beanstalk. You could go your whole life thinking of the bible story of the magic beans of the lord, and the fairytail of the guy living inside a whale for a few days. It would just be your perception based on your memories and accumulated knowledge.

Most people when it comes to faith will actually seek out that which fits in with what they allready believe or want to believe about life etc

I agree completely.

Yes the Jews are the chosen people of God, yet the New Testament clearly spells out that God is now for the gentiles as well as the Jews. I find it incredibly hard to believe that somebody could have read the Bible and not come up with that conclusion, unless they had an insurmountable bias. If you have read the entire Bible, then I suggest you reread Acts (for starters)

You catholics are like verbal ninjas!! I never said that god was exclusively for jews. I DID say that the jews are clearly god’s chosen people because he says so. And to put that statement back into context, it was in reference to some of the posts before my first one. People were making statements like “one true faith” etc… I simply mean that no ONE christian denomination can be absolutely certain they are the only true faith because, the only chosen people of god were the jews. There should not be so much judging of eachother’s rituals and specifics… I find them all to be equally distant from the way Jesus actually taught

 

[Sherlock]

Wormwood:

This is true, but as I’ve stated I am agnostic so using protestants as a sheild won’t work. I think you’re all equally crazy for the record All organized religion seems to be a corrupt industry and little else. It seem like priests are a lot like sports agents, there is no real need but they convince you that you need them to make the team you want…and sports agents only get 4% not 10% like priests.QUOTE]

I’m not using Protestants as a shield. The question from the poster was, why all the anti-Catholicism? I was merely pointing out that your explanation, which can be summed up as “Catholics have history of abuse of power”, doesn’t adequately address the question, as abuse of power is not unique to Catholics. In order to answer the question adequately, you would need to give specific, unique-to Catholic reasons that would provide a rational base for anti-Catholicism. You didn’t do that, and instead use my pointing that out as an occasion to vent against all organized religion (which I have little respect for, as it is, like anti-Catholicism, irrational at heart).

 

[Pax]

Wormwood,

You are at this point hopelessly biased against the Church and Christianity in general. Let’s examine your statements concerning the Jews vs. Christians. Clearly you have set up a false dilemma. It is not an “either/or” situation. In the OT, scripture makes it clear that the Jews were God’s chosen people. In the NT, Jesus establishes his church. This is the fulfillment of God’s plan.

Consider the OT words of God to King David. “And when your time comes and you rest with your ancestors, I will raise up your heir after you, sprung from your loins, and I will make his kingdom firm. It is he who shall build a house to my name. And I will make his royal throne firm forever. I will be a Father to him, and he will be a Son to me.” (2 Sam. 7:12-14) David’s son was Solomon, who built the Temple. David’s descendant who would rule forever was Jesus Christ, who built the true House of God, the Church. (1 Tim. 3:15) This House, this Kingdom, this Church built by Jesus the Son of David is called by God “firm.” In verse 16, the Lord says " your house and your kingdom shall endure forever before me; your throne shall stand firm forever." Christ will rule forever and his Kingdom will remain firm! Only the Catholic Church out of all the Churches has any claim on fulfilling this prophecy. The one Church founded by Christ “shall stand firm forever.”

The prophet Isaiah further clarifies this idea. “The Lord himself will give you a sign: The Virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel…To us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be upon his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the Lord Almighty will accomplish this.” (7,8) The Messiah Immanuel, the Mighty God, will rule over the house of David and the Kingdom of God, his Church. Isaiah promises that the Church will increase steadily throughout time. This does not allow for it to fall away, only to be restored centuries upon centuries later. Nor does God’s promise to uphold the Church “with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever” allow for such to happen. If we can trust God’s Word, we can be confident that his original Catholic Church, the only Church for a thousand years, is still being upheld and increasing, by “the zeal of the Lord Almighty.” This promise of course is reiterated in Matt. 16:18 where Jesus says he will build his church "and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Beyond this the NT refers to Christians as adopted sons and daughters and as a new creation. Christians are referred to as God’s household. Surely, this is the fulfillment of Judaism. For you to somehow separate and attempt to place Judaism above Christianity is to deny what is clearly the connection between the old and new covenants.

