Documents written at the time that the Syllabus was written? I’ve seen some explanations that try to reconcile it with Vatican II and today’s societies, but none around the dates the Syllabus was made.
Oh dear. As quasimodo said, do your homework. Then come back and discuss what the Syllabus actually says, rather than trying to impose your perverse interpretation of it onto everybody else.
I base my claim that Catholicism is totalitarian not **just **because it believes its claims are true and all others are false,
Are you asserting that you do not make such a claim?
but it wants to take control of government and make Catholicism the sole religion of the State,
Just like every non-Catholic political activist wants to make the government act according to his own views.
disallow freedom of religion,
You mean freedom
from religion.
take control of education
What a joke. The Church invented mass education and totally funded and controlled it for centuries before somebody in the 19th century came up with the idea that a State could set up its own schools. Let alone the noxious idea invented by 20th century atheist dictators that the State should **take control **of education.
and all laws of the States of the world, and has no moral problem using force for its ambitions.
Non-Catholic rulers have no problem making whatever laws fit in with their beliefs and using force to enforce them. Why should there be a different rule for Catholics, just because you happen to dislike us?
No the school was great, I think the sad reflection is on the religion.
You have amply demonstrated you know less than nothing about what the Church teaches (that is, you even assert that it teaches some things it doesn’t, and some of which are the direct opposite of what it actually teaches) and about history. Whilst the school might not have taught you these false notions, it apparently failed in its duty to effectively disabuse you of them.
Leif Erikson:
Justification of Genesis is nothing more than a weak cherry-picking ploy to try and find figurative truth in a completely outdated story.
“Outdated”? IMO it’s you and your regurgigation of a feeble attempt by late-19th century atheists to try to set up a conflict between science and Christianity which is sadly outdated. People centuries hence will be avidly studying Genesis when this 19th century theory has been relegated to a forgotten footnote in a history book.
Because it might have said some things that vaguely resemble what we know to be true today lends no credibility to the story simply because it got things right by chance.
Ah yes, chance, blind chance - the atheist’s catch-all explanation of everything.
Some specific points: no one is saying that the sky and the sea were once one super-ocean, really have no idea where you got that. When God was said to separate the waters, it was meant to explain rain.
And that’s exactly what palaeogeographers believe happened: all of the water was once in an immensely dense and deep cloud blanketing the earth, then it began to rain, for centuries, until most of the water was in in one vast super-ocean surrounding the single continet of Pangaea. It was fresh rain water, it became gradually salty over aeons as minerals from the underlying rocks gradually dissolved in it.
There is no even remotely impressive similarity between Genesis and the Truth, and to suggest that science will “catch up” is laughable.
The “infinite wisdom” that was displayed by God in the Old Testament to me shows that the religion was simply invented by a tribal, primitive society.
How nice that you are so much more evolved and intelligent than these primitives and the stories they “invented”.
