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

[Petergee]

Oh, but here’s a good one I just remembered when making that last post.

Long story as to why my Catholic wife was at a Baptist-run grade school, but at one point it came up that all Protestants originated from the Catholic Church. And the pastor insisted to her mother that, no, Baptists were never a part of the Catholic Church, they never broke off from the Church; they were a branch of the Anabaptists. He maintained this insistence, I am told, even in the face of a mountain of historical evidence.

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight

I once met a Baptist online who insisted, quite seriously, that his church was directly descended from John **“the Baptist”! **

 

[Petergee]

Now, as for being the original church, I think that some Catholics may not understand the perspective of some Protestants. They believe that Christ established the church, though it seems that Paul, Peter and other early followers did most of that. Jesus, after all, had a ministryhere on earth that lasted only three years and he never (as an adult) left the Holy Land. (I sometimes question the story of him being in Egypt as a baby, but strict Bible-believing Christian certainly believe that.)

 The church, in their view, had early divisions. Gradually, one group emerged as the dominant group, .... The only point I'm trying to make is that history can be seen from many viewpoints.

No problem with that, but any “history” which denies the blindingly obvious fact that the “divisions” which split off from the Church right from the first century were never in union with St Peter and the other Apostles, is not history but unfounded inventions. The idea that the Catholic Church coalesced from several “churches” with widely differing doctrines who later decided to dump their differences and embrace Rome’s version, is absolutely undocumented and proven false by the study of history.

  Most Protestants would then say something like this. As the church became more dominant and wealthier in the West ir also became more corrupt. There were various attempts at reform from within, but Hus was burned at the stake, the Waldensians were chased into the Alps, Wycliffe was unsuccessful (and I believe his body was exhumed and maybe scattered - or was it burned?), etc.

Except these guys wanted niot just “reform” of corruption, but wholesale changes in doctrines which are opart of the Traditions handed down from teh Apostles.

Luther was the first one to make some progress, and an attempt was made to kill him, but a friendly prince sheltered him in his castle.

  Some would say that if the Vatican hadn't been so harsh, and if some reforms were made promptly, Protestantism would not have been necessary.

Protestantism was never “necessary” but most Catholics also say that if the 15th-16th century Church had done its job better, protestantism would never have arisen.

The Council of Trent enacted some important reforms, but it wasn’t until Vatican II that - for example - the mass was in the vernacular.

Leaving aside that many branches of the Catholic Church have had Mass in the vernacular since long before the protestant revolt, what on earth does the language used in the liturgy have to do with being “harsh” or “corrupt”?

Soon the religious wars had broken out, both Protestants and Catholics can cite horrendous acts of violence directed against them, etc. My father’s side was French-Canadian Catholic. My mother’s side was Belgian Catholic. An ancestral grandfather became a Huguenot, was ordered to stand triral for heresy in Ghent, fled with his family that night to France, then had to flee to England when the Edict of Nantes was revoked, etc. The grandchildren of that couple came to New England with the Puritans.

I note you forgot to mention that the Puritans came to New England because they couldn’t tolerate the fact that in their view, the Anglican authorities in England weren’t harsh ENOUGH in persecuting Catholics. So they proceeded to found the most religiously intolerant communities ever seen in the history of Christianity.

 That's why my constant theme is that we need a 'big tent' Christianity, one where different traditions are respected, where one member might believe in the Assumption of the Virgin Mary (defined in 1950) and another question it, where one member might believe that Padre Pio belocated and levitated and another can't bring him/herself to believe it, etc.

  I know this runs counter to most posters here on CAF, but so be it.

I have never seen any poster on CAF withhold respect from people who don’t believe the Assumption or the miracles of St Pio, or claim that they are not Christian.

I am content to wait to find out the ultimate truth in the world to come. Frankly, I think our finite minds cannot absorb the truth in its fullness. I mean, consider this huge universe with maybe a million or even a billion solar systems! I’m not sure all God’s attention is focused on us.

Our minds are finite but God is infinite. He is perfectly capable of “focussing” 100% on everything and everyone at once.

