Terraius wrote:Risottia wrote:Well, some:
1.with Christianity as a whole: the same issue I have with all religions.
There's no possible logical way of proving your claims - so don't brag about them, don't try to enforce your morality on me, and don't try saying that your claims are as good as a scientifical theory. If you agree to that, then we can be best buddies. (Hey, after all my fiancee is a Christian).
Curious, what ground shall one base their laws, morals, and codes, integral into society, to maintain law and order, a sense of justice, and peace of the land?
Through rational ethics, democracy and law, instead of relying on the translation of the translations of a colletion of 3000-year-old myths, maybe?
How is a Religion, a Theocratic Theory if you will, with thousands of years of written and oral history, with very debatable ideas of its own, when compared to a Scientific Theory, any lesser?
Simple. A religion cannot be tested and falsified through logics and physical evidence, hence it cannot describe physical reality.
If you have any evidence to prove what the universe did/was before the first second of time passed, then by all means reveal it! The same could be same for religion. Neither can effectively produce physical evidence on what caused the effect of creation-- the only difference is religion requires faith while science continues to pick and pick to try and explain a world or place that was in theory non existent before the first second of time and the formation of the universe, therefore creating a paradox within itself.
Actually St.Augustine says that it has no meaning speaking of time BEFORE "creation" because time was created as a property of the universe. Hence, speaking of causation relationships (your "effect of creation") with one of the terms being outside the universe is meaningless, according to one of the Doctors of the Church - confirmed also by the works of the Aquinas and of Luther...
2.with the RCC clergy: living in Italy MEANS having issues with the RCC.
Starting with the huge 'privileges given to RCC clergy and organizations... then about the indoctrination of kids into being Catholic - managed by the RCC but paid for by the Italian Republic... and I could go on, and on, and on...
If you file your taxes yearly with the Italian government you would know that this is completely bogus
You calling me a liar, kid? Better you don't.
You can choose to devolve 8/1000 of your IRPeF (Tax on the Incomes of Physical Persons) to the State or to some religious organizations. True. But that isn't the only funding/benefit the RCC and its organizations receive from the Italian Republic.
The RCC and its organization are exempt, totally or partially from a lot of taxes (taxes on property, taxes on incomes, taxes on enterprises) thus leading to a breach