What's the craziest Anti-Catholic whopper you've ever heard?

[PRmerger]

Don’t you see that this itself is saying “our way is the only way”? i.e. saying" it is false to claim that there is only one Way to God", such as Jesus insisted that He was the only Way and that nobody can come to Father except through Him.

'zactly!

Someone else on this forum has espoused a “Big Tent Systemology”; he prides himself on being “broad minded” and envisions all sorts of beliefs that are welcome under this “Big Tent”; he admonishes Catholicism for being too rigid and exclusive.

However, what’s disingenuous about this Big Tent is that it also has its exclusivity. It would not admit: white supremacists, polygamists, Satanists, wife-beaters, animal-haters, etc etc etc into their Tent. It’s simply another way to say “All are welcome except those we disagree with.”

 

[PRmerger]

I hope that a religion offers a person a sense of order, peace, or simply a tool to help you be more mindful of what’s important … any or all of those things. If you get any of those from Catholicism, cool. I get that from Unitarianism. In that sense, to me, both of our experiences are valid.

The only reason to believe something, Tom, is because it’s True, *not *because it makes you feel good.

Would you really have respect for an adult who continued to believe in Santa Clause because it made him feel good and peaceful?

 

[Petergee]

No, I don’t think that’s what it’s saying.

One of the things that I enjoy about Unitarianism is that it allows a ‘free and responsible’ search for God. I think that God has expressed himself in many ways to us humans. In our imperfect nature, we interpret, translate, and relate these ideas back and forth to each other. Imagine an incredible force of nature just swept through the room… what do people do next? They discuss it, debate it, describe it, and try and figure out it’s meaning. I think many religious denominations do the same thing. I just don’t think that it’s unequivocal that only one is correct.

I hope that a religion offers a person a sense of order, peace, or simply a tool to help you be more mindful of what’s important … any or all of those things. If you get any of those from Catholicism, cool. I get that from Unitarianism. In that sense, to me, both of our experiences are valid.

It seems our phi;losophical difference is muc h more basic than that. You see, Catholics don’t join the Church for what they think they might be able to get out of it - they join or remain in it because they believe God wants them to do so.

Not so much referring to taboo books. As a Catholic, are you encouraged to ponder ideas like ‘maybe there is no god’? Or ‘I don’t think hell is immortal’? Am I not encouraged to believe that the teachings of the Church are inviolate? Sure I can doubt them, but I’m still supposed to follow them, and pray for guidance (and hope that I receive it), but nonetheless required to follow those rules? I want the freedom to entertain and ponder those doubts myself (those are the books that I was referring to); in other words, I simply don’t think that the Church is the inviolate word of God when they say “you shouldn’t do that”.

You’re confusing disciplinary rules with beliefs. The Church not only allows but encourages her members to ponder all her doctrines including even the very reality of God. No philosophical or theological subject is “taboo”.

You mentioned earlier that it is sinful to attend an interfaith celebration that wasn’t approved by the church. I just recently attended one (my first) on National Prayer Day. A local Catholic Church is nominally on the list of denominations of this interfaith group, but did not attend this event in person (maybe it was not sanctioned?) Anyway, I took my son and it was a nice event. Not life changing, but nice. I saw a young boy serving as muezzin, offering a call to prayer. Hadn’t seen that before. GLad my son got to see the diversity of beliefs. Now if this event was sinful… well, then the Church and I just aren’t speaking the same language.

No, I said it is sinful for a Catholic to knowingly attend an unauthorised “ecumenical service”. Because the Church has a disciplinary rule against it. Which it might change one day, to make it more lenient. Or stricter. Or remove it altogether. Discipline not doctrine. No doubt those who attended that event you went to derived much benefit from it. OTOH I have known of several “non-denominational /ecumenical services/events”, which turned out to be little more than membership drives principally aimed at converting Catholics to protestantism.

 

[Petergee]

**T****he only reason to believe something, Tom, is because it’s True, *not ***because it makes you feel good.

AMEN!