   God bless Catholics, Protestants, Orthofox, and Coptic along with those of other all faiths who are reaching out to know and seek and serve the Lord. The Christian religion should be a bridge and not a barrier. Jesus must weep when he reads some of these arrogant postings. "Why callest me Lord, Lord, and do not the things that I say?"

It would be arrogant if a Catholic said “Catholic doctrine is true and protestant doctrine is false because my brilliant mind has worked out that it is so.” It is not arrogant to humbly and sincerely believ that when outr Lord promised that His Spirit would guide the Apostles and their successors into al;l truth, He did not lie. We boast only in the Lord.

And you seem to have built an enormous bridge by apparently equating “believing that one’s own faith is true” with “killing anybody who disagrees”.

 

[Petergee]

Vive la difference.

I used to think that way, too. That is, "well, all faiths have that ‘ours is the only way’ mentality. However, it is worth noting that not all faiths take such a rigid view. Unitarianism and the Baha’i faith (as well as others) acknowledge a bit more diversity in available avenues to God.

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.

I realize that you’re in a relatively tough position, as your doctrine seems especially reluctant to build bridges.

I think it was Newton who said, “we need more bridges, not walls.” I’ve thrown my lot in with that crowd. I can’t believe that God will banish my eternal soul to hell because I wanted to read a few more books and wrestle with issues that the Catholic Church has deemed taboo. I applaud the semtiment that Roy espouses.

But, as I said, vive la difference!

You’ve built a huge “bridge” youself and crossed over it. Equating “your doctrine is false” with “God will banish your soul to Hell”. And please inform us which are these books and issues which the Catholic Church has deemed taboo?

 

[Petergee]

Now, as for being the original church, I think that some Catholics may not understand the perspective of some Protestants. They believe that Christ established the church, though it seems that Paul, Peter and other early followers did most of that. Jesus, after all, had a ministryhere on earth that lasted only three years and he never (as an adult) left the Holy Land. (I sometimes question the story of him being in Egypt as a baby, but strict Bible-believing Christian certainly believe that.)

 The church, in their view, had early divisions. Gradually, one group emerged as the dominant group, .... The only point I'm trying to make is that history can be seen from many viewpoints.

No problem with that, but any “history” which denies the blindingly obvious fact that the “divisions” which split off from the Church right from the first century were never in union with St Peter and the other Apostles, is not history but unfounded inventions. The idea that the Catholic Church coalesced from several “churches” with widely differing doctrines who later decided to dump their differences and embrace Rome’s version, is absolutely undocumented and proven false by the study of history.

  Most Protestants would then say something like this. As the church became more dominant and wealthier in the West ir also became more corrupt. There were various attempts at reform from within, but Hus was burned at the stake, the Waldensians were chased into the Alps, Wycliffe was unsuccessful (and I believe his body was exhumed and maybe scattered - or was it burned?), etc.

Except these guys wanted niot just “reform” of corruption, but wholesale changes in doctrines which are opart of the Traditions handed down from teh Apostles.

Luther was the first one to make some progress, and an attempt was made to kill him, but a friendly prince sheltered him in his castle.

  Some would say that if the Vatican hadn't been so harsh, and if some reforms were made promptly, Protestantism would not have been necessary.

Protestantism was never “necessary” but most Catholics also say that if the 15th-16th century Church had done its job better, protestantism would never have arisen.

The Council of Trent enacted some important reforms, but it wasn’t until Vatican II that - for example - the mass was in the vernacular.

Leaving aside that many branches of the Catholic Church have had Mass in the vernacular since long before the protestant revolt, what on earth does the language used in the liturgy have to do with being “harsh” or “corrupt”?

Soon the religious wars had broken out, both Protestants and Catholics can cite horrendous acts of violence directed against them, etc. My father’s side was French-Canadian Catholic. My mother’s side was Belgian Catholic. An ancestral grandfather became a Huguenot, was ordered to stand triral for heresy in Ghent, fled with his family that night to France, then had to flee to England when the Edict of Nantes was revoked, etc. The grandchildren of that couple came to New England with the Puritans.

