Wonderful anti-catholic view of Tim Staples

  • Thread starter Thread starter PiousTemplar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PiousTemplar said:
I found this so hilarious:
angelfire.com/pa3/holytestament/tim.html

I wonder what Tim would say about that! 😃
Click to expand...
This is quite a bunch of nonsense.

The Church in general was indispensable in saving Roman civilization from complete and utter collapse, and preserving it to relaunch it anew as Western civilization.

No other institution could have preserved, copied, and maintain all those ancient documents.
No other institution could have saved all those books from ruin. Most of the manuscripts we have today from the ancient world are copies meticulously preserved by monks.
Our worldview of the physical universe, that it was created by God, is ordered, and therefore can be studied, all comes from theology. There was no such conception in any other civilization, which is why Islam, China, and other civilizations all had abortive scientific endeavors. It only managed to flower in the West - because of the Church. It’s not a coincidence.

It’s interesting that, in talking about how the Church suppressed scientists, the only name that can ever be thought of is Galileo. Think about that. If the Church was so horrible, shouldn’t dozens upon dozens of names be on the tongue? Should also be noted that the Church had no major qualms with heliocentrism until it was perceived that Scripture was being perverted to support it.

The Church never officially pronounced anything on the Black Death. In fact, it was probably the only major institution around that refused to declare it as a punishment from God. But it did send priests galore into the epicenter of the outbreaks to take care of sick and elderly people who could not flee the major cities. And that, dear friends, is how the first major priest shortage crisis began.

The only clowns who still advance the theory that the Church suppressed civilization are leftist college professors and atheists who have an agenda against Christianity as a a whole.

The Catholic Church certainly isn’t perfect, but in the ‘Dark’ Ages that’s all we had. And God used it for his sovereign purposes. And used it to save civilization. And to this I am eternally grateful. This has nothing to do with Catholicism Vs Protestantism at all. We were all one.
 
I was able to overlook their calling Tim Staples a “diatribe” but couldn’t make it past the part where he was called an “Apologetics.”
 
salusanimarum17 said:
I was able to overlook their calling Tim Staples a “diatribe” but couldn’t make it past the part where he was called an “Apologetics.”
Click to expand...
Hee. Makes you wonder about the education level of such people… That aside, I wonder how people like this can be reasoned with? That’s our mission field folks, those are the people who need to learn some Truth.
 
As an astronomer, can I point out a couple of things about Galileo?

The Church at that time followed the Ptolemic universe with the Earth at the centre. Like most people confronted with a challenge to long-held ideas, many people in the Church felt that it was impossible and assumed that it was against the Bible, having had the system taught to them in a way that presented it as a natural result of the Creation as stated in Genesis. I personally find it amusing that they preferred the system of a non-Christian over the system developed by a Catholic priest!

Galileo had been given permission to write a book discussing the two systems, by the then Pope, who was a friend. He was told not to lean to one side or the other. Galileo was pretty arrongant, and thought that having the Holy Father as a personal friend would protect him for any criticism or punishment. He made the book a discussion between two individuals, and gave the one holding the heliocentric view a name that I think translates as something like “fool” or “idiot”. He made it quite clear which system he thought was right and wasn’t subtle about it. Even then, he might have got away with it, but in it he stated that Scripture was wrong, in that when the Sun stopped in the sky to allow the Israelites victory, that it was really the Earth that stopped rotating. It was the opening his enemies had been waiting for. Even the Pope couldn’t prevent him from being tried for that. By the standards of the time, his sentence of house arrest was extremely light, anyone with less powerful connections would probably have faced the death penalty for blasphemy. The statement about the Bible being wrong is what he was actually tried for, not his heliocentric model. Of course many of those who brought the case against him were really against his heliocentic system.

I find the statement by FabiusMaximus that any criticism of the Christianity is from “leftists” sad, as that is first of all totally inaccurate. The biggest critic of Christianity at my university was to the right of Ghengis Khan and many of the critics of Christianity or Catholicism that I’ve some across are right-wing not left. Those who defended the Church, including a lecturer who gave a wonderful public lecture on how the Church had helped Western Civilisation, were for the most part politically on the left.
 