I am so sick of that attitude, “I don’t belive all that stuff myself, but please don’t let me deter YOU from believing it, if it makes you feel good” or “if you need it”! Aaarghhh!

 

[losh14]

My favorite is from another online bb, paraphrased:

“In the Christian Bible, 2 Pt 1:19 says ‘and the morning star (Jesus) rises in your hearts’. But in the Catholic Bible, it says ‘et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris’ which means ‘and Lucifer rises in your hearts’. So obviously Catholics worship Satan.”

I asked her why she didn’t translate lucifer which in Latin literally means “Light Bearer” (luce= light, ferae= bearer), and historically connoted Venus, the morning star and was hence used in the 1st century to describe kings. She said she did, that lucifer translates as Satan.

What’s really funny is that this is ignorance masquerading under a guise of scholarship - the poster was so proud of herself for having gone to the trouble of translating the passage. Lucifer didn’t appear as a term for the devil in English usage until Milton’s “Paradise Lost” in the 17th century.

 

[jmcrae]

Not to split hairs with you, but Jesus didn’t say that. John said that Jesus said that.

If John was just making stuff up (which is what you are implying here) then anything goes, and we can make up anything we want, because nothing can be known for certain. This isn’t religion - it’s organized agnosticism.

It’s also difficult to imagine how one might get any sense of peace, or be inspired to do good, by a God whose nature is entirely unknowable - if John was just making it up about Jesus saying “I am the Way, the Truth, and the LIfe,” then he might also have been just making it up when he said “God is love.” If you don’t trust John, then you have no way of knowing anything at all about Jesus.

 

[Major_Tom]

Um, Tom? We just chatted on Sunday on a different thread.

Whoopsie. Sorry!

Are there any “differences” that you won’t tolerate? Or is any differing view ok in your book?

Sure. I’m rather confident that there is some low-lying fruit that we agree on. No murder. No theft.
And regarding the white supremacy that you like to bring up: that would not be tolerated at the pulpit, as it violates the “inherant worth and dignity” of all people.

I’m not saying that we have no standards (this would be the “anything goes” principle). I think that the difference is in scale. For example, you have a much greater amount of specifity on how your ideas/rules/tenets are spelled out.

 

[Major_Tom]

However, what’s disingenuous about this Big Tent is that it also has its exclusivity. It would not admit: white supremacists, polygamists, Satanists, wife-beaters, animal-haters, etc etc etc into their Tent. It’s simply another way to say “All are welcome except those we disagree with.”

Again, I think that that is a matter of scale, not logical inconsistency or disingenuousness (sp?). I think that you could state this another way.

One tent (the larger tent) includes all of those people who agree with the tenet “I respect life”. The second tent compromises those who agree with the tenet “I respect life by affirming that in marriage, I and my spouse will endeavor to follow the Church’s teachings on procreation and sexual acts, etc…” This one would be by defintion smaller (symbolically speaking) because it has a much more specific requirement associated with it. The first tent would allow you more flexibility on how, specifically, you implement that. The first tent does discriminate (no murderers, please) , just like the second one does.

 

[Major_Tom]

The only reason to believe something, Tom, is because it’s True, *not *because it makes you feel good.

Would you really have respect for an adult who continued to believe in Santa Clause because it made him feel good and peaceful?

I agree with that (the first part).

Does my religion make me feel good? You bet. I hope yours does the same. Is that why I joined? No. It appeals to my sense of logic/reason, emotion, plus those other intangibles, like “feeling right in my heart, my gut” etc. Plus it makes me feel good. To suggest that I’m shallow and in it only for immediate gratification is quite belittling. (I’m guessing that you didn’t mean it that way. I’m sure you’ll correct me if you meant otherwise!)

Keep in mind, please, that non-Catholics can also actually think and reason. This thread is proof that we don’t use the same processes and draw the same conclusions, but we both use reason.

Oh, and your second question. Do you believe in Santa Claus?

 

[Major_Tom]

The Church not only allows but encourages her members to ponder all her doctrines including even the very reality of God. No philosophical or theological subject is “taboo”.