I note you forgot to mention that the Puritans came to New England because they couldn’t tolerate the fact that in their view, the Anglican authorities in England weren’t harsh ENOUGH in persecuting Catholics. So they proceeded to found the most religiously intolerant communities ever seen in the history of Christianity.

 That's why my constant theme is that we need a 'big tent' Christianity, one where different traditions are respected, where one member might believe in the Assumption of the Virgin Mary (defined in 1950) and another question it, where one member might believe that Padre Pio belocated and levitated and another can't bring him/herself to believe it, etc.

  I know this runs counter to most posters here on CAF, but so be it.

I have never seen any poster on CAF withhold respect from people who don’t believe the Assumption or the miracles of St Pio, or claim that they are not Christian.

I am content to wait to find out the ultimate truth in the world to come. Frankly, I think our finite minds cannot absorb the truth in its fullness. I mean, consider this huge universe with maybe a million or even a billion solar systems! I’m not sure all God’s attention is focused on us.

Our minds are finite but God is infinite. He is perfectly capable of “focussing” 100% on everything and everyone at once.

   God bless Catholics, Protestants, Orthofox, and Coptic along with those of other all faiths who are reaching out to know and seek and serve the Lord. The Christian religion should be a bridge and not a barrier. Jesus must weep when he reads some of these arrogant postings. "Why callest me Lord, Lord, and do not the things that I say?"

It would be arrogant if a Catholic said “Catholic doctrine is true and protestant doctrine is false because my brilliant mind has worked out that it is so.” It is not arrogant to humbly and sincerely believ that when outr Lord promised that His Spirit would guide the Apostles and their successors into al;l truth, He did not lie. We boast only in the Lord.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

As a convert from Protestantism, I can personally say that Protestants criticise Catholics at least ten time as often as the reverse. Most Catholics I know don’t even mention Protestantism.

I do remember my old ***Protestant ***pastor making the following comments to me in his office (I’m a bit annoyed he never had the courage to say them in public) -

“Protestants can be quite arrogant about the Catholic Church”.

“Protestants tell a lot of lies about Catholics and the Catholic Church”,

And the clincher …

“I sometimes wonder if Protestants get into heaven.”

How’s that for a wise, old Protestant pastor after a lifetime of experience in his calling?

But then he was an exception noted for his wisdom and prophetic accuracy. My Catholic psychiatrist knew him personally, and he said to me that “whenever I heard the name of Rev. Missenden mentioned in church circles, it was always with the greatest respect.”

 

[Roy5]

A few thoughts

I’m grateful for the opportunity CAF provides for an exchange of views. As I have said repeatedly I have a mixed Cathoilic/Protestant heritage and am troubled when I read material that is ‘anti’ either one. I have wonderful kinfolk on both sides.

1. While Catholics believe that Peter was the first Pope in Rome, that he was given the keys, and that the Pope is infallible when it comes to matters of faith and morals, many Protestants (and others) see the Papacy as an historical development. Rome was the center of the western empire, the emperor was seen as the vicar of the Roman gods, he received considerable adulation, shouts of ‘viva la papa’ (my Italian may be poor - sorry), wore rich vestments, etc… It was an easy step from emperor to Pope. Some would argue that this explains why the Vatican emerged in the west, and it also could be argued that the Pope never had authority over most of the earlest Christian churches which were in the east.

 2. True, the Puritans were not a very tolerant society. But I don't recall them killing thousands of heretics like, say, happened on St. Bartholomew Day. Apart from the witch trials, which were not connected to the Catholic-Protestant divide, I only remember one instance of killing a heretic. Was it a woman Quaker? My memory is a bit vague. Actually, both societies could be very intolerant, including French Canada near to New England. On the other hand, Puritanism evolved into what was perhaps the most democratic society in America, with town meetings and such. This is not to romanticize Puritanism for a moment, but to describe its as the 'most intolerant' is absurd. What about Spain during the Inquisition? And many other societies, both Catholic and Protestant in Europe? Even St. Thomas Aquinas said that heretics should be delivered to civil authorities to be executed. There's plenty of blame to go around. And when it comes to 'most intolerant' - well, what about the Communist USSR - and we could go on. Of the signers of the Declaration of Independent, one was Catholic, 55 were Protestants. Most of those from New England were of Puritan stock. As a patriot, I salute them rather than demean them.  

