The Confusion of Catholicism

[JuanFlorencio]

You’re right, children are not often born “haters.” I think this might be because they have no ego. They are not attempting to construct a narrative about themselves, but rather are open and curious. Therefore, they do not hate.

Yes, the reason why people who are not haters seem to be “fuzzy” is because they have abandoned the pursuit of a clear ego. They’re like children. I think very few people manage to build a clear self-understanding without becoming a hater. Socrates is an example, though I sure some people would accuse him of being a hater. His wisdom was founded on his understanding of his own ignorance, not a self-illusion. Just some ideas.

Consider the Westboro Baptist Church by contrast. They’re doctrinal positions are starkly clear, and they have a robust and vital mission. They are driven and fearless in their deep hatred. Can you imagine a discussion between Socrates and members of the Westboro Baptist Church?

Ok, so, children would not have yet the ability to establish a sharp distinction between what they are and what others are; which means that they would be unable to hate. Sometimes they can react violently against another individual, but this should not be attributed to hate. It is just a normal and perhaps even healthy reaction. After a few moments, they are reconciled and playing again as if nothing had happened.

As for some people who use to be friendly, once I was talking to one of them about the development of a homogeneous mind, and the day after, when I came to say “good morning” to him, he said: “now, I don’t know who am I. Am I the formal guy who deals with the customers, or the one who drinks some beers with his friends amid infinite jokes, or the serious one that my wife knows, or the shy son of my mother…?” How could him separate himself from anyone else, if he is a combination of everything which is possible, and tends to agree with everybody?

But then, coming back to your original question, do you still think that the lack of a clear idea about oneself (regardless of its content, provided it is consistent) can necessarily originate a hating ego?

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

This isn’t a question about how much cleverer we are than atheists, it’s a question about how and why emotional baggage acquires expression.

In my observation it is largely to do with being Irish or Latino (and maybe sometimes Polish) and the feeling that anyone with differences are a threat to that.

We didn’t have a drop of any of these in us and were also remarkably little catechised in the 3 generations since most of my grandparents turned Catholic in adulthood. All our neighbours were accepting of our apparently unusual beliefs, which they largely shared or were kindly towards, other versions of Christianity being remarkably similar to the Catholic in the towns where I spent most of my life, and with people around us seeing that we were as intelligent as they were across a very big range of issues.

I think the general prevalence of theistic evolution or an equivalent as a belief among the general public helped. Even if this theory didn’t do much for some individuals per se there was a general assumption by others that the next person (e.g us) was just as much a thinking being as themselves. In this context we didn’t feel any need for a ghetto mentality ourselves. In my Dad’s case he gained most of his education from the Army during the war.

With the decline of education, it is becoming a compulsory doctrine that the next person is off their rocker and shouldn’t be allowed to think. Non-Catholics are now further down the road of imposing this than Catholics, in the part of the UK I am aware of.

Hence the original racial basis is in the process of becoming exacerbated (for some) by a reaction to general hostility from society.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

Pumpkin, the instances you cite are specific currents and eddies. They are not compulsory attributes, no matter what anyone said at the time.

Berulleanism turned free assent to intellectual exploration with (name removed by moderator)ut and guidance into apparent dictatorship. Berulleanism is still extremely prevalent by and large though my family are completely untouched by it.

You are also on a personal journey and are in the process of finding your own positions on the various issues, for your own reasons, as you should. The issues are emotional for you, as well.

It’s more important that Catholics try to find out God’s will for them in the here and now than try to fight yesterday’s battles now that it is no longer yesterday. I can’t help those that are still doing so.

A previous poster cited the Creed as the basis of being Catholic. Well there are rather a lot of Catholics who think that is a very flimsy basis, they insist on throwing in a whole lot besides.

 

[Reepicheep]

I wrote out detailed responses to all of your analogies, but I think they all have the same problem.

