Posted on 01/08/2011 4:15:03 PM PST by Natural Law
What are we to make of the anti-Catholics?
What are we to make of the anti-Catholics? How can we explain the assault on the Church by those who profess in their words the same mission of the Church, the Salvation of mankind, but through their deeds deny it? Are the fabrications, falsehoods, and lies about the supporting beliefs of the Church, about the lives of its saints and clergy, about the verifiable facts of history justified because of doctrinal disagreements? Does any of this matter in the face of the greater assault on Christ and his flock? It defies rational thinking.
In the face of a Muslim onslaught that is bombing Christmas Masses, executing Christians for a nonexistent heresy and apostasy, and a jihad against Christians of all stripes on a massive scale we get shrill unwarranted criticism of how Catholics peaceably worship the One true God. Is smells and bells really a greater sin than sawing off heads in the name of the prophet?
In the face of a secular socialist assault that is killing babies at a pace that outpaces the crimes of Hitler, Stalin and Mao combined there are degrading insults and accusations over the difference between worship and veneration. Corrections and explanations are ignored and the apologists are pilloried. For what purpose?
In the face of the threat of Communist China that suppresses worship of all kinds and enforces forced abortions we get feeble ad naseum criticism of the Real Presence in spite of the acceptance by Catholics, both Eastern and Latin Rite, Lutherans, Anglicans, and Methodists. All the while the anti-Catholics continue the charade of Christian unity, minus those damned Catholics of course.
So in the face of the advance of worldwide evil some would have us believe that it is the Catholic Church should be destroyed when the destruction of the Church would serve to provide aid and comfort to that evil. Why? Qui Bono, for whom the benefit?
That the Church is and has always been a target of evil cannot be denied. Neither can it be denied that the Church has never been harmed or compromised by that evil. Satan can only work in this world through the actions of his willing accomplices. Those accomplices have long ago recognized that the greatest harm can be done from within the Church and history has produced numerous examples of sinners wearing the collars of priests. Regardless of the contentions of the anti-Catholics that does not negate the good that the Church has done not diminish the saints who have served God through her. Nor does it excuse those who blame one of the victims of the evil doers, the Church itself.
Perhaps those who irrationally assault the Church daily, those who spend inordinate hours researching the internet looking for dirt, those who accept any lie or indiscretion on nothing more than its bias against the Church are consciously or unconsciously in league with evil. Lex Parsimoniae, the principle which generally recommends accepting the answer that requires the fewest assumptions, when the potential answers are equal in all other respects. Is there a simpler answer?
“NO ONE will ridicule rural Americans without consequence”
Then you better get started with the current WH incumbent. Something about “bitter people who cling to their religion and their guns and fear people who are different than they are?”
OK, dude?
;^)
The Church does not attack the veracity of Genesis. Genesis provides an outline or framework for Creation, but it was never intended to be a science book. Genesis is a theological work that affirms that God created the world and explains the "evolution" of human nature through original sin. It explains out existence in theological terms, but never hints at the existence of the science that fills in the blanks. You see, science and math are nothing more than the language in which God's works are further explained, not a substitute or an alternative for His works.
Forgiven:)
I don’t agree with you obviously, but I think you take too seriously what some Catholics feel towards the “fundies” that believe the earth is only a few thousand years old.
I go by official Church teaching when considering all that is put before me, even by Catholic scholars and theologians.
The Church does not say that one must believe or discount as fantasy the first eleven books of the Bible. It is open to the science of the big bang, though closed as to the author of the universe and of life.
I don’t make a judgment actually. I don’t know. I stand by my original statement that it is a mystery that I can live without fully knowing unless and until God chooses to confirm or correct what is said in Genesis. He created everything from nothing. I accept that in faith and it is enough for me.
Does your reading of Genesis mean that you hold to a young earth or do you allow a sliding time scale similar to what Gerald Schroeder proposes?
Mind reading. And, as it happens, false. AND irrelevant to the particular point of suggesting that special creation (or whatever) is analogous to transubstantiation.
I avoid conversations with people who leap to conclusions and base rudeness on the conclusions to which they leap. Conversations with people who switch from one point to another are fruitless.
There seemed to be a false analogy offered between transubstantiation and matters of scientific "law". My remarks were addressed to that false analogy, which I think you brought up, not to the larger question.
But I think I may be seeing a demonstration of the topic of the original post. I don't know why these conversations have to get so heated.
That is what your argument is about. The original post is about why anti-Catholics like to, for example, read minds falsely, be needlessly confrontative, fail to understand when their own arguments are being addressed, and are often really unpleasant in conversation.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Then you better get started with the current WH incumbent. Something about “bitter people who cling to their religion and their guns and fear people who are different than they are?”
As I said, Obama's supporters sound pretty much like the Catholics on Free Republic when it comes to the people of the rural American heartland.
OK, dude?
;^)
I get it. You don't think there's anything wrong with you using vile liberal stereotypical language against rural America because you're a Catholic. In fact, you think it's funny.
I'm sorry, but it's not funny. And all the smarmy posts and condescending emoticons in the world won't change it.
I wonder if evolutionist Catholics thought it was funny when Coyne impaled a consecrated host with a nail because science tells us "it's just a cookie?"
I don’t agree with you obviously, but I think you take too seriously what some Catholics feel towards the “fundies” that believe the earth is only a few thousand years old.
You realize, do you not, that "fundie" is an ethno-cultural slur? Why are "fundies" who believe in the literal truth of Genesis 1-11 any more stupid or funny than Catholics who believe in the virgin birth, the Fatima "sun dance," transubstantiation, or any number of other things? Why are any of these the slightest bit more "scientific" or "rational" or "intellectual" than six day young earth creationism? I don't see any difference at all other than "our miracles are great and 'theirs' are stupid."
The Church does not say that one must believe or discount as fantasy the first eleven books of the Bible. It is open to the science of the big bang, though closed as to the author of the universe and of life.
You are wrong. The Catholic Church is at war with the literal interpretation of Genesis and is currently doing everything in its power to discourage and eventually extirpate it so that not one Genesis "literalist" will be left in the Catholic Church. This also means that for all practical purposes belief in evolution has been made into a dogma which one must believe before one can convert to the Catholic Church.
I don’t make a judgment actually. I don’t know. I stand by my original statement that it is a mystery that I can live without fully knowing unless and until God chooses to confirm or correct what is said in Genesis. He created everything from nothing. I accept that in faith and it is enough for me.
Having written Genesis in the first place, why would G-d ever need to "correct" it?
I simply do not understand why you cannot in good conscience accept the literal historical truth of Genesis 1-11. Do you have the same trouble with John 6?
You know . . . mormons don't even claim to believe in creation ex nihilo. They admit that they believe the universe is an eternal thing made up of worlds, each with its own "gxd" (who used to be a man) and that each "saved" person will eventually become a "gxd" of his own world. Yet they don't spend any time attacking the literal interpretation of Genesis. The Catholic Church claims to believe in creatio ex nihilo, yet it is at war with Genesis. Does this make any sense to you?
Yes it does, as do you.
Genesis provides an outline or framework for Creation, but it was never intended to be a science book.
Playing the tape again, I see. You know, I think I have this speech memorized every bit as well as you do.
Genesis is a theological work that affirms that God created the world and explains the "evolution" of human nature through original sin. It explains out existence in theological terms, but never hints at the existence of the science that fills in the blanks. You see, science and math are nothing more than the language in which God's works are further explained, not a substitute or an alternative for His works.
Then I guess the "new testament" doesn't teach the virgin birth, transubstantiation, or the resurrection either. After all, it's a theological work and science has explained to us that these things can't really happen.
I'm disappointed. We got so close to the point of the matter in our last discussion (I had this idea you were about to say that it's as natural for the laws of science to exist as it is for G-d to exist), but no, you opted to make The Speech.
Here's my speech (which you probably don't have memorized because you've never read it--"open-minded" fellow that you are):
Science can only tell us about the world before it. It cannot tell us a thing about the supernatural processes of creation or the world in its formative state before the laws of nature actually began to function.
But then, you believe the laws of nature are eternal, so that means nothing to you.
Human history began on the Sixth Day of Creation with the creation of Adam. All history is dated from that event, and this is the 5771st year since that Sixth Day.
I am aware that some concordists like Schroeder try to reconcile uniformitarianism with Genesis, but my position is that this simply is not necessary. So why do it?
The analogy is not false; it is quite apropos. It illustrates the problem exactly:
Catholics reject the literal truth of Genesis because "that is what the white trash believe." There is no other legitimate reason to do this. Otherwise they would reject transubstantiation as well.
People tend to dislike people who dislike them.
The Catholic Church despises the simple people of rural America while celebrating pompous intellectuals and third world illiterates.
What possible reason could there be fore excluding young earth creationists from converting to the Catholic Church other than that they don't have souls or their souls aren't worth saving?
It's good to know that ElCid1970's reference to Fundamentalist Protestants as backwoods Biblethumping snake-handling goobers back in post #48 wasn't "making it personal."
On "open" Religion Forum threads posters may condemn deities, beliefs, religious authorities, practices, groups of believers, etc.
Posters who are offended by that town square type of debate should ignore "open" RF threads altogether and instead post to RF threads labeled "ecumenical" "caucus" "prayer" or "devotional."
That said, ad hominems say more about the poster than the object. I often remind RF posters that people do not use spit wads unless they run out of ammunition.
Ad hominems are also Logical Fallacies. The one of the receiving end would be justified in declaring a "win" on that basis and walking away from the debate.
I hope that will never be used to excuse anti-Semitism.
I note that no one likes to be attacked ad hominem. But everyone seems to enjoy attacking others that very way.
If the ethnic slurs used to describe rural American Fundamentalist Protestants by some FReepers were to be used of any other group, the poster would be banned as a bigot. It seems that on FR as in the main stream media, it's open season on Bubba.
Now it is my turn to apologize. The use of the word “fundies” was careless, but not meant in any way more than that is the way they are referred to. I harbor no ill will toward them, nor do I think that they are any less intelligent than me.
I believe in Genesis, I believe that God breathed and the world came into existence. The Catholic Church has made no pronouncement, no declaration as binding on Catholics that they reject the literal words of Genesis. That some are hostile to it, I don’t or can’t deny or confirm, since I haven’t any knowledge of them.
It is nothing new that there are those in the Church who wish to fundamentally change her and as the Holy Spirit is her guide and instructor, they will not succeed.
I would be interested in reading what you have, provided is it by respected Catholic authors and not the “fringe” types.
I don’t believe that what Pope Benedict said rises to the level of him having a desire to expunge from the Church those who hold to the literal reading of Genesis.
I firmly agree that the God of the Bible is capable of creating it all in the six day time frame that we are familiar with as humans.
As for correcting, I meant in that God would correct our understanding of it. Of course His word is inerrant.
Again, I don't need you to surmise what I do and don't believe.
It is a shame you only gave it six years and didn't pursue your questions or concerns to a greater depth. You would have found the deficiencies you perceived were within you and not the Church. Creation and all that is in it, including the laws of nature, as you call them, were created "ab initio temporis", which is a more complete explanation than "ex nihilo". I would encourage you to explore this further.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.