All right, I’ll but that. I’m thinking more of the reaction and suggestions that I see here on this thread when something “taboo” is brought up… “be very careful… I wouldn’t do that… not much will come of that…” etc. Why is it sinful for you to go an ecumenical service that is not sanctioned? Because you might be lured away from the Church? So how much are you really encouraged to freely ponder? However, I respect what you’re saying, there’s a fine line there…

OTOH I have known of several “non-denominational /ecumenical services/events”, which turned out to be little more than membership drives principally aimed at converting Catholics to protestantism.

For the record, that didn’t occur here. I gladly would have scooched my butt down the pew to allow for a few Catholics! Hopefully, next time…

 

[PRmerger]

Sure. I’m rather confident that there is some low-lying fruit that we agree on. No murder. No theft.

Yup. The lowest common denominator is that all must respect the “inherent worth and dignity” of all people. I get that. I’m with you.

I just think it’s hypocritical of some to criticize Catholicism for having its own standards.

Why do you get to decide what’s the standard for admittance? And on what do you base this standard anyway?

And regarding the white supremacy that you like to bring up:

Well, friend, since you’ve accepted my “friend request” you can see my Private Photo Album on my Profile page and you will be able to see why I like to bring up this whole white supremacy thing. (I am in an inter-racial marriage. My children are bi-racial.)

I think that the difference is in scale. For example, you have a much greater amount of specifity on how your ideas/rules/tenets are spelled out.

Yes. You have one truth: all humans have inherent dignity. Catholicism has the fullness of truth.

With all due respect, I liken your understanding to a 1st grader’s understanding of math, and Catholicism’s to a doctorate level.

 

[PRmerger]

The first tent does discriminate (no murderers, please) , just like the second one does.

Yes! I am so happy to see you acknowledge that you discriminate and are intolerant to some degree.

 

[PRmerger]

Does my religion make me feel good? You bet. I hope yours does the same. Is that why I joined? No. It appeals to my sense of logic/reason, emotion, plus those other intangibles, like “feeling right in my heart, my gut” etc. Plus it makes me feel good. To suggest that I’m shallow and in it only for immediate gratification is quite belittling. (I’m guessing that you didn’t mean it that way. I’m sure you’ll correct me if you meant otherwise!)

I am glad it makes you feel good and that it appeals to your reason/logic.

I just wonder, though, if you’ve created a god in your own image rather than in His. That is, you create a religion which appeals to your own sensibilities, rather than conforming your beliefs to the Truth.

I also wonder if there’s anything about your religion that makes you uncomfortable, or that you wrestle with, or that you say, “I have a hard time with this, but if God revealed it, then I must somehow be the one who’s not getting it, not God.”

Keep in mind, please, that non-Catholics can also actually think and reason. This thread is proof that we don’t use the same processes and draw the same conclusions, but we both use reason.

Well, then reason and logic will tell you that if 2 people come to contrary positions, one of them is incorrect.

Oh, and your second question. Do you believe in Santa Claus?

I’m not sure where this is going but I’m game:

No, I don’t believe in Santa Clause. But I do the Santa Clause thing with my children. Until they come to reason and understanding and learn the truth.

 

[losh14]

He has published hundreds of millions of his “Chick Tracts,” many of which are vehemently anti-Catholic and which grossly misrepresent Catholic beliefs and practices, if not outright lying about them.

To be fair, I’m probably responsible for inflating some of the sales figures. I mean, these things were free, and when you’re in college for six years you go through a lot of toilet paper …

 

[Major_Tom]

Yup. The lowest common denominator is that all must respect the “inherent worth and dignity” of all people. I get that. I’m with you.

I find that insulting. I don’t know how you intuited “lowest common denominator” out of that, and I’m running out of metaphors, so I guess I’ll have to live with your insult.

I just think it’s hypocritical of some to criticize Catholicism for having its own standards.

As I said, I simply don’t see the hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is “one thing should apply to you, but it should not apply to me”. We both have standards. They are different standards but they are standards nonetheless. I challenge you to show me what the “thing” is that applies to you, but not me.