 3. Peter, gee, the appeals of Catholicism include unity, liturgical uniformity, doctrinal confirmity, etc. People who need 'the full and final truth' are attracted to Catholicism and fundamentalist forms of Protestantism. Fundamentalist megachurches around here - I'm told - are full of former Catholics. Some even say that they are the large majority of members in some of these churches. I can't personally vouch for this. There is another sort of person who places special emphasis on freedom - freedom to explore different theologies, accepting this, questioning that, discarding this, etc, Herein lies the attraction of much of Protestantism - mainline 'big tent' Protestantism where there is no insistence upon rigid doctrinal conformity. I know that traditional Catholics often regard such people as arrogant, lacking in humility, and self-important because they won't automatically accept the teachings of any one church (and often have doubts re the Bible), but millions of people want a religious faith that permits this sort of freedom. Many Catholics who remain in the church exercise this freedom already. I guess they're the 'cafeteria Catholics' that are scolded by 'true believers'

   4. I have always been struck by the enormity and the mystery of this universe, so don't feel confortable with too precise doctrines when I still have plenty of questions. For centuries the Church taught a very materialistic view if heaven, for example - God the Father on a throne in heaven, Jesus on his right hand, Satan in charge of a hot hell down in the bowels of the earth, etc. Anthropomorphic. Hm! I think I spelled that wrong. The creed states as much. It also says that our bodies will resurrect - closing line of Apostles Creed. That satisfied the medieval mind, perhaps, but it no longer does  Religion needs to move with the rest of human knowledge. Posters are always quoting the Church Fathers. They may have been brilliant for their era, but I have read most of them along the way and without good telescopes and with no microscopes much of what they said was primitive, in opposition to modern knowledge.  Why do we tend to value their views so highly? 

  There was a book entitled "Your God Is Too Small", published decades ago. I forgot the content, but not the title. I am attracted to the idea that our God is not only omnipotent and omniscient, not only everywhere, but that he (or she or gender neutral?) is so mysterious and remarkable and powerful that the human mind cannot understand him. I can live with that, filled with awe and reverence. I am devoted to God but find it hard to place the same trust in doctrine or a church or even a book. Frankly, as an example, I simply don't believe that my loving, mercful God made a mistake, regretted that he had created humankind (Gen. 6:6), sent a flood to drown everybody but Noah and his family. Think of all the innocents who died. What about our pro-life position? And as for building an ark that housed, fed, etc., two of every species of animal for 150 days (read the text - forty days of rain, 150 days before the waters receded - Gen. 8:3), well - give me a break? My God wouldn't deliberately cause such a holocasut!

  God bless everybody, of every creed, color and country.

 

[jmcrae]

A few thoughts

I’m grateful for the opportunity CAF provides for an exchange of views. As I have said repeatedly I have a mixed Cathoilic/Protestant heritage and am troubled when I read material that is ‘anti’ either one. I have wonderful kinfolk on both sides.

1. While Catholics believe that Peter was the first Pope in Rome, that he was given the keys, and that the Pope is infallible when it comes to matters of faith and morals, many Protestants (and others) see the Papacy as an historical development. Rome was the center of the western empire, the emperor was seen as the vicar of the Roman gods, he received considerable adulation, shouts of ‘viva la papa’ (my Italian may be poor - sorry), wore rich vestments, etc… It was an easy step from emperor to Pope.

There’s only one problem with that - first, no Emperor ever became Pope, and second, no Pope ever became Emperor. Throughout that entire period of history, they were always two different people.

 

[nicole22]

I realize this post is pretty old, ha, but in a wedding forum, someone was ranting about how rude and inconsiderate Catholics are when they have a full mass for their wedding ceremony since non-Catholics are not allowed to receive Communion. Apparently, it’s also impolite to celebrate your faith at your own wedding ceremony because it’s too long for the guests to sit through. Ughh…

 

[fkjuliano]

Vive la difference.