We can’t verify the truth of a religious claim like we can verify the truth of other claims. The problem is that religious truth is supposed to be objective like any other kind of truth, but we don’t have the same mechanism to verify the claims.

If you claim that a mammal doesn’t lay eggs, this is so and we can verify it. It is so because we have collectively decided to classify animals in this way, and we can verify it by observing mammals giving birth to live young.

If you claim Austin is the capitol of Texas, this is so and we can verify it. It is so because Texans have agreed at some point to call Austin their capitol. We can verify this by reading the laws, looking at maps, and speaking to Texans.

If the Catholic Church claims that Mary was a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Jesus, we cannot verify this.

If some Catholics claim the eucharist is a symbol, and others claim it is actually God, we have no way to know who is right. There is no way to verify the claim or its negation.

1. If you say “the true Church teaches it is God” how do I know that you know what the real Church is? How can you verify it for me? How can we know the Presbyterians or Anglicans didn’t get it right? How can we verify it?

Religious dogma therefore seems inherently more ambiguous than facts about the physical world or facts about political agreement. This is why there are so many religions and why there is so much disagreement, and why exclusivist religions breed hate when they come into contact with each other, in my opinion.

“Unproven” does not mean “ambiguous”/

If I say “Mary the mother of Jesus was a virgin till she died” and you reply “I don’t believe that and you can’t prove it” --that does not render the statement itself ambiguous.

We know what “virgin” means. We know who Jesus is. We know who Mary the mother of Jesus is.

You do not believe the claim is true?
Okay, but the terms of the claim are still perfectly clear, specific and not in the least ambiguous. We know what we believe.

Challenge us on the question of evidence if you like. But don’t try to claim that because you don’t believe it, it must not be clear and understandable.

 

[Reepicheep]

Fortunately you do not have power over him so you are not able to suppress him or his views. However, doesn’t your Church teach that his views should be suppressed? Doesn’t “error have no rights?” This is hate.

But people do have rights, even people in error. Please remember that we follow someone who told us:
Matthew 5: 43-48
"You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you salute only your brethren, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

If the man who disputes my beliefs is my enemy, then I am under direct orders from God to love him and pray for him. If he is not my enemy, how then should I hate him?
“Error has no rights”: but people do. I love my friend, however mistaken he may be in his beliefs.

You are not a hater, and that’s good! However, hate is part of the institution,

If by the institution you mean the Church, I would point out that the Church is made of people, and people can sin.That does not in the least mean that the Church, the institution, condones their sin.

As someone once said: “The Church is a hospital for sinners”. Naturally a hospital has in it people who need healing, and the Church has within it people who need forgiveness. But nobody I know has ever suggested that the presence of all those sick people in the hospital proves the hospital is an institution for spreading illness.

and I believe it is a factor in the psychology of many believers, especially conservative “traditionalists.” I suspect this, because I used to be one. I was full of hate, and so were my friends and community, at the time. No, not childish hate, but this feeling of superiority and “separation” from “the world.”

I’m pleased to hear you turned aside from your hate, and I thank God for you.

Look at the uproar over the video recently made by Pope Francis saying we are all children of God, regardless of religion. It’s like “what??? you mean…those people are God’s children too??” I remember that mindset, and it is born of hate.

I haven’t seen that video and don’t know about the “uproar”. Was it primarily Catholics being uproarious?

Yes, humans have always hated each other. Catholics are not more hateful than anyone else. But shouldn’t they be more peaceful?

Yes, we should.

No, I am not more special than you or anyone else. We’re all humans just trying to be happy and good. If your path to happiness and goodness is Catholicism, good for you!
Your religious beliefs are perfectly great and totally acceptable. I’m not trying to get you to change your mind. You should believe whatever you think is true, and I’m sure God will bless you for doing your best. I think the same about Muslims, and anyone else, regardless of religion.

Hate though, is destructive. If a person’s beliefs are grounded in hatred, they should change their beliefs.