As an agnostic you do not accept much of anything which is logically acceptable. It is not logical, however, to make your claims from scripture and history concerning Judaism and Christianity since you attempted to use the bible as your basis for doing so. Scripture simply denies your view.

Your concerns about sinfullness within the Catholic church are of no consequence. Your notion about Judaism prove the point. If you think that sinfulness within members of the Church ruins any possibility of Christianity and particularly Catholicism from having similar status, then your position on Judaism falls by the same criteria. Even a cursory reading of the OT shows the magnitude of sin and idolatry in OT Israel. Moreover, the words of scripture in the NT clearly show the position of Christianity as the fulfilment brought by the Messiah.

 

[Atreyu]

I’m sorry if I took you out of context, Wormwood. yet you said:

the only chosen people of god were the jews.

This is the notion that I was trying to refute. Yes the Jews are the chosen people of God, but they are no longer (as of Jesus’ time) the only chosen people of God. Also if they are the only chosen people of God, I don’t see the connection between this statement and your conclusion that no single denomination can be correct…?

 

[MariaGorettiGrl]

Matt,

You’re right that I was eager to enter this conversation and answer your questions, but it seemed a few hundred people beat me to it! Looks like you have some serious end-of-Summer reading on your hands!

I didn’t get to answer your questions, but I will be praying for you! I hope you find your place in the Catholic church and I hope it helps to bring you even closer to God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit and to Mary!

And feel free to ask any more questions you may have. As you can tell, most of us here are not very tight-lipped when it comes to our faith!

 

[MariaGorettiGrl]

Wormwood,

Howdy! Glad to have you with us! There’s nothing like a good old fashion debate!

One of the problems that I have with what you’re saying is your questioning of church authority. For example, you say that priests are just taking advantage of us.

The first issue I take is that comparing a priest and a manger is comparing a dog and a fish. I mean, the 4% a sports manager gets is sooooooooooooo much more than the 10% that a priest gets, and the sports manager doesn’t have to take that 4% and spread it around to keeping up the stadium, organizing programs to bring in more “fans”, etc. Plus, when a priest does an interview, he doesn’t get paid a few thousand dollars; he does it out of a sheer desire to spread knowledge. And never have I seen a group of people run up and ask a priest for his autograph. Not to mention that priests are on duty 24/7. I doubt if a player called his coach at 2am and said, “Coach, I’m having doubts about our play book.” that the coach would stay on the phone very long.

And if people become priests to get rich off of “gullable Catholics”, they’re doing a pretty shoddy job of it. They take a vow of poverty and relinquish all they have in the world and then they get 10% (and sometimes less) of what parishoners make and have to use that for all the church doings and give lastly for themselves. To me this seems like “A fool and his money are soon parted” and I don’t mean the parishoners.

The other problem with questioning authority is it gets into the situation of “don’t trust anybody’s authority but mine”. You seem to be telling us that the priests, bishop, cardinals and pope are all wrong and/or have evil motives, but you are right and have good motives. I don’t doubt your good motivation and I don’t doubt that there are some evil priests, bishops, cardinals, and popes. But, more than your authority, I trust that God will protect and lead his church in the right direction. It’s hard to ignore the authority of all the church and put it aside to trust your authority.

Thanks for your interesteing posts, by the way. I’m always glad to hear others’ opinions.

 

[Shoshana]

Wormwood:

This is true, but as I’ve stated I am agnostic so using protestants as a sheild won’t work. I think you’re all equally crazy for the record All organized religion seems to be a corrupt industry and little else. It seem like priests are a lot like sports agents, there is no real need but they convince you that you need them to make the team you want…and sports agents only get 4% not 10% like priests.

Agreed. This response is highly subjective and hardly defendable.
Also it usually comes from the “catholic church is the whore of babylon” people, but I was stating that it is a reason that I have heard more than once, explaining people being turned off by the catholic church. And certainly self righteousness is NOT limited to catholics or your church. Good call, and well played

Well I do fancy myself quite clever but, not for the reason you’ve stated. Just because I am agnostic, doesn’t mean I don’t take the debate seriously. Also I am looking for some truth, so I must ask the questions on my mind. My point: Catholicism can see itself as whatever it likes, but that doesn’t make it so. It was spelled out quite clearly that the nation of Isreal were God’s choosen…not Italy. I am not trying to be cute or facetious, I just read the bible without interpreting it to fit my needs, and it doesn’t really agree.
The meek inherit the earth and his killers inherit his church? Or could it be that the declining Rome of the 400’s just traded one method of control for another, using christianity as a means of holding power in their shrinking empire? Is that why cathedrals look like the temples for the cult of Rome?