Recommended reading: How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, Thomas E. Woods, Jr., Ph.D.Regnery Publishing, Washington, D.C., 2005.

Woods has four Ivy League degrees, including an A.B. from Harvard and the Ph.D. from Columbia.
 
starsmurf said:
As an astronomer, can I point out a couple of things about Galileo?

The Church at that time followed the Ptolemic universe with the Earth at the centre. Like most people confronted with a challenge to long-held ideas, many people in the Church felt that it was impossible and assumed that it was against the Bible, having had the system taught to them in a way that presented it as a natural result of the Creation as stated in Genesis. I personally find it amusing that they preferred the system of a non-Christian over the system developed by a Catholic priest!

Galileo had been given permission to write a book discussing the two systems, by the then Pope, who was a friend. He was told not to lean to one side or the other. Galileo was pretty arrongant, and thought that having the Holy Father as a personal friend would protect him for any criticism or punishment. He made the book a discussion between two individuals, and gave the one holding the heliocentric view a name that I think translates as something like “fool” or “idiot”. He made it quite clear which system he thought was right and wasn’t subtle about it. Even then, he might have got away with it, but in it he stated that Scripture was wrong, in that when the Sun stopped in the sky to allow the Israelites victory, that it was really the Earth that stopped rotating. It was the opening his enemies had been waiting for. Even the Pope couldn’t prevent him from being tried for that. By the standards of the time, his sentence of house arrest was extremely light, anyone with less powerful connections would probably have faced the death penalty for blasphemy. The statement about the Bible being wrong is what he was actually tried for, not his heliocentric model. Of course many of those who brought the case against him were really against his heliocentic system.

I find the statement by FabiusMaximus that any criticism of the Christianity is from “leftists” sad, as that is first of all totally inaccurate. The biggest critic of Christianity at my university was to the right of Ghengis Khan and many of the critics of Christianity or Catholicism that I’ve some across are right-wing not left. Those who defended the Church, including a lecturer who gave a wonderful public lecture on how the Church had helped Western Civilisation, were for the most part politically on the left.
Click to expand...
Wow, thanks so much mate! I have been wanting a brief education on what Galileo had done wrong for a long time. God Bless!
 
starsmurf said:
I find the statement by FabiusMaximus that any criticism of the Christianity is from “leftists” sad, as that is first of all totally inaccurate. The biggest critic of Christianity at my university was to the right of Ghengis Khan and many of the critics of Christianity or Catholicism that I’ve some across are right-wing not left. Those who defended the Church, including a lecturer who gave a wonderful public lecture on how the Church had helped Western Civilisation, were for the most part politically on the left.
Click to expand...
I’d disagree. It is not inaccurate.

There are certainly criticisms toward the Catholic Church and Christianity in general from the right. But the amount is entirely dwarfed by the hate spewed by the left.

The left in itself believes it has progressed beyond Christianity, and that it does not need it. The right - the true right, anyway - values Christianity as the bulwark of Western civilization.

While some individual leftists might appreciate, respect, and admit the importance of Christianity in saving Western civilization, the vast majority do not. That is my experience. That is what I’ve seen. And I’m sticking to it.

PS: How is Ghengis Khan considered “right-wing”?
 
ESMDHokie77 said:
Dunno about Tim but I just wiped the dust off my shoes.

They need to learn how to use paragraphs… sheesh! also, not everything needs to be bolded.
Click to expand...
I agree with you about the use of paragraphs. Lost my way twice and then just plain gave up. Hard to follow their thoughts. They sure could have used an english teacher to proof read their writings for presentation alone.
 
ESMDHokie77 said:
Dunno about Tim but I just wiped the dust off my shoes.

They need to learn how to use paragraphs… sheesh! also, not everything needs to be bolded.
Click to expand...
I find it hilarious - “Information” about Catholicism on webpages without paragraphs, grammer and proper sentence structure almost automatically mean they are produced by wacko anti-catholics.
 
this reminds me of the lies spread about the Jewish people throughout history.
a real hatred for the Catholic Church expressed here. very sad.
 
FabiusMaximus said:
I’d disagree. It is not inaccurate.

There are certainly criticisms toward the Catholic Church and Christianity in general from the right. But the amount is entirely dwarfed by the hate spewed by the left.

The left in itself believes it has progressed beyond Christianity, and that it does not need it. The right - the true right, anyway - values Christianity as the bulwark of Western civilization.

While some individual leftists might appreciate, respect, and admit the importance of Christianity in saving Western civilization, the vast majority do not. That is my experience. That is what I’ve seen. And I’m sticking to it.

PS: How is Ghengis Khan considered “right-wing”?
Click to expand...
First, the Ghengis Khan bit is a way of saying that someone is extremely right wing.

In my country, Britain, the left of centre party - Labour, was in power for the last three terms. Both the Prime Ministers were openly Christian, Tony Blair especially spoke about his beliefs and faith. Gordon Brown, who took over from Tony Blair, is the son of a Church of Scotland Minister and spoke movingly of having his dying ten-day old daughter baptised, shortly before her death. Tony Blair converted to Catholicism soon after leaving office, it was an open secret that he would do so and that he did not convert while in office because he was concerned about how the right would make use of it to attack him, presenting it as making him unfit for office.

Labour also defended state-funded faith schools, the vast majority of which are Catholic. They also allowed “Academies” which could be run by faith groups. They also invited the Holy Father to make the first ever State Visit to Britain by the Pope. Hardly “leftist” attacks on the Church and Christianity and seeing Western Civilisation moving beyond Christianity.

You state that most of the left are anti-Christian, how does that tally with the fact that the majority of Democrats are practicing Christians? And how could the leader of the left-of-centre party in my country be open about his Christianity and support it and be re-elected twice? You also mention the “true right”, so what you’re saying is that those who attack Christianity or the Church are “really leftist”, giving you your majority.

You say that you find that most who criticise the Church are “leftist”. I find that most of them are “rightist”. You also say that “I’m sticking to it”. So why put up a statement on a forum if you are not willing to discuss the matter. If you are so dead set about something, why put it at the end of a piece that didn’t require it?
 
PiousTemplar said:
Wow, thanks so much mate! I have been wanting a brief education on what Galileo had done wrong for a long time. God Bless!
Click to expand...
Hope you don’t feel I posted something irrelevant. I got most of this information from astronomy sources, not religious ones. I find it amazing that “everyone” knows the Church tried Galileo but very few know the facts.

God Bless!

PS In the post I wrote that Galileo gave a name meaning “idiot” to the defender of the Heliocentric theory, that should have been the Geocentric theory (the idea that the Earth was at the centre of the universe) :doh2:
 
starsmurf said:
First, the Ghengis Khan bit is a way of saying that someone is extremely right wing.

In my country, Britain, the left of centre party - Labour, was in power for the last three terms. Both the Prime Ministers were openly Christian, Tony Blair especially spoke about his beliefs and faith. Gordon Brown, who took over from Tony Blair, is the son of a Church of Scotland Minister and spoke movingly of having his dying ten-day old daughter baptised, shortly before her death. Tony Blair converted to Catholicism soon after leaving office, it was an open secret that he would do so and that he did not convert while in office because he was concerned about how the right would make use of it to attack him, presenting it as making him unfit for office.
Click to expand...
I know Tony Blair converted to Catholicism. And honestly, I’m willing to be he’ll convert to Islam, too.
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2002883/Tony-Blair-reads-Koran-day-stay-faith-literate.html