Agreed. Hate is destructive. We must not hate. But you seem to think that “Catholic” equals “hater”, or at least that we trend that way. I do not agree that we do.

They are harming themselves and humanity in general, in my opinion. None of us are immune to hatred, so we should keep an eye on our souls, to make sure we aren’t haters. Spoken as a true hater

Fair enough.

How can you prove that he is wrong? Because other bishops said the opposite? How do you know they are right?

Because Mother Church says so. The clear and specific teaching of Holy Mother Church says that it is not possible to ordain women as Catholic priests. Therefore anyone who says it is possible is mistaken.
You do not accept this because you do not believe the Church has such authority. Okay, not being a Catholic you are not expected to believe something is true just because the Church says it is.
That being said: “unproven” does not mean “ambiguous”. As a Catholic I accept the teachings of Mother Church, and on this point Mother Church has been very clear and specific. There may be doubt in your mind, but there is no uncertainty in the teachings.

Philosophy is nit-picking my friend. It doesn’t appeal to everyone. Reepicheep certainly wouldn’t like it. I’m more of a Dr. Cornelius myself…LOL

Do you recall the original meaning of the word? “Philosophy” meant “Love of wisdom”. I do love wisdom even if I’m not very good at argument.
Or nitpicking. :juggle:

If you suspect they hated Jesus, is it so off-base to suspect the Church hated “heretics” or “Christians they disagreed with at the time?”

Uh, some Pharisees hated Jesus, therefore the followers of Jesus must have hated those who disagreed with them? I’m sorry, Pumpkin Cookie, but I don’t think that follows at all.

 

[Reepicheep]

Mere disagreement and rejection is not proof of hate, but torture, imprisonment, and burning of books and people is evidence of hate, in my opinion.

Yes, and I thank God most fervently we stopped doing such things.

Bullied children and black Americans have good reasons to resent and hate their bullies/masters. I never said that poor self-image is the only reason to hate, but I do think it is the main source of irrational hatred.

No argument there.

I have no evidence to prove that they were refuting errors. For all I know, the “heretics” were right.

And we disagree. That does not make them hateful.

I am not aware of any primary source material dealing with Arius’ supposed theology other than negations. Constantine ordered the burning of all his works, and the execution of all sympathizers and anyone in possession of his writings. There is a fantastic website that seems to be temporarily down. Here is a cached version: webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Y5QwiV_LttwJ:www.fourthcentury.com/arius-chart/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

I looked at the site.

(" But Constantine soon invited Arius to be reconciled to the church, and the emperor ordered the Alexandrians to be reconciled with him. But the Alexandrian leaders refused.")

(“he wrote a letter which really angered Constantine, leading Constantine to order all Arius’ books burned”.) Okay, that part happened.

("Eventually Constantine decided to admit Arius into communion in Constantinople, ")

I don’t see anything there about executing his followers or anyone holding copies of his books.

I think Christianity thrives on conflict. It is apocalyptic, it isn’t meant to be a blueprint for a stable, long-term civilization. The reformation was the western Church creating centuries of conflict for itself, in order to re-invigorate itself. Liberal democracy in the 18th-19th centuries was a top-down conflict rather than a horizontal conflict. With Protestantism it was king vs. king, bishop vs. bishop, layperson vs. layperson. With liberal democracy it was small business owners and urban peasants vs. kings, bishops, and landed elites. Can’t have martyrs and heroes without conflict and violence of course.

(Sigh) And I think we have so many stable, long-term civilizations largely because of Christianity. (Not exclusively: there are, and have been, non-Christian civilizations.)

We can do experiments to provide evidence suggesting the chemistry teacher is right.

Laws are based on the mutual agreement of the governed by way of representative democracy (in the USA and many nice places to live).

Yes, and that does not really answer my point. I was saying, not that chemistry is ambiguous or wrong, but that a teacher correcting his students’ errors does not make the teacher a hater.