Welcome back Wormwood!!!

 

[Wormwood]

I can see I have irritated some people, and I’m sorry. I just have a very direct and blunt style of debate that comes off a little cynical.

I’m not using Protestants as a shield. The question from the poster was, why all the anti-Catholicism? I was merely pointing out that your explanation, which can be summed up as “Catholics have history of abuse of power”, doesn’t adequately address the question, as abuse of power is not unique to Catholics. In order to answer the question adequately, you would need to give specific, unique-to Catholic reasons that would provide a rational base for anti-Catholicism. You didn’t do that, and instead use my pointing that out as an occasion to vent against all organized religion (which I have little respect for, as it is, like anti-Catholicism, irrational at heart).

Well the original split was over catholic corruption. And a majority of historical references to religious abuse of authority, by a mainstream christian religion were about catholics. Not to say that corruption does not exist…but it does not appear as pronounced. Maybe catholics have just been around longer, so naturally they have more “bad history”, or maybe protestants are better at hiding it. And my detachment from organized religion comes from all of the flaws of humanity, manifest in their churches. No one needs an intermediary with God. Moral instruction, that is a different matter.

You are at this point hopelessly biased against the Church and Christianity in general. Let’s examine your statements concerning the Jews vs. Christians. Clearly you have set up a false dilemma. It is not an “either/or” situation. In the OT, scripture makes it clear that the Jews were God’s chosen people. In the NT, Jesus establishes his church. This is the fulfillment of God’s plan.

Not biased, just skeptical. I see it spelled out that the jews are chosen. I do not see it spelled out that Jesus wanted to splinter from Judaism and start a church in Rome. From the texts there is nothing more than a reformation of judaism, with a more loving God. Just because my opinion differs from yours does not mean I am “Hopelessly biased”.

This is the notion that I was trying to refute. Yes the Jews are the chosen people of God, but they are no longer (as of Jesus’ time) the only chosen people of God. Also if they are the only chosen people of God, I don’t see the connection between this statement and your conclusion that no single denomination can be correct…?

But where does it say Catholicism is the only way Jesus extended himself to the gentiles? The point I was making is that you can not condemn someone elses faith, or make the statement that catholicism is the only TRUE christian faith. The only people that can definitely make the claim that they are God’s chosen are the jews. Not that you are wrong, you just might not be the only correct faith…get it?

The first issue I take is that comparing a priest and a manger is comparing a dog and a fish.

It was a metaphor, not a direct comparison.

And if people become priests to get rich off of “gullable Catholics”, they’re doing a pretty shoddy job of it.

Well that was not my point, but if you examine the situation, priests don’t work or pay taxes. And the the head priest at my catholic school drove a convertable miata. Sounds like he does ok for a guy that works for 2 hours one day a week.

The other problem with questioning authority is it gets into the situation of “don’t trust anybody’s authority but mine”. You seem to be telling us that the priests, bishop, cardinals and pope are all wrong and/or have evil motives, but you are right and have good motives. I don’t doubt your good motivation and I don’t doubt that there are some evil priests, bishops, cardinals, and popes. But, more than your authority, I trust that God will protect and lead his church in the right direction.

I never said my judgement was perfect, if it were I wouldn’t be here exchanging opinions with you guys. I just like arguments based on reason. I never tried to direct or teach you either, plus I would never ask for money. I just trust what God tells me, not what some guy tells me. I just don’t see how taking a few classes and getting a certificate makes you more qualified to talk to God. I guess it just seems like too many cooks…

Thanks for your interesteing posts, by the way. I’m always glad to hear others’ opinions.

Well thanks, if nothing else I try to provoke a little thought.

Welcome back Wormwood!!!

