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

[PRmerger]

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.

No. This analogy is more like Basic Logic 101 and less like math. More like the basic principles of reason.

Principle of noncontradiction: the same thing cannot both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect. The same proposition cannot be both true and false.

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

Contrary? As in: You say it’s “A” and I say “It’s not A”.

So can you give an example of our having contrary doctrines yet having commonality?

I’m not disagreeing with you, I just can’t think of anything that could be contrary and yet have a commonality.

 

[PRmerger]

Cool. Thanks for playing along. That’s been a tough one, because I hate the idea of telling them a lie.

I’m with you.

But did you ever watch Chitty Chitty Bang Bang with your kids? Did you explain to them, in all earnestness, that cars can’t actually fly? If you read Mother Goose to them did you preface it with the notion that geese really don’t wear aprons and glasses?

(I’m just playin’ with ya, Tom! )

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

Not sure what you mean.

Would you want your adult son to date a 25 yr old woman who insisted Santa Clause existed?

 

[Petergee]

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.

Oh yes it is wrong to do many things, or at least doing them may** lead** us to do something wrong. But that is totally different from your assertion that the Church doesn’t encourage, or even allow, us to think about, read about or discuss certain things.

Why is it sinful for you to go an ecumenical service that is not sanctioned? Because you might be lured away from the Church?

No, it’s a sin because it’s not sanctioned. To deliberately disobey one’s pastors is a sin. But I guess what you really want to know is, why are some ecumenical events not sanctioned? Because they are not truly ecumenical towards Catholics. i.e. the prayers, hymns and/or liturgical actions implicitly or even explicitly contradict Catholic doctrine. Obviously it is a problem if a Catholic partcipates in something which he blieves to be a lie.

So how much are you really encouraged to freely ponder?

As much as is humanly possible. It was no coincidence that the only place and time in human history that modern science and technology developed was on the continet dominated for centuries by Catholicism, which teaches that not only may we ask questions about everything but that we must ask those questions and activekly seek answers to them. It’s really quite hilarious that some non-Catholics have this idea that Catholics are somehow not allowed to think as freely as other people. We have more freedom in that regard than anyone.

 

[patrick457]

Would you want your adult son to date a 25 yr old woman who insisted Santa Clause existed?

I’d hate to break in, but yes, Santa Claus did exist, if by ‘Santa Claus’ you mean St. Nicholas of Myra.
As for Santa Clause, well, be careful; I hear he looks an awful lot like Tim Allen.

 

[PRmerger]

I’d hate to break in, but yes, Santa Claus did exist, if by ‘Santa Claus’ you mean St. Nicholas of Myra.

By “Santa Claus” I mean the contemporary version of him: someone fictional that makes people who believe in him feel good and act good, but who doesn’t actually exist.

If someone says, “Hey, as long as what you believe in makes you feel good, who cares?” I think this example elucidates quite sharply that one ought to care very much about the truth!

As for Santa Clause, well, be careful; I hear he looks an awful lot like Tim Allen.

Yes, I noticed my (multiple) spelling errors this morning.

As I consider myself part of the Grammar Police (my children are going to be in therapy due to my vociferous insistence on good grammar and spelling!) it makes my error especially egregious.

Red pen correction: it’s Santa CLAUS. Not Santa CLAUSE. :doh2:

 

[Major_Tom]

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?

Sorry, my mistake. Saying that someone is going for the lowest common denominator, to me, suggests lowering standards to appeal to more people.

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, in part, I think that it’s the number. The more rules/standards/requirements there are, I worry about the increased possibility of losing sight of the core idea. For example, fasting during Lent. I like the idea of choosing something that has value to you, and voluntarily doing without it as a method of reflection. But the “no meat on Friday” component loses some of that strength. What if you don’t eat meat? Why Friday?

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.

Understand your concern. All I can say is, no reverend would pass muster, no guest would be offered the pulpit, espousing that idea. Remember, as you’ve shown me: we’re intolerant, too!

 

[PRmerger]

Remember, as you’ve shown me: we’re intolerant, too!

Great. One battle less to fight!

I hope, then, that you will be less inclined (if you ever were) to criticize folks for being intolerant.

 

[Major_Tom]

No. This analogy is more like Basic Logic 101 and less like math. More like the basic principles of reason.

Principle of noncontradiction: the same thing cannot both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect. The same proposition cannot be both true and false.

Contrary? As in: You say it’s “A” and I say “It’s not A”.

So can you give an example of our having contrary doctrines yet having commonality?

I’m not disagreeing with you, I just can’t think of anything that could be contrary and yet have a commonality.