Since I’m a first-grader, you can use small words! Then again, I can always look up the big ones in the dick-shun-a-marry.

Well, friend, since you’ve accepted my “friend request” you can see my Private Photo Album on my Profile page and you will be able to see why I like to bring up this whole white supremacy thing. (I am in an inter-racial marriage. My children are bi-racial.)

Yes I did see them. Not only is the white supremacy (or any other racial supremacy) not tolerated at the Unitarian level, but I would not tolerate it at any level. I loathe it. I don’t know how else to state it more unequivacally.

With all due respect, I liken your understanding to a 1st grader’s understanding of math, and Catholicism’s to a doctorate level.

It goes without saying, but I’ll say it anyway: you’re entitled to your opinion.

 

[Major_Tom]

Yes! I am so happy to see you acknowledge that you discriminate and are intolerant to some degree.

Yes, agreed. Neither of us would tolerate killing, theft, or racial supremacy… .by defintion, that makes us ‘intolerant’. Love it! Never thought of myself as intolerant before…

 

[Major_Tom]

I just wonder, though, if you’ve created a god in your own image rather than in His. That is, you create a religion which appeals to your own sensibilities, rather than conforming your beliefs to the Truth.

Yes, I acknowledge that that is a risk.

I also wonder if there’s anything about your religion that makes you uncomfortable, or that you wrestle with, or that you say, “I have a hard time with this, but if God revealed it, then I must somehow be the one who’s not getting it, not God.”

Hmmm, I’ll have to ponder that one a bit…

Well, then reason and logic will tell you that if 2 people come to contrary positions, one of them is incorrect.

Ah, yes. You used the ‘2+2=4’ analogy before. Excellent. That’s a great example of convergent logic. You give 50 students the same problem (2+2=?) and ideally all 50 come to the same answer.

However, on a test, you could also be given a question that makes you use divergent thinking. An essay question. Make a collage. Design your dream home. 50 projects assigned, all are guarenteed to be unique. Some may still fail, but boy, you’re going to see diversity.

I submit that, while some of our opinions are contrary, that does not mean that there can’t be commonality.

No, I don’t believe in Santa Clause. But I do the Santa Clause thing with my children. Until they come to reason and understanding and learn the truth.

Cool. Thanks for playing along. That’s been a tough one, because I hate the idea of telling them a lie. I’m careful to tell them “Yes, I believe in the spirit of Santa Claus.” so that when they are older, I can tell them that I was sincere with them. Santa Claus is not real, physically, but it is a spirit that I believe in.

Now is it still wrong to think less of people who believe in Santa Claus?

 

[PRmerger]

I find that insulting. I don’t know how you intuited “lowest common denominator” out of that, and I’m running out of metaphors, so I guess I’ll have to live with your insult.

Oh! No insult intended.

I just went with your low fruit metaphor and went to “lowest common denominator”. What exactly is offensive? It can’t be the “low” part. So it’s insulting to have a common denominator?

As I said, I simply don’t see the hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is “one thing should apply to you, but it should not apply to me”. We both have standards. They are different standards but they are standards nonetheless. I challenge you to show me what the “thing” is that applies to you, but not me.

Fair enough. You approve then to the Catholic Church having standards.

Oh! think I remember our past discussion–is it the number of standards we have that you find disagreeable?

Yes I did see them. Not only is the white supremacy (or any other racial supremacy) not tolerated at the Unitarian level, but I would not tolerate it at any level. I loathe it. I don’t know how else to state it more unequivacally.

Of course you find it intolerable.

I’m just saying if someone’s “free and responsible search for God” leads them to a paradigm in which they find one race inferior to another, in *your *systemology you cannot say they are wrong.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

That it isn’t True.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, agreed. Neither of us would tolerate killing, theft, or racial supremacy… .by defintion, that makes us ‘intolerant’. Love it! Never thought of myself as intolerant before…

Yep. As Chesterton said, “Tolerance is the virtue of a man without convictions.” :sad_yes: