The Pope's Pastoral Letter to the Catholics of Ireland

[miguel]

The Aztecs rejected their belief system under threat of death by the Spanish Conquistadores. It was simple, really, you accepted Jesus or you died. That’s called being conquered, hence the term “conquistadores” :knight2:

You don’t know the history, apparently. Why didn’t the Irish reject Catholicism under the British penal laws? Why didn’t the Poles reject Catholicism under the Communists? Yeah, they were conquered, and it would have been so much easier. But they kept the faith. And the reason they kept the faith is because it’s true. Funny thing about truth…it won’t die.

 

[Agripa]

Are you sure it’s not also an economic phenomenon?

Yes, I agree and in fact I almost included that in my last response on that topic. Like any species, the female tends to seek to mate with the most successful male. In nature, that invariably tends to be the larger, faster, stronger, more colorful, what have you, in comparison to the rest of the male population at hand.

In more spohisticated groupings, certainly in humans, the female is generally attracted to the male that will best provide for her and potential off spring: So still there are the physical attributes - most females instinctively are attracted to a taller man, a stronger man, an out-going, intelligent and energetic man etc. (all ingredients for successs), but moreover, females in complex, market driven cultures also seek the money - making male as well (just look at Larry King and his current spouse! ) - certainly as a way to provide for the “nesting” which young females crave.

In exchange, the more objectively attractive a female is, she will attract more men and thus may choose from the widest variety of males who respond to her objective beauty and she can choose the best. Politely, she will claim its “love”.

 

[Agripa]

You don’t know the history, apparently. Why didn’t the Irish reject Catholicism under the British penal laws? Why didn’t the Poles reject Catholicism under the Communists? Yeah, they were conquered, and it would have been so much easier. But they kept the faith. And the reason they kept the faith is because it’s true. Funny thing about truth…it won’t die.

We are discussing Aztecs and the way they became Christianized - not sure comparisons are appropriate to other cultures in different periods with different histories. But to use your arguement, the Jewish people have been persecuted for centureis for their faith yet they persist as well. Then do they not know “the Truth” as you say?

And certainly the Irish maintained their Christian faith in more recent times as you suggest, but truth be told, objectively, the very early Irish Celts met the far stronger Vikings and Romanized British who subdued them and forced Christianity on them as well. I think thats what is so galling about a blind faith in Christianity - is that its followers very rarely want to admit that the spread of Chistianity came by the Roman and Barbarian sword in the 300’s and there after.

 

[miguel]

We are discussing Aztecs and the way they became Christianized - not sure comparisons are appropriate to other cultures in different periods with different histories.

Well your characterization of the way the Aztecs were converted is incorrect. And later, the Mexicans kept the true faith again under “enlightenment” persecution. It would have been so much easier to just reject it. Truth has staying power.

But to use your arguement, the Jewish people have been persecuted for centureis for their faith yet they persist as well. Then do they not know “the Truth” as you say?

Catholics accept the Old Testament as true.

And certainly the Irish maintained their Christian faith in more recent times as you suggest, but truth be told, objectively, the very early Irish Celts met the far stronger Vikings and Romanized British who subdued them and forced Christianity on them as well.

Catholicism wasn’t forced on the Irish.

I think thats what is so galling about a blind faith in Christianity - is that its followers very rarely want to admit that the spread of Chistianity came by the Roman and Barbarian sword in the 300’s and there after.

You paint too broad a brush for one thing. But even if Christianity spread by the point of a gun always and everywhere, that says nothing about whether or not it’s true. Coercion may have been part of the equation for why it spread in some instances. But long after coercion is removed, the faith lives on. People who have the truth and know it are less likely to reject it. It’s like F=mA. It may have been imposed by that mean high school physics teacher. But when the realization sinks in of how much it explains about the world, why reject it?

 

[Agripa]

But long after coercion is removed, the faith lives on. People who have the truth and know it are less likely to reject it. It’s like F=mA. It may have been imposed on us by that mean high school physics teacher. But now that we know how much it explains about the world, why would we reject it?

Faith lives on mainly because once enforced upon a people, it becomes engrained over time, it becomes a part of the culture. The oldest known exsting faith is the Hindu - probably over 6000 years old and before that, anthropologists tell us there was an even older form of the Hindu. Few Christians make the arguement Hindu is a “true” faith, even though it long predates Christianity. But clearly, Hindu is very much a part of Indian and certain eastern cultures.

And consciously rejecting a certain faith tradition is far more troublesome than simply accepting it once its engrained in the culture or society. In extreme orthodox cultures, rejection of the dominant faith tradition can lead to banishment, ostrcism, even death.

And even in our suburbanized, politely Christian cultures in the West, to reject a mainstream religion still makes one a pariah. The occasional suburban intellect who admits to being Agnositc, or who starts practicing another faith tradition looses a lot in his suburban community: Fellowship, business contacts, possible suitable mates, there is generally some family strife, etc. all of which makes people “remain” with the “truth”, if only to avoid the loss of community.

As for mathematical proofs, I hardly think one can assert them as an analogy to faith. We do not accept math or science on faith. 2 positive things added to 2 positive things always, repeatedly and demonstrably leave 4 positive things.

The “truth” of any faith, is always subjective. That Jesus rose from the dead, walked on water or raised the dead exists only because one believes it to be true and a group of similar believers enforce that belief amoung each other and try to spread it to gain a large community of believers. However, what Jesus actually did has never been demonstrated and the only way we know it is because others told us it happened and we are told to beleive it lest we burn in hell if we do not beleive it - which is not proof of truth, but is emotional coersion that plays on human’s innate fear of death.

 

[miguel]

The “truth” of any faith, is always subjective. That Jesus rose from the dead, walked on water or raised the dead exists only because one believes it to be true and a group of similar believers enforce that belief amoung each other and try to spread it to gain a large community of believers. However, what Jesus actually did has never been demonstrated and the only way we know it is because others told us it happened and we are told to beleive it lest we burn in hell if we do not beleive it - which is not proof of truth, but is emotional coersion that plays on human’s innate fear of death.

How do we know any history is true? The highest standard of historical credibility is given to eyewitness accounts.

 

[miguel]

Politely, she will claim its “love”.

Still painting with too broad a brush.

 

[Agripa]

Well, if we may get a little bit back to the original subject. I see Rome is now in good old fashioned denail mode - telling its faithful not to be swayed by lies and “rumors” regarding the onslaught of disgusting reports of child abuse!! WOW - that is certainly an unfortunate reaction.

Here are my questions for any remaining watchers of this thread:

If in fact it is clearly discovered through valid civil judicial process that the current Pope was aware of sick, criminally abusive priests harming children under his charge while presiding in Munich and did not force his subordinates to report these priests to civil authorities AND it is further discovered that by commission or ommission, he also made sure these priests were “moved around” to avoid “problems”, should the current Pope face civil inquiry and possible charges in Germany if relevant laws were broken?

Now, let us further suppose there is no law prohibiting a bishop or arch-bishop from moving such sick, criminal priests around - is there still a moral obligation of such a bishop or arch bishop to ensure these priests are reported to civil authorities?

 

[anode]

You don’t know the history, apparently. Why didn’t the Irish reject Catholicism under the British penal laws? Why didn’t the Poles reject Catholicism under the Communists? Yeah, they were conquered, and it would have been so much easier. But they kept the faith. And the reason they kept the faith is because it’s true. Funny thing about truth…it won’t die.

The Irish kept the faith because the stupid Brits tried to take it away from them. And, because schools were forbidden, the only educated people in the community were priests. The Irish clung to their faith against outside enemies. Little did they know that one day their worst enemy would come from within, from their very source of strength, the Roman Catholic Church.

Watch this clip on YouTube from an Irish victim of vicious physical and sexual abuse, who then decades later was abused *again *by lawyers representing the Church for the Ryan Commission, who belittled and insulted him during his attempts at testimony:

youtube.com/watch?v=9jHqndf9Kx4