Religious dogmas are based neither on consent nor empirical fact. They are mere appeals to authority.

I consent to the dogmas of Mother Church. Many other people do the same. Many others do not, which is why the world is not all Catholics.

To force those beliefs on others by threat of violence is an act of hate.

Yes it is, and Mother Church condemns such practices. We do not practive conversion by the sword.

Suggesting that others will go to hell because they don’t believe such and such religious dogma is an act of violence (albeit certainly not as serious as physical violence/confiscation of property/torture).

Yes, and Mother Church forbids and condemns such practices. We seek to convert by showing that our teachings are true.

 

[Reepicheep]

It seems that Pope Francis isn’t so focused on dogma, but rather his personal relationship with Jesus (whom he believes to be God). I get the feeling that if I asked him a question like “why is it such-and-such” he would say “Jesus.” His faith seems to be “fuzzy” and “mystical” and “personal.” This kind of faith doesn’t seem based on hatred.

Forgive me if I’ve misunderstood; but that sounds like you approve of the Holy Father because he’s being* more* ambiguous than the church as a whole.

 

[Reepicheep]

Me: How do you know?

You: Because the Church says so.

Me: How do you know that is what the Church really says?

You: Here, they say so right in their own book.

Me: How do you know you are interpreting their book correctly?

You: [answer here]…

Me: 12 times 13 equals 156.

You: How do you know?

Me: My math teacher says so.

You: How do you know that is really what the teacher said?

Me: (Shows you the textbook containing the Multiplication Table)

You: How do you know you are interpreting that book correctly?

This analogy is not meant to suggest that you should treat the contents of the Catechism as being as simple as the Multiplication Tables. My point is that no matter how clear, specific and unambiguous the document, it is always possible to say “How do you know you haven’t misunderstood it?”

To answer more directly: I am sure I have not misinterpreted the contents of the catechism because it is a very clear and well-written book, and because I grew up being taught what the Church teaches, and because I can read the book any time I want in order to check on my understanding of what it says.

If I suspect I’ve misunderstood, I have plenty of sources to check. I can go to my priest or bishop, or check other books written by Church experts, or (over the last couple of decades) go online. The Vatican itself now has a website I can consult.

It’s not like any of this is kept secret, Pumpkin Cookie. Nor is it like the Church is reluctant to explain and clarify things if we ask.

 

[PRmerger]

2: Without a strong and clear identity, a negative definition emerges.

This is incorrect.

Catholicism, out of all the religions of the world, has the strongest and clearest identify, for it is the ONLY religion that has a central authority, a magisterium, which claims the authority to speak for all things Catholic.

 

[PRmerger]

Church: you must believe these dozens of confusing and contradictory things with no evidence, or it’s off to the outer darkness with you

Me:

There are 2 options to that:

-leave the Catholic Church…but then you would be leaving what you didn’t have a clue about, and would be leaving a pornographized version of Catholicism

-find out what the CC actually teaches

 

[PRmerger]

Me: How do you know?

You: Because the Church says so.

Me: How do you know that is what the Church really says?

You: Here, they say so right in their own book.

Me: How do you know you are interpreting their book correctly?

You: [answer here]…

Are you asking “how do I know that the Catechism actually the sure norm for what the CC teaches”?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Ok, so, children would not have yet the ability to establish a sharp distinction between what they are and what others are; which means that they would be unable to hate. Sometimes they can react violently against another individual, but this should not be attributed to hate. It is just a normal and perhaps even healthy reaction. After a few moments, they are reconciled and playing again as if nothing had happened.

As for some people who use to be friendly, once I was talking to one of them about the development of a homogeneous mind, and the day after, when I came to say “good morning” to him, he said: “now, I don’t know who am I. Am I the formal guy who deals with the customers, or the one who drinks some beers with his friends amid infinite jokes, or the serious one that my wife knows, or the shy son of my mother…?” How could him separate himself from anyone else, if he is a combination of everything which is possible, and tends to agree with everybody?

But then, coming back to your original question, do you still think that the lack of a clear idea about oneself (regardless of its content, provided it is consistent) can necessarily originate a hating ego?

No, I do not think an ambiguous or empty self-identity necessitates the development of a hateful ego, it is just one possible outcome. Sometimes people with unclear or empty egos become enlightened saints. Sometimes they become depressed. Sometimes they become haters. I don’t pretend to know the inner workings of the human mind, I just thought Sartre’s explanation of anti-Semitic hate could explain a wider array of irrational human hate in general, and I think it can explain some instances of Catholic hate too.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

• communion isn’t a reward. It’s far better to ignore it altogether than use it the way it is treated, as a lever of power
• the distinctive function of ordained clergy being sacramental, most especially in relation to communion, the same applies
• power should be taken away from those who demand to weild it over others in the church, not given them
• for those of us who don’t find the CCC enough help there are countless Catholic and (in the UK) Protestant sources to research, if we want to expand our glimpse of what the Christian faith may entail

Mistaken “debates” on these subjects whether “pro” or “anti” hardly illustrate sniping by Catholics at atheists.

At the beginning of this thread, you posed such an interesting question.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Pumpkin, the instances you cite are specific currents and eddies. They are not compulsory attributes, no matter what anyone said at the time.

I hope you are correct! The people who presented Catholicism to me insisted the opposite.

Berulleanism turned free assent to intellectual exploration with (name removed by moderator)ut and guidance into apparent dictatorship. Berulleanism is still extremely prevalent by and large though my family are completely untouched by it.

You are also on a personal journey and are in the process of finding your own positions on the various issues, for your own reasons, as you should. The issues are emotional for you, as well.

It’s more important that Catholics try to find out God’s will for them in the here and now than try to fight yesterday’s battles now that it is no longer yesterday. I can’t help those that are still doing so.

A previous poster cited the Creed as the basis of being Catholic. Well there are rather a lot of Catholics who think that is a very flimsy basis, they insist on throwing in a whole lot besides.

Yes the issues are emotional for me too. I am a human being not just a proposition verifying machine! I am unfamiliar with “Berulleanism,” so I may have missed some of your point. Thank you for contributing!

 

[JuanFlorencio]

No, I do not think an ambiguous or empty self-identity necessitates the development of a hateful ego, it is just one possible outcome. Sometimes people with unclear or empty egos become enlightened saints. Sometimes they become depressed. Sometimes they become haters. I don’t pretend to know the inner workings of the human mind, I just thought Sartre’s explanation of anti-Semitic hate could explain a wider array of irrational human hate in general, and I think it can explain some instances of Catholic hate too.

I think it would be convenient to analyze Sartre’s texts to come to a conclusion. Meanwhile, the way in which you have presented his ideas (which might be an incomplete account) does not suffice to explain practically anything, because some instances escape its scope, as you can see.

What is missing?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

“Unproven” does not mean “ambiguous”/

If I say “Mary the mother of Jesus was a virgin till she died” and you reply “I don’t believe that and you can’t prove it” --that does not render the statement itself ambiguous.

We know what “virgin” means. We know who Jesus is. We know who Mary the mother of Jesus is.

You do not believe the claim is true?
Okay, but the terms of the claim are still perfectly clear, specific and not in the least ambiguous. We know what we believe.

Challenge us on the question of evidence if you like. But don’t try to claim that because you don’t believe it, it must not be clear and understandable.

I think you know what you believe, but it doesn’t mean that all Catholics agree, or that all Christians have always agreed.

I gave an example of a specific belief, but not all Christians, Catholics, or humans share that belief. There is no way to verify it. We cannot say it is certainly false or certainly true. The truth value is ambiguous.

People who call themselves Christians or Catholics believe opposing things, and they always have. Further, people believe opposing things about religion, and they always have.

How could this possibly happen, if the content of Christianity or Catholicism or religion is as simple as the math examples you present?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

But people do have rights, even people in error. Please remember that we follow someone who told us:
Matthew 5: 43-48
"You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you salute only your brethren, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

If the man who disputes my beliefs is my enemy, then I am under direct orders from God to love him and pray for him. If he is not my enemy, how then should I hate him?
“Error has no rights”: but people do. I love my friend, however mistaken he may be in his beliefs.

If by the institution you mean the Church, I would point out that the Church is made of people, and people can sin.That does not in the least mean that the Church, the institution, condones their sin.

I appreciate your account of Catholicism here, but Torquemada and Pope Pius IX disagree with you (or do they?) Whom should I trust? Who are the real Catholics? How should I know? Is this not ambiguous?

As someone once said: “The Church is a hospital for sinners”. Naturally a hospital has in it people who need healing, and the Church has within it people who need forgiveness. But nobody I know has ever suggested that the presence of all those sick people in the hospital proves the hospital is an institution for spreading illness.

I’m pleased to hear you turned aside from your hate, and I thank God for you.

I haven’t seen that video and don’t know about the “uproar”. Was it primarily Catholics being uproarious?

Yes, we should.

Agreed. Hate is destructive. We must not hate. But you seem to think that “Catholic” equals “hater”, or at least that we trend that way. I do not agree that we do.

Fair enough.

Regarding the Pope Francis video, just Google it. You will find a bottomless pit of vitriol toward the pope in the comment boxes, and even on this website, I think there are threads about this in the “news” forum. Catholics are no more hateful than anyone else. I just think that the ambiguity of religion combined with the ego’s grasping for clarity breeds hatred in some religious people, Catholics included.

Because Mother Church says so. The clear and specific teaching of Holy Mother Church says that it is not possible to ordain women as Catholic priests. Therefore anyone who says it is possible is mistaken.
You do not accept this because you do not believe the Church has such authority. Okay, not being a Catholic you are not expected to believe something is true just because the Church says it is.
That being said: “unproven” does not mean “ambiguous”. As a Catholic I accept the teachings of Mother Church, and on this point Mother Church has been very clear and specific. There may be doubt in your mind, but there is no uncertainty in the teachings.

You say they are mistaken. You say Mother Church says such and such. Other Catholics disagree. They say you are mistaken. They say Mother Church says so and so. Who is “right?” How can the prove it? Who are the real Catholics? How do we know?

Do you recall the original meaning of the word? “Philosophy” meant “Love of wisdom”. I do love wisdom even if I’m not very good at argument.
Or nitpicking. :juggle:

Uh, some Pharisees hated Jesus, therefore the followers of Jesus must have hated those who disagreed with them? I’m sorry, Pumpkin Cookie, but I don’t think that follows at all.

Well if you love wisdom then you’re a philosopher! Everyone has a different style of expression, so maybe nitpicking doesn’t work for you. It’s funny actually. More analytical philosophers get accused of “nitpicking” but they usually accuse more intuitive or evocative philosophers of “hand waving.” I’m fine with either. I enjoy a good hand-waving just as much as the next guy.

The reason I drew a parallel between the Pharisees and the Church is because the model of hate culminated in the same ends. We suspect that the Pharisees hated Jesus because they tried to silence him, discredit him, and eventually had him put to death by putting pressure on the state. The Church has done the same thing to “heretics.” So, that is why I suppose the Church has “hated” those with whom she has disagreed in the past.

 

[Reepicheep]

I think you know what you believe, but it doesn’t mean that all Catholics agree, or that all Christians have always agreed.

I gave an example of a specific belief, but not all Christians, Catholics, or humans share that belief. There is no way to verify it. We cannot say it is certainly false or certainly true. The truth value is ambiguous.

People who call themselves Christians or Catholics believe opposing things, and they always have. Further, people believe opposing things about religion, and they always have.

How could this possibly happen, if the content of Christianity or Catholicism or religion is as simple as the math examples you present?

You conflate uncertainty of meaning with uncertainty of accuracy.
Regardless whether or not you believe the teachings of the Church, the content of those teachings is clear.
Regardless whether some members of the Church dispute or disagree over the truth of a doctrine, the doctrines themselves are clear.

(“People who call themselves Christians or Catholics believe opposing things, and they always have.”)

Yes, and people believe opposing things about any subject of importance. Yet some things are objectively true no matter how many people doubt them.
The fact that some people question Catholic doctrines does not in itself disprove the doctrines. It most certainly does not prove them ambiguous.

Further there exists a standard by which one may reliably determine whether a given statement is in harmony with Catholic doctrine or belief. We have a central authority; the Papacy and the College of Cardinals. If a doctrine contradicts the central teaching authority of the Church then it is not an authentic Catholic doctrine.

(“How could this possibly happen, if the content of Christianity or Catholicism or religion is as simple as the math examples you present?”)

The content of Catholicism is not as simple as my math example. I did not say that it was. My math analogy was meant to point out that your question (“how do you know your interpretation is correct?”) could be asked however simple the subject.

I know my interpretation is correct when my interpretation is in harmony with the teaching authority of Holy Church. Should I be in doubt as to the content of that authority’s teachings, I know where to go to find out.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Yes, and I thank God most fervently we stopped doing such things.

No argument there.

And we disagree. That does not make them hateful.

I looked at the site.

(" But Constantine soon invited Arius to be reconciled to the church, and the emperor ordered the Alexandrians to be reconciled with him. But the Alexandrian leaders refused.")

(“he wrote a letter which really angered Constantine, leading Constantine to order all Arius’ books burned”.) Okay, that part happened.

("Eventually Constantine decided to admit Arius into communion in Constantinople, ")

I don’t see anything there about executing his followers or anyone holding copies of his books.

For some reason, that particular site has been pulled offline. I don’t know why, but it is deeply inconvenient! Do you accept wikipedia as a source? If yes, then I will link to it. If not, check out Burning Books by Haig Bosmajian pages 38-39.

(Sigh) And I think we have so many stable, long-term civilizations largely because of Christianity. (Not exclusively: there are, and have been, non-Christian civilizations.)

Yes, and that does not really answer my point. I was saying, not that chemistry is ambiguous or wrong, but that a teacher correcting his students’ errors does not make the teacher a hater.

The chemistry teacher is not a hater because it can be proven that he or she is right about chemistry via observable evidence. The religion teacher cannot. By attempting to force others to believe what one cannot prove or even understand, one is vulnerable to becoming hateful.

I never said that a Christian civilization couldn’t be peaceful, just that it thrives during times of conflict rather than peace. Islam is the same way. I suppose any exclusivist, colonizing religion is the same. It thrives on conquest.

I consent to the dogmas of Mother Church. Many other people do the same. Many others do not, which is why the world is not all Catholics.

Yes it is, and Mother Church condemns such practices. We do not practive conversion by the sword.

Yes, and Mother Church forbids and condemns such practices. We seek to convert by showing that our teachings are true.

Even if “evangelization” is not primarily motivated by hate, there is still a kind of hate in the thought that all people should be evangelized even if we’re not willing to go all the way and threaten them with death every time.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Forgive me if I’ve misunderstood; but that sounds like you approve of the Holy Father because he’s being* more* ambiguous than the church as a whole.

I like Pope Francis because he is OK with ambiguity, like a child. He is not a hater because he embraces the ambiguity instead of trying to gain clarity by defining an evil “other” to work against.

Now that I come to think about it, in many ways the Christian concept of satan is literally an imaginary embodiment of evil to help Christians form an identity against something. Think of the baptismal promises. The very first question “do you reject satan?” Interesting…I’ll have to think about this some more…