A man who says “We don’t do God” representing Tony Blair, suggests to me, that neither Blair nor Labour really care bout religion. Just because you’re officially part of a faith doesn’t mean you actively practice it. Or you really care about it. Obama calls himself a Christian all the time, but it’s quite clear that he is nothing even close to a Christian. I’m not really impressed by Brown either.
Labour also defended state-funded faith schools, the vast majority of which are Catholic. They also allowed “Academies” which could be run by faith groups. They also invited the Holy Father to make the first ever State Visit to Britain by the Pope. Hardly “leftist” attacks on the Church and Christianity and seeing Western Civilisation moving beyond Christianity.
Click to expand...
Because I’m sure both the Conservative Party and the British National Party, for instance, would have strenuously opposed faith schools. (sarcasm, of course). Nick Clegg came out against faith-based schools. Is he a right-winger?
Besides, the faith based schools initiatives is primarily to pacify angry British Muslims, not to promote Christianity. The British government doesn’t care about Christians.
catholicnewsagency.com/news/churches_fear_british_hate_crimes_law_could_silence_christians/
What about liberalizing Sharia law? What about legalizing domestic partnership among homosexuals? Is that Christian, too? What about the absurd hate-speech laws that force people to think twice before they even make a statement?
You state that most of the left are anti-Christian, how does that tally with the fact that the majority of Democrats are practicing Christians? And how could the leader of the left-of-centre party in my country be open about his Christianity and support it and be re-elected twice? You also mention the “true right”, so what you’re saying is that those who attack Christianity or the Church are “really leftist”, giving you your majority.
Click to expand...
Your statement would be a powerful one if it were true - the fact is, it isn’t. The Democratic Party is anti-faith, anti-Christianity. I do not beleive for a second that the majority of Democrats are practicing Christians. Even the leadership of the Democratic Party is fundamentally agnostic or faithless. Please don’t mention people like Nancy Pelosi. She’s not a real Christian. And Obama isn’t, either. Attending churches that spew hatred against White Americans does not constitute as being a Christian. I live in a state that is heavily Democratic - Connecticut. Here the Democratic Party passes proposals like legalizing gay marriage and “anti-transsexual” legislation that allows self-professed transsexuals “regardless of appearance” to walk into any bathroom they please as long as they self-identify as the appropriate gender.

Is this Christian to you?
You say that you find that most who criticise the Church are “leftist”. I find that most of them are “rightist”. You also say that “I’m sticking to it”. So why put up a statement on a forum if you are not willing to discuss the matter. If you are so dead set about something, why put it at the end of a piece that didn’t require it?
Click to expand...
I’m sticking to it because you have not been able to raise an adequate defense of your statement, either concerning the faith in Britain, or in the United States. The right-wing, however, on both sides of the Atlantic (and I mean right-wingers, not “Republicans” or “Conservatives” [Big C]) promotes Christianity. It certainly wasn’t the right in the US Congress that allowed abortion to be funded in the new Obama healthcare reform bill. It wasn’t the US right that continues to fund Planned Parenthood’s abortion activities.

Sorry but you’re plainly wrong.
 
I will reply properly when I’ve time, as I’m taking my disabled sister to the theatre this afternoon.

You say several nasty things about Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. You suggest they aren’t real Christians. Is it Christian to suggest that someone who went through the process of converting, something that would give even more ammunition to his enemies, is not really a Catholic? Is it Christian to accuse the first Black President of being racist, when the charge was a deliberate smear, along with accusations that he was a Muslim, not born in the US, etc, etc? Would any of that have happened to a WHITE candidate? You also seem to show a dislike of Islam. While I have problems with many of the things taught by mainstream Islamic denominations, I also have two friends who are Muslim, both of whom are deeply religious in a way that puts many of my Catholic friends to shame.

I used to live in Northern Ireland, I have seen only too clearly the result of deciding that someone else isn’t really a Christian. It resulted in my spending ninety minutes crouched under a desk while an Real IRA bomb was defused.

You mention Nick Clegg and ask if he’s right wing, well… I’ll give two answers, first of all, the Lib Dems are a CENTRIST party and second, the chant at anti-cuts demos:

“Nick Clegg, we hate you, you’re a (wretched) Tory too!” 😃

And is it Christian to condemn allowing my little sister to have her relationship legally recognised and her partner given her pension or compensation if she is killed in the line of duty (she’s a police officer)? I have no problem with a Male-to-Female transexual using the Ladies. You seem to be confusing transsexuality, a medical condition where someone has the brain of one gender and the body of the other, and homosexuality. Medical tests have proved that people with this condition have the small physical differences between male and female brains, of someone of the opposite gender. They are not doing this for sexual gratification. They really are a man trapped in a woman’s body or a woman trapped in a man’s.

I’ll reply to more later but I am not really interested in getting into a political argument with someone who seems to be so convinced that they are right and everyone else is wrong. It is also going off topic.
 
You say several nasty things about Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. You suggest they aren’t real Christians. Is it Christian to suggest that someone who went through the process of converting, something that would give even more ammunition to his enemies, is not really a Catholic? Is it Christian to accuse the first Black President of being racist, when the charge was a deliberate smear, along with accusations that he was a Muslim, not born in the US, etc, etc? Would any of that have happened to a WHITE candidate? You also seem to show a dislike of Islam. While I have problems with many of the things taught by mainstream Islamic denominations, I also have two friends who are Muslim, both of whom are deeply religious in a way that puts many of my Catholic friends to shame.
Click to expand...
What ammunition? Tony Blair is out of power and so is Gordon Brown. I’ve never seen either ever discuss religion in their premierships, unless it was to lavish praise on Islam.
They condemn themselves. Tony Blair is the one that says he reads the Qur’an every day and is devoted to it, and that he loves the religion. That sounds fishy.

With regards to Obama: if a White presidential candidate went to a church that condemned Black people, that said ‘God damn America,’ - then he wouldn’t even have a shot at the presidency. He would be so thoroughly trashed by the media that he would disappear and never show is head again. If anything, Obama got away with it** because** he’s Black. It’s as simple as that. I think if a person goes to a church that vilifies an entire race of people - IE, Europeans - then I am justified in questioning its Christianity. Given that he hardly seems to understand some of the basics of Christian doctrine - that only strengthens it. I don’t believe him to be a Muslim, either. Just an atheist. And yes, there are pious Muslims. There’s one here on this forum. But Muslims are a lot stricter on who they believe is following orthodox Muslim belief than a Christian is.
You mention Nick Clegg and ask if he’s right wing, well… I’ll give two answers, first of all, the Lib Dems are a CENTRIST party and second, the chant at anti-cuts demos:
Click to expand...
“Nick Clegg, we hate you, you’re a (wretched) Tory too!”
Click to expand...
Your quote implies that Clegg is a leftist, but forfeited his leftism, according to leftist activists, because he sacrificed basic platform provisions to enter into the coalition. Which is why he is called ‘a wretched Tory, too.’ But any basic look at the Lib-Dem platform shows they are not right-wing. I’ve never heard anyone claim they were right-wing. Ever. It’s a first.
And is it Christian to condemn allowing my little sister to have her relationship legally recognised and her partner given her pension or compensation if she is killed in the line of duty (she’s a police officer)? I have no problem with a Male-to-Female transexual using the Ladies. You seem to be confusing transsexuality, a medical condition where someone has the brain of one gender and the body of the other, and homosexuality. Medical tests have proved that people with this condition have the small physical differences between male and female brains, of someone of the opposite gender. They are not doing this for sexual gratification. They really are a man trapped in a woman’s body or a woman trapped in a man’s.
Click to expand...
I’m not going to get into the arguments on the validity of gay partnerships or transsexuals. I don’t approve of either, and I will leave it at that.

However, you describe yourself as a Catholic, and the Roman Catholic Church has already pronounced itself clearly enough on what it thinks about gay partnerships. It also does not recognize or accept sex changes. So on that alone, I can safely say that the left in America has been anything but Christian. There’s no way around it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top