Good question. I can think of one that applies, at least within Catholicism.
I believe that it is not mandated how to interpret the creation story in Genesis, right? You’re allowed to view it either as symbolic, or literal? So if you interpret it as literal, and your friend interprets it as symbolic, no harm, even though you have contrary views.

I can already hear you saying that perhaps both are still relfections of one truth…?

Regarding commonality: the ‘Big Tent Christianity’ idea was not my idea. Technically, I’d have to call myself a non-Christian, so the tent would have to made even larger to accomodate us!

I do like the idea, however, because it encourages focusing on commonalities. Respect. Do onto others as you would have them do onto you. You don’t have to call yourself Catholic (or Christian) to agree with that. My kids know not to steal or talk mean to friends, even though we’ve never told them “Honey, Christians don’t talk mean or steal”.

The OP asks about anti-Catholic whoppers… I think the number would be reduced (as well as the number of anti-Protestant whoopers, etc.) by simply having all parties conversing more. I’m not being naive; of course there are disagreements, and just like you argue with family and good friends, we can continue to disagree.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, in part, I think that it’s the number. The more rules/standards/requirements there are, I worry about the increased possibility of losing sight of the core idea.

That’s like saying, “The more math facts you have the decreased chance you have of understanding Calculus.” :whacky:

And, who says what the “core” ideas are? Based on what?

For example, fasting during Lent. I like the idea of choosing something that has value to you, and voluntarily doing without it as a method of reflection. But the “no meat on Friday” component loses some of that strength. What if you don’t eat meat? Why Friday?

Oh, you’re killin’ me, Tom! Aren’t you a former Catholic?

The catechesis the Church provided is just abysmal and sad, sad, sad. :crying:

Friday because it’s the day Jesus died for our sins.

Meat because meat was considered a luxury.

 

[Major_Tom]

I’m with you.

But did you ever watch Chitty Chitty Bang Bang with your kids?

I can’t do that! Is that the movie with the ‘Child Catcher’ at the beginning of the movie? That scared the bejeesus out of me as a kid.

Can I say ‘bejeesus’ here? I wonder if there’s any theological anecdote beyond that word…

Would you want your adult son to date a 25 yr old woman who insisted Santa Clause existed?

Well, in post #220, you implied a negative comment toward those who believe in Santa Claus. Yet later, acknowledged that you “do the Santa Claus thing” with your kids. Now, are you compromising, then, on the ‘Truth-with-a-capital-T’, if there is no Santa…?
Or are you acknowledging that *your interpretation *of S.C> is legit, but mine is not?

 

[Major_Tom]

I hope, then, that you will be less inclined (if you ever were) to criticize folks for being intolerant.

I think the argument… excuse me, discussion… invariably centers around the reasons for the intolerance.

 

[Major_Tom]

Meat because meat was considered a luxury.

So if you’re a vegetarian, this act would be meaningless…!

 

[PRmerger]

Good question. I can think of one that applies, at least within Catholicism.
I believe that it is not mandated how to interpret the creation story in Genesis, right? You’re allowed to view it either as symbolic, or literal? So if you interpret it as literal, and your friend interprets it as symbolic, no harm, even though you have contrary views.

Ok…I’m with ya…

I can already hear you saying that perhaps both are still relfections of one truth…?

In the same way that a poem says “your eyes are like the stars” and a science manual says “your eyes help you to see”, so you’re exactly right!

As the CC has no teaching on whether the creation story is figurative or literal, we are indeed at a disadvantage as we don’t know the fullness of truth in that regard. :sad_yes:

I do like the idea, however, because it encourages focusing on commonalities. Respect. Do onto others as you would have them do onto you. You don’t have to call yourself Catholic (or Christian) to agree with that. My kids know not to steal or talk mean to friends, even though we’ve never told them “Honey, Christians don’t talk mean or steal”.

Right. There’s the basics. 1st grade recess rules.

 

[PRmerger]

I can’t do that! Is that the movie with the ‘Child Catcher’ at the beginning of the movie? That scared the bejeesus out of me as a kid.

Can I say ‘bejeesus’ here? I wonder if there’s any theological anecdote beyond that word…

I guess if we can say “gosh” we can say “bejeesus”. :ehh:

The Child Catcher’s not that scary if you watch with one eye covered and use the other eye to peep through the itty-bitty space between your fingers. Uh, huh, I learned that trick when I was 8.

Well, in post #220, you implied a negative comment toward those who believe in Santa Claus.

Yes! Do you want your 25 yr old son to marry a woman who believes in Santa Claus?? Really?

Clearly it’s an indicator that someone has no respect for Truth but lives to make herself feel good. She’s creating a Reality in her own image…something that I think others are doing with religion.

Yet later, acknowledged that you “do the Santa Claus thing” with your kids.

Yes, with my kids.

Now, are you compromising, then, on the ‘Truth-with-a-capital-T’, if there is no Santa…?
Or are you acknowledging that *your interpretation *of S.C> is legit, but mine is not?

If my children believe in Santa when they are 25 then I have clearly failed in my job.

 

[PRmerger]

I think the argument… excuse me, discussion… invariably centers around the reasons for the intolerance.

What reasons for intolerance in the CC would you find objectionable?

 

[PRmerger]

So if you’re a vegetarian, this act would be meaningless…!

Yes! They’re missing out on an opportunity. One would think that if a Catholic vegetarian understood his faith he would avail himself of a chance to abstain from something else during Fridays in Lent.

However, “extra obligations are not imposed on a Catholic just because he happens to choose to eat a vegetarian diet.” See this thread.

 

[Major_Tom]

Oh yes it is wrong to do many things, or at least doing them may** lead** us to do something wrong. But that is totally different from your assertion that the Church doesn’t encourage, or even allow, us to think about, read about or discuss certain things. No, it’s a sin because it’s not sanctioned. To deliberately disobey one’s pastors is a sin. But I guess what you really want to know is, why are some ecumenical events not sanctioned? Because they are not truly ecumenical towards Catholics. i.e. the prayers, hymns and/or liturgical actions implicitly or even explicitly contradict Catholic doctrine. Obviously it is a problem if a Catholic partcipates in something which he blieves to be a lie.As much as is humanly possible. It was no coincidence that the only place and time in human history that modern science and technology developed was on the continet dominated for centuries by Catholicism, which teaches that not only may we ask questions about everything but that we must ask those questions and activekly seek answers to them. It’s really quite hilarious that some non-Catholics have this idea that Catholics are somehow not allowed to think as freely as other people. We have more freedom in that regard than anyone.

Hmmm, the distinction is still foggy but may be getting clearer. Is it more of a physical/mental thing? You can ponder anything you want, but are limited on what you may do physically? So you can read the Koran, ponder that the Trinity is not real, and read books positing such…? I mean, not just allowed, but encouraged?

When asked about say, suggestive lyrics, or Ouija boards (they seem to get a lot of attention) responders here on this Forum tend to say “ooh, I suggest staying away from that”. But you’re suggesting what? That would be correct, because those are actions that may lead to sin…?

 

[Major_Tom]

As the CC has no teaching on whether the creation story is figurative or literal, we are indeed at a disadvantage as we don’t know the fullness of truth in that regard. :sad_yes:

Yet I’m guessing that you ponder it just the same. And develop opinions based on your reason and emotion?

Right. There’s the basics. 1st grade recess rules.

Maybe I should give up! I’m in first grade, and you’re working on your doctorate. What could I possibly have to teach you.

Since the CC is the repository of all Truth, do you think that there is anything that you could learn (theologically) from a non-Catholic?

 

[Roy5]

I was interested in reading the quote by Chesterton: “Tolerance is the virtue of a man without convictions.” Wow! I’ve read over the years that Chesterton was an anti-Semite, among other things, but to make tolerance into a vice is wild.

That, in fact, has been a major problem with so much religion. Traditional Catholicism, fundamentalist Protestantism, extreme Islamists - followers of the three Abrahamic faiths, ironically - too often have been promoters of intolerance over the years. Fortunately, most Catholics, Protestants and Muslims in America favor tolerance, a virtue of democracy. Regimes like that of Nazi Germany and the USSR were intolerant. Would Chesterton view those as superior to our democratic society?

 I had some doubts about the wisdom of Chesterton already because of what I've read and heard, but his eerie condemnation of tolerance makes him sound like a whacko - at least as I define the term.

 

[Major_Tom]

Yes! They’re missing out on an opportunity. One would think that if a Catholic vegetarian understood his faith he would avail himself of a chance to abstain from something else during Fridays in Lent.

I submit that those rules and details are somewhat arbitrary. Could you not make a case for abstaining from meat for ALL of Lent if it’s a luxury? Why the Fridays of Lent before Jesus died, individuals days that have no concrete value? Why not also Holy Saturday, the second day after Jesus death, perhaps culminating in a breaking of the fast with a meal of lamb on Easter?

I think that you could make a case for all of that, yet for various reasons, the current rules are where we are. Granted, this Lent example is rather a small one, but I wonder if those creedal accretions have occurred elsewhere over two thousand years. I don’t have faith that the Catholic Church is the sole repository for those rules and interpretations.