Haha I’m back!! No refuting comments? I hope this was just a warm up shosh

 

[Pax]

Wormwood,

You would provoke more thought than irritation if you would first try to analyze and address that which is presented to you. You are, oddly, endearing in your own perverse way. Unfortunately, you are also hopelessly cynical and hopelessly bias. Your post above is more about taking slaps at Christianity and particularly Catholicism than it is at arriving at the truth. You are not merely uttering opinions. You are expressing something more visceral. Your comments contain some truth but are for the most part disconnected from the facts. You seem to think that the Catholic Church contains more sinners and has, shall we say, a more sordid history than Protestantism or Judaism. This kind of thinking is conditioned by anti-Catholicism in all of its forms but it is not in keeping with the historical data.

Religions/churches are hospitals for sinners. There will always be the wheat and the tares. As Jews, Protestants, Catholics, and members of other faiths we realize that we are weak and prone to sin. In the midst of our weakness and sin we are humble enough to seek the love and forgiveness of God. This is truly by grace. I pray that you too will share in this desire to humble yourself before God. Perhaps, your presence here and your grudging admission that you are in some ways searching is a good sign. I sincerely hope so.

 

[Wormwood]

You would provoke more thought than irritation if you would first try to analyze and address that which is presented to you. You are, oddly, endearing in your own perverse way.

AWWWW

Unfortunately, you are also hopelessly cynical and hopelessly bias. Your post above is more about taking slaps at Christianity and particularly Catholicism than it is at arriving at the truth.

Not taking slaps, I just don’t pull punches.

You are not merely uttering opinions. You are expressing something more visceral. Your comments contain some truth but are for the most part disconnected from the facts. You seem to think that the Catholic Church contains more sinners and has, shall we say, a more sordid history than Protestantism or Judaism. This kind of thinking is conditioned by anti-Catholicism in all of its forms but it is not in keeping with the historical data.

What I said was, that it was probably not the case that only catholicism is corrupt, but for some reason it seems more pronounced in catholicism. You can call this what you want but the facts are still the same. This is not a bias on my part, this is merely stating that more people seem to focus on catholics historical indescretions, than those of other religions. Ever heard of the Baptists refered to as “the whore of babylon”? Also if you read the post that statement originated in, you would see that his is not even necessarily my stance, just one I have heard repeated.
Don’t shoot the messenger ok?

Religions/churches are hospitals for sinners. There will always be the wheat and the tares. As Jews, Protestants, Catholics, and members of other faiths we realize that we are weak and prone to sin. In the midst of our weakness and sin we are humble enough to seek the love and forgiveness of God. This is truly by grace

Yes, I agreed with this remember? I said moral instruction was probably indeed necessary. I just don’t believe that a man can talk to God for you or forgive your sins. I think you can do all that yourself, as all men are fallable, none are closer to God than others just because they went to a school for a few months.

 

[Sherlock]

I can see I have irritated some people, and I’m sorry. I just have a very direct and blunt style of debate that comes off a little cynical.

Well the original split was over catholic corruption. And a majority of historical references to religious abuse of authority, by a mainstream christian religion were about catholics. Not to say that corruption does not exist…but it does not appear as pronounced. Maybe catholics have just been around longer, so naturally they have more “bad history”, or maybe protestants are better at hiding it. And my detachment from organized religion comes from all of the flaws of humanity, manifest in their churches. No one needs an intermediary with God. Moral instruction, that is a different matter.

]

First, I don’t mind a very direct and blunt debating style. What I do mind are poor arguments.

As for the “original split being over Catholic corruption”—it’s not as simple as that. In England, the split came because Henry VIII wanted a divorce, and when the pope wouldn’t grant him what he wanted, he declared himself head of the Church. He split himself off. Luther reacted against local corruption, yes, but that does not explain his formulating his own, very different doctrines and his treatment of the canon of the OT.

As for “a majority of historical references to religious abuse of authority, by a mainstream christian religion were about catholics.”—In English-speaking countries, yes. The history of the Catholic Church, in English-speaking countries, was largely written by the dominant Protestant culture. Funny how Protestant abuses of power have not achieved the same myth status as, say, the Spanish Inquisition. Did you ever consider that the fact that England was at war with Spain had something to do with the myth?

You wrote: “Maybe catholics have just been around longer, so naturally they have more “bad history”, or maybe protestants are better at hiding it.”

I did give as one possible factor (not the only one, mind you) the fact that yes, Catholics have been around longer. So you’re not adding anything new here, but thank you for using common sense. As for Protestants being better at “hiding” it: there isn’t any one terribly large Protestant denomination but rather thousands of little ones, so of course that makes it difficult for attacks to get similar attention in the press. In my own experience, the one case of molestation that I know of personally (the daughter of a close friend) involved a Protestant minister. Did it make the papers? No, of course not—it’s just one small church.

You wrote: “And my detachment from organized religion comes from all of the flaws of humanity, manifest in their churches.”

Most of your concepts of God come from organized religion. Since you are as flawed as any other human, why do you hold organized religion to a different standard? Un-organized religion has no power to mold anyone. It is simply a way to make God in one’s own image, which is very, very appealing. I wonder, what other areas in life do you find organization to be cramping your style? Do you like unorganized hospitals? Do you like unorganized education? Do you like unorganized government? The idea that an institution is unnecessary because it contains flawed human beings is laughable, and tells me that you are likely young and unmarried. To be honest, I simply see such sentiments as a cop-out.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

1. Why is there so many anti-Catholics? What makes some people so angry and uncomfortable with Catholicism? In other words… What’s the big deal?

Some possible reasons:​

• the sins and crimes of Catholics: not all the charges against the CC are false - some are:

“Everyone knows” how “Rome” has “burnt heretics”. As she has, this fact is paired with that verse about being drunk on “the blood of the saints” - and Rome is proved to be the Whore of Babylon in Rev. 18.

What is forgotten is that, indefensible as this may seem, it is not a purely Roman thing - other Christians acted severely to their heretics (with some exceptions): our faults can seem worse than they are, if they are mistakenly thought to be a purely Catholic thing. Severity of this sort was at one time taken for granted by most Christian opinion of which record remains. The USA was born at a time when such severity was no longer common. So people can have a skewed perspective on parts of Catholicism, simply because they look at things in isolation. Catholics do this too, in other ways: we are all limited by our ignorance, prejudices, sympathies.

• dislike of: human mediation of God’s gifts; & intervention by a Church “between” God & man.

a) At issue is how we are to understand the “communion of saints” & the “access to God” of the Christian. The theological question spills over into questions about how the Christian “draws near” to God; about what is meant by “Christian experience”. ISTM that Catholic piety may seem Christless because it is not directed only to Christ; there are the Saints “getting in the way”, “taking away from” the love that should be poured out on Him, alone. IOW, they look like rivals to Him, competitors for the love & worship to be given to Him alone - in short, they are being idolised. This seeming prompts the question, how are we to visualise the relation between Christ, and Christians.

b) People in the States are said to be individualists. The CC emphasises her corporate nature: the Catholic is a Catholic, and a member of a worldwide communion, even when alone. We are never outside the authority of Christ - He exercises His Lordship on earth as well as in Heaven, and does so over the people whom He has ransomed for Himself - so we are never outside the authority of Christ in His Church. So if certain sexual practices are forbidden, or doctrines taught, we are supposed to act accordingly.

This doctrine is dangerous: sinful man is quite capable of using the authority of Christ for his own selfish or short-sighted ends. Equally, the Pope, precisely because he exercises what is nothing less than the power of Christ in the Church, needs our prayers. As the Bible shows, most will be asked of those to whom most has been given; where there is privilege, there is responsibility. To acknowledge God’s grace is dangerous - by doing so, we make ourselves responsible to God for how we employ what He gives us. Yet being dangerous, is perfectly compatible with being good and true. God is most dangerous - yet He is good.

• the sheer “difference” of Catholicism from many types of US Protestantism:

The CC represents things that are “unAmerican”: it is:

• very old
• very elaborate
• very big; and international: which almost proves it is evil - “big is bad” for a church, probably because the objectors are thinking of the OT emphasis on the “remnant”; the remnant is on God’s side, & is small - so, something big (especially something which claims to be Christian) must be against God.

Related to such thinking is the emphasis on the Last Times, Revelation, & Daniel; and there is the emphasis on authority - we are not free to go to Mass if we want to, for instance: we are obliged to (whether the CC has been wise to emphasise duty so heavily as she has, without a compensating emphasis on more important things, is another matter).

[continued…]