I used to think that way, too. That is, "well, all faiths have that ‘ours is the only way’ mentality. However, it is worth noting that not all faiths take such a rigid view. Unitarianism and the Baha’i faith (as well as others) acknowledge a bit more diversity in available avenues to God. I realize that you’re in a relatively tough position, as your doctrine seems especially reluctant to build bridges.

I think it was Newton who said, “we need more bridges, not walls.” I’ve thrown my lot in with that crowd. I can’t believe that God will banish my eternal soul to hell because I wanted to read a few more books and wrestle with issues that the Catholic Church has deemed taboo. I applaud the semtiment that Roy espouses.

But, as I said, vive la difference!

Unitarians, Baha’i, etc. can acknowledge anything they want. They can even acknowledge the Flying Spaghetti Monsters so beloved of our atheist friends, if that is their inclination.

As for me, however, I will acknowledge our lord and savior Jesus Christ. He said:

Jesus said to him, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you know me, then you will also know my Father. From now on you do know him and have seen him.”

Saint John 14:6-7

So you see, logically you can either accept Jesus Christ or you can accept something else, though not both, because accepting him must mean believing him, and He said He is the only way. Accepting Him must also mean accepting the Church he founded, which is the Catholic Church. And that, by the way, is an absolute historical fact, along with the essentially Catholic nature of the Church in her earliest days.

There is indeed only one road to salvation, the Catholic Church. For someone who foolishly refuses to take that clearly marked road, it may be possible to get there some other way. That person could drive into a pasture, be chased by a bull, fall into a river, be swept into rapids, climb out a long way away, get lost in a dark forest, find an unknown train track, jump into a freight train, and then hope it is going to the person’s original destination, not in the opposite direction. Or again, that person could just take the clearly marked road, acknowledge the helpful guideposts provided along the way and reach his or her destination safely and joyfully. Each one of us has that choice. I have made mine, and you have made yours, though I hope you change your mind.

By the way, you should read “The Case for Christ”, by Lee Strobel. If you do, you will see that the Unitarian position regarding Jesus is intellectually untenable. Either He was God incarnate or He was a pathological liar and a fool. No other possibility exists.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

Unitarians, Baha’i, etc. can acknowledge anything they want. They can even acknowledge the Flying Spaghetti Monsters so beloved of our atheist friends, if that is their inclination.
.

Flying Spagetti Monsters…

 

[MariaG]

I realize this post is pretty old, ha, but in a wedding forum, someone was ranting about how rude and inconsiderate Catholics are when they have a full mass for their wedding ceremony since non-Catholics are not allowed to receive Communion. Apparently, it’s also impolite to celebrate your faith at your own wedding ceremony because it’s too long for the guests to sit through. Ughh…

Wow. I know most complain about how long it is but…wow!

 

[Major_Tom]

Really? Any difference? Or just the differences you approve of?

Hey, long time, no see. The “Jesus/siblings” thread was very enjoyable. It moved too fast for me; it was hard to keep up.

Well, I thought my tone was friendly in that last post, so maybe it’s the content that you object to. Would you care to expand…?

 

[Major_Tom]

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.

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.

Now if I knew you better, of course we’d have good natured arguments (as friends do) about all of the things that I disagree with about your philosophy, and you’d of course do the same. This isn’t intended to be a whitewash of all differences. But since time and space here necessarily limit the depth of conversation we can have here, I’d prefer to limit it to that, and not let this degenerate into a rehash of every wrong committed in the last 2,000 years.

You’ve built a huge “bridge” youself and crossed over it. Equating “your doctrine is false” with “God will banish your soul to Hell”. And please inform us which are these books and issues which the Catholic Church has deemed taboo?

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 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.

 

[Major_Tom]

Unitarians, Baha’i, etc. can acknowledge anything they want. They can even acknowledge the Flying Spaghetti Monsters so beloved of our atheist friends, if that is their inclination.

