Christian Discussion Thread VIII: Augustine's Revenge.

[Yagon]

Though it does make make one question whether or not anthropogenic climate change is real, if it's advocates all have private jets and air conditioned mansions

First, I've worked with many climate change advocates, none had private jets or air conditioned mansions.

2nd, the climate change advocates don't claim that a perfect eternal being told them what they know, they have things like scientific studies, math, etc to explain why they believe what they believe.

Still really not seeing the difference?

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Though it does make make one question whether or not anthropogenic climate change is real, if it's advocates all have private jets and air conditioned mansions

First, I've worked with many climate change advocates, none had private jets or air conditioned mansions.

2nd, the climate change advocates don't claim that a perfect eternal being told them what they know, they have things like scientific studies, math, etc to explain why they believe what they believe.

Still really not seeing the difference?

1. You've clearly never heard of Al Gore then.
2. Not really a pertinent point. Science and religion aren't at odds with each other much as antitheists like you like to try and sow that division.
3. The Pope is literally on your side on this issue....so....

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Thats not true. I've only had host only communion once.

And.... I haven't been back to that church since.

Really? I thought host-only was the standard. Huh.

In the US it's only when logistically necessary. Some of these perishes are pretty big. Like, in the thousands big.

And like Bari pointed out, the fullness of God is present in both species individually. One can get the fullness of God in receiving just one species. I'm of the opinion that we should receive both species, but it's not necessary to receive both to receive the full ness of communion. And as the Eucharist miracles have shown, the host has both blood and flesh.

[Salus Maior]

Wow, that's poor reasoning, and totally misses the point.

One only has to meet that standard if one claims to know what God wants. If you're honest and just admit its only the opinion of humans, then it doesn't require that qualification.

Your leap of faith, if it includes that gays shouldn't get married, that people should have to live by what your church believes, that those who don't believe the same as you deserve to burn and be tortured forether, etcera, well, enjoy your leap, but if you push your Christian beliefs on others, your leap is hurting others.

Try to get at least this part as a takeaway: Any human who claims to know what God thinks has to produce content to that level. Any human who is honest and admits they only speak for humans can be imperfect because they aren't lying and claiming to have some sort of access to perfect teaching.

We understand what God requires of us in terms of practice and living day-to-day by what's written in the Scriptures by people who for the most part are first-hand witnesses, and from tradition by people who aspired to live their lives in accordance with said Scriptures and received divine inspiration and taught it.

The thing is, you clearly don't understand what you're talking about. Neither the Pope, or Priests, or anyone else in the Church can freely teach whatever they want and expect to have it stick, that's not their authority. Church doctrine is based on the eternal truths received by the Apostles from Christ Himself, teaching hasn't changed since then...Because again, eternal divine truths.

The Pope, as well as everyone else in the Church, is expected to uphold those truths and remain in line with historic Christian teaching. Doctrine can't be changed, and it can't really be made up out of thin air. So no, hearing the voice of the Pope is absolutely not hearing the voice of God. What the Pope says needs to be backed by historic Christian teaching in order for it to be taken seriously.

Who said I'm pushing anything? You came here. Clearly you just have a bone to pick, not to actually learn anything or discuss anything.

[Salus Maior]

First, I've worked with many climate change advocates, none had private jets or air conditioned mansions.

2nd, the climate change advocates don't claim that a perfect eternal being told them what they know, they have things like scientific studies, math, etc to explain why they believe what they believe.

Still really not seeing the difference?

1. You've clearly never heard of Al Gore then.
2. Not really a pertinent point. Science and religion aren't at odds with each other much as antitheists like you like to try and sow that division.
3. The Pope is literally on your side on this issue....so....

And the Ecumenical Patriarch so I hear.

I think he wrote a book about environmentalism.

[Salus Maior]

Join us instead, we've got the Blood of Christ.

(this is only meant as a friendly jab at the fact that laity in the Catholic Latin Rite are only communed with the Body, not the Blood)

[
Join us, we've got cookies.

If only I were this popular in real life

[Tarsonis Survivors]

http://babylonbee.com/news/mob-angry-ar ... hn-calvin/

Babylon Bee, topical as always.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

http://babylonbee.com/news/mob-angry-arminians-pulls-statue-john-calvin/

Babylon Bee, topical as always.

Good.

[Salus Maior]

http://babylonbee.com/news/mob-angry-arminians-pulls-statue-john-calvin/

Babylon Bee, topical as always.

Good.

It's a satire site, you know.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Good.

It's a satire site, you know.

Oh. Then this is terrible.

[Kanadorika]

I've been really interested in the concept of Catholic Atheism lately. Essentially what it is is an individual who doesn't believe in the supernatural adheres to the customs of the Catholic Church out of respect for their own culture, tradition, philosophy, and a desire to help their community.