As one guilty of many a sarcastic quip over the years, I’ll allow a laugh. (Besides, there’s waaaay too much tension on this thread).

As for me, however, I will acknowledge our lord and savior Jesus Christ. He said:

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

So you see, logically you can either accept Jesus Christ or you can accept something else, though not both, …

Nope. I disagree with you. I’m not willing tio give the factualness (is that a word? it’s late) to the Gospels that you are, so there is a third option.

By the way, you should read “The Case for Christ”, by Lee Strobel. If you do, you will see that the Unitarian position regarding Jesus is intellectually untenable. Either He was God incarnate or He was a pathological liar and a fool. No other possibility exists.

As I said, sure there is a third option.

I’ve heard others recommend the book. I’ll put it on my list. I also have Mere Christianity and The Catholic Church by Hans Kung queued up. Thanks for the recommendation.

 

[StrawberryJam]

When I was first converting to the Catholic Church a lot of my friends and co-workers were trying to talk me out of it. One day one of my co-workers, who is a Charismatic Protestant, told me that the Holy Spirit had been telling him on his car ride into work to warn me about the Catholic Church.

Thinking that I would hear one of the usual arguments, I asked him what his main concern was. He went on to tell me that;

"I could never become a Catholic or even enter the doors of a Catholic Church because the popes worship the Egyptian Sun god “Ra”.

I was blown away! I told him that was ridiculous and asked him where he had heard this information? He went on to explain that he had read it in a booklet that his brother had given him. He said this “booklet” proved that the popes really worshiped the Egyptian Sun god and not the God of the Bible because it showed a picture of the hat’s that were worn by “Ra’s” priest during their religious ceremonies and the Catholic popes wore this same hat.

I tried my best to convince him that the pope doesn’t worship the Egyptian Sun god, but everything I said fell on deaf ears. I’ve heard a lot of crazy stuff being taught against the Church, but this one is by far the strangest.

I would like to hear some of your stories, so think of the most bizarre charge you’ve ever heard made against the Church and share it with the rest of us. Books, conversations, Internet, radio, anything is fair game.

I’m the kind of person who really bristles at hearing christians say that Catholics are not christian.

That is a whopper to me that one must start with first, before going into the many areas of debate in theological differences.

For anyone to claim that, they would have zero evidence of Christianity from the time of the death and rising of Christ to the time of the Great Schism, or at least the Reformation.

 

[Zooey]

My Adventist friend told me that the one day the Catholic Church is going to give lots of money to the United States goverment and then they will be in control of the country.

Is there any hope that this will happen in time to bail out Social Security before it self-destructs?

 

[Farsight001]

I just remembered a guy on an internet forum that was quite entertaining for some time. One of his anti-Catholic whoppers (which got him banned for libel actually) was his claim that the pope was personally financially backing the mafia. When asked for evidence, his version of it was literally “they’re both Catholic. Duh!”

That same guy came up with this other whopper, though it’s not anti-Catholic, it is a rather whopper of a belief. And that belief was that knowledge is evil, which probably helps to explain his reasoning behind the previous whopper. You think that believing knowledge is evil is silly, but he really took it to an extreme. He truly believed that any knowledge or study not directly pertaining to God and his holy bible helped lead one away from the faith. He purposefully skated by in school, trying to read and study as little as possible, and ever since he finished school, he has, as he claims, read nothing that might teach except the bible and documents pertaining to his job as a lab technician at a hospital. (internet forum posts did not qualify as something that “teaches” to him) He refused to open, or even purchase, a bible concordance, a dictionary, or even the Chronicles of Narnia. It was impossible to discuss anything with him reasonably.

 

[PRmerger]

Hey, long time, no see. The “Jesus/siblings” thread was very enjoyable. It moved too fast for me; it was hard to keep up.

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

I’m trying really hard not to have my feelings hurt that you’ve forgotten about me already.

Well, I thought my tone was friendly in that last post, so maybe it’s the content that you object to.

So it was friendly indeed. As was mine.

Vive la difference. …
Would you care to expand…?

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

 

[Petergee]

 2. True, the Puritans were not a very tolerant society. But I don't recall them killing thousands of heretics like, say, happened on St. Bartholomew Day. ..... to describe its as the 'most intolerant' is absurd. What about Spain during the Inquisition?

How many millions was the population of France? The Spanish Inquisition (which was active not only in Spain but throughout the vast Spanish empire, the largest the world has ever seen) resulted in the deaths of about 3000 heretics over a period of 340 years. The Puritan colonies with a population of a few thousand over a century or so were far more violently intolerant per head of population.

And when it comes to ‘most intolerant’ - well, what about the Communist USSR - and we could go on.

You think the Communist USSR was a Christian regime?

Of the signers of the Declaration of Independent, one was Catholic, 55 were Protestants.

Because protestants were most of the population and banned Catholics from political office in most colonies.

For centuries the Church taught a very materialistic view if heaven, for example - God the Father on a throne in heaven, Jesus on his right hand, Satan in charge of a hot hell down in the bowels of the earth, etc.

Congratulations, that’s the best anti-Catholic whopper I’ve seen for a while.

The creed states as much. It also says that our bodies will resurrect - closing line of Apostles Creed. That satisfied the medieval mind, perhaps, but it no longer does

It seems to satisfy the minds of 2 billion Christians today. Please explain in what way “the modern mind” now knows , which “the medieval mind” did not, that our bodies will not resurrect.

Religion needs to move with the rest of human knowledge. Posters are always quoting the Church Fathers. They may have been brilliant for their era, but I have read most of them along the way and without good telescopes and with no microscopes much of what they said was primitive, in opposition to modern knowledge. Why do we tend to value their views so highly?

One doesn’t need microscopes or telescopes to discover theological and moral truths. Which of the sayings of the Church Fathers do you think has been disproved by telescopes and microscopes???

  There was a book entitled "Your God Is Too Small", published decades ago. I forgot the content, but not the title. I am attracted to the idea that our God is not only omnipotent and omniscient, not only everywhere, but that he (or she or gender neutral?) is so mysterious and remarkable and powerful that the human mind cannot understand him. I can live with that, filled with awe and reverence. I am devoted to God but find it hard to place the same trust in doctrine or a church or even a book.

It seems like YOUR God is too small. You can’t just mould the revelations God has given to His Church and reject those you dislike and recreate God in your own image to suit your convenience.

Frankly, as an example, I simply don’t believe that my loving, mercful God made a mistake, regretted that he had created humankind (Gen. 6:6), sent a flood to drown everybody but Noah and his family. Think of all the innocents who died.

What makes you think any of them were innocent?

What about our pro-life position? And as for building an ark that housed, fed, etc., two of every species of animal for 150 days (read the text - forty days of rain, 150 days before the waters receded - Gen. 8:3), well - give me a break? My God wouldn’t deliberately cause such a holocasut!

We Catholics try not to tell God what He is and isn’t allowed to do. Our God is not small, He’s infinite and beyond our understanding in this life.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

That same guy came up with this other whopper, though it’s not anti-Catholic, it is a rather whopper of a belief. And that belief was that knowledge is evil, which probably helps to explain his reasoning behind the previous whopper. You think that believing knowledge is evil is silly, but he really took it to an extreme. He truly believed that any knowledge or study not directly pertaining to God and his holy bible helped lead one away from the faith. He purposefully skated by in school, trying to read and study as little as possible, and ever since he finished school, he has, as he claims, read nothing that might teach except the bible and documents pertaining to his job as a lab technician at a hospital. (internet forum posts did not qualify as something that “teaches” to him) He refused to open, or even purchase, a bible concordance, a dictionary, or even the Chronicles of Narnia. It was impossible to discuss anything with him reasonably.

I really can’t see how someone that uneducated could get a job as sophisticated as a lab technician. I’d definitely take someone like that with a grain of salt. For all you know, maybe he thinks being a janitor who just happened to help haul in the IC unit automatically makes him a “technician” if you know what I mean.