Essentially, following Christ's words without believing Christ was the son of God I suppose.

Sort of how Laveyan Satanists support a sets of principles and dogma, yet most of them are actually atheists who do not believe in the supernatural.

Now, Catholic Atheism is an actual thing, but have you ever come across someone who could be described as such?

[Tarsonis Survivors]

I've been really interested in the concept of Catholic Atheism lately. Essentially what it is is an individual who doesn't believe in the supernatural adheres to the customs of the Catholic Church out of respect for their own culture, tradition, philosophy, and a desire to help their community.

Essentially, following Christ's words without believing Christ was the son of God I suppose.

Sort of how Laveyan Satanists support a sets of principles and dogma, yet most of them are actually atheists who do not believe in the supernatural.

Now, Catholic Atheism is an actual thing, but have you ever come across someone who could be described as such?

Run across plenty of lapsed Catholics, but none like this

[Pasong Tirad]

I've been really interested in the concept of Catholic Atheism lately. Essentially what it is is an individual who doesn't believe in the supernatural adheres to the customs of the Catholic Church out of respect for their own culture, tradition, philosophy, and a desire to help their community.

Essentially, following Christ's words without believing Christ was the son of God I suppose.

Sort of how Laveyan Satanists support a sets of principles and dogma, yet most of them are actually atheists who do not believe in the supernatural.

Now, Catholic Atheism is an actual thing, but have you ever come across someone who could be described as such?

Run across plenty of lapsed Catholics, but none like this

Cultural Catholics. I know several, only afraid to come out as atheist or agnostic because of the backlash they might receive.

And, just so you know, I've never had the Blood in mass. Ever. They don't give that in mass here.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Run across plenty of lapsed Catholics, but none like this

Cultural Catholics. I know several, only afraid to come out as atheist or agnostic because of the backlash they might receive.

And, just so you know, I've never had the Blood in mass. Ever. They don't give that in mass here.

I'd inquire as to why

[Pasong Tirad]

Cultural Catholics. I know several, only afraid to come out as atheist or agnostic because of the backlash they might receive.

And, just so you know, I've never had the Blood in mass. Ever. They don't give that in mass here.

I'd inquire as to why

Never really asked. Until reading the past posts I'd always assumed the blood was just for the priest or only on special occassions and that this was the norm everywhere. Weird.

[The Alma Mater]

I've been really interested in the concept of Catholic Atheism lately. Essentially what it is is an individual who doesn't believe in the supernatural adheres to the customs of the Catholic Church out of respect for their own culture, tradition, philosophy, and a desire to help their community.

Essentially, following Christ's words without believing Christ was the son of God I suppose.

Sort of how Laveyan Satanists support a sets of principles and dogma, yet most of them are actually atheists who do not believe in the supernatural.

Now, Catholic Atheism is an actual thing, but have you ever come across someone who could be described as such?

Yes, it is called the clergy

[Neanderthaland]

I'd inquire as to why

Never really asked. Until reading the past posts I'd always assumed the blood was just for the priest or only on special occassions and that this was the norm everywhere. Weird.

That used to be the norm in Catholicism, but I thought they stopped doing that.

[Dylar]

Never really asked. Until reading the past posts I'd always assumed the blood was just for the priest or only on special occassions and that this was the norm everywhere. Weird.

That used to be the norm in Catholicism, but I thought they stopped doing that.

Nah. some places are more traditional and preVatican II than others. I actually went to a Church this Summer in Florida, with my grandparents, and I could not receive the Blood, cause they had Communion rails for passing out the Body. And at this church, the priest was facing away from the people.

[Angleter]

It's repeatedly stated in the Bible (Ecclesiastes 7:21*, John 8:7-11, Romans 3:10, 1 John 1:8) that none of us are capable of living up to the standard God has set us. The faith might be perfect, but the priests and laymen following it are not. The point should be to try, regardless of how well those preaching the faith are doing in that regard.

A science teacher's lesson about anthropogenic climate change isn't invalidated when they drive home from school in a massive gas-guzzling Hummer. It makes them a hypocrite, but it doesn't make anthropogenic climate change any less real. Likewise, Catholic theology doesn't come crumbling down when a bishop has a wank.

*7:20 if you're Protestant.

Try with choices for yourself, not choices or teachings for others. When the "priests" are honest and admit they only are speaking what they believe and not what God believes, then what you say would make sense.

You really don't see the difference between climate scientist saying "I am human and human sciences says_____" as opposed to a religious person claiming "I know what God wants and you should do _______"?

The difference is enormous.

If you claim that what you say comes from God, you better have perfect results.

If you are honest and admit you are saying what you believe as a human, you are not expected to have perfect results.

Seriously, this is fascinating to me, you don't see the difference?

Humans who claim to know what God thinks and to have the authority to tell others what God thinks need to show some quality in what they say that reflects any involvement all in a "God".

Humans who speak truthfully and admit they are stating their own human findings have no such standard to reach.

If you don't get why, well, no point in continuing to explain it to you, because you're not able to process the central point.

At what point do you expect the people who teach what God wants to be miraculously imbued with the ability to unfailingly do what God wants at all times?

[Hakons]

I would disagree with this analysis. Nazism has a completely corrupted interpretation of Christianity. They completely disassociated from the old testament because it was "too Jewish." No other group of Christians did that.

I'm not sure that Nazism has any coherent interpretation of Christianity. If it does, I'm sure it is corrupt because Nazism also enjoys a lot of faux-Pagan blood myths, and a not-too-subtle leadership cult.

But Nazi antisemitism isn't unique to them, and their views don't come out of nowhere. The idea that Christians can't be antisemitic would probably exclude the majority of historical Christians. Which... I mean... you can do that. It doesn't seem very "Traditionalist" though.

European antisemitism has almost always been conducted by state powers, not the Church. Poland, a very religious nation, was renowned for its tollerance of Jews in the middle ages and beyond. I'm traditionalist, meaning I have conservative social views, dislike secularism, and greatly value the work of people in the past. I fail to see why being traditionalist must mean I need to be antisemitic.

[Pasong Tirad]

I'm not sure that Nazism has any coherent interpretation of Christianity. If it does, I'm sure it is corrupt because Nazism also enjoys a lot of faux-Pagan blood myths, and a not-too-subtle leadership cult.

But Nazi antisemitism isn't unique to them, and their views don't come out of nowhere. The idea that Christians can't be antisemitic would probably exclude the majority of historical Christians. Which... I mean... you can do that. It doesn't seem very "Traditionalist" though.

European antisemitism has almost always been conducted by state powers, not the Church. Poland, a very religious nation, was renowned for its tollerance of Jews in the middle ages and beyond. I'm traditionalist, meaning I have conservative social views, dislike secularism, and greatly value the work of people in the past. I fail to see why being traditionalist must mean I need to be antisemitic.

The earliest Christians were probably even Jews themselves, living among other Jews and Gentiles alike.

[Hakons]

European antisemitism has almost always been conducted by state powers, not the Church. Poland, a very religious nation, was renowned for its tollerance of Jews in the middle ages and beyond. I'm traditionalist, meaning I have conservative social views, dislike secularism, and greatly value the work of people in the past. I fail to see why being traditionalist must mean I need to be antisemitic.

The earliest Christians were probably even Jews themselves, living among other Jews and Gentiles alike.

Christ was Jewish, the Apostles were Jewish before Christianity became more distinct, the same thing for Mary, ect...

[Lady Scylla]

Part of the issue is that I don't believe in Saints, and I don't believe in the notion of 'Sainthood' -- it's just farcical nonsense to me. In regards to the crusade: I see it as the Church showing lack of restraint, resolve, and letting their pride get in the way of their faith, and as a result, they drew blood. But they're dead, so yes, my condemnations now aren't going to help them, but my 'condemnations' weren't being aired for that reason. I find it curious that people still follow religion, especially the Church despite these things; I wonder if it's because of naivety, blindness, apathy, or maybe some think they could make the Church better. Why would a person support a Pope, or organisation, despite these actions in the past or more recent? That's what I'm after.

Any organization that's existed for 2,000 years is going to do stupid things every now and then. And for the recent things the Church has done wrong, she will have to own up to them. Many people are entirely aware of what the Church has done wrong in the past. Many are not. But those who are aware and who remain aren't there because they simply don't care. People remain in the Church because that's where they know they belong.

This is true, and I do agree to an extent. The problem I see is that some refuse to question the role, and/or actions of the Church (including its leadership). I think scepticism is far more valuable than what is essentially blind faith, strictly because it keeps one on their toes in the face of wrongdoing.

[Lady Scylla]

I don't support the US, or any country for that matter.

Well, way to not believe in anything substantial. Some of us actually want to.

That's fine, I like thinking for myself.

[Pasong Tirad]

Any organization that's existed for 2,000 years is going to do stupid things every now and then. And for the recent things the Church has done wrong, she will have to own up to them. Many people are entirely aware of what the Church has done wrong in the past. Many are not. But those who are aware and who remain aren't there because they simply don't care. People remain in the Church because that's where they know they belong.

This is true, and I do agree to an extent. The problem I see is that some refuse to question the role, and/or actions of the Church (including its leadership). I think scepticism is far more valuable than what is essentially blind faith, strictly because it keeps one on their toes in the face of wrongdoing.

Well I don't know about our beliefs, but we are definitely free to question the leadership of the Church. I know that not everybody here likes Pope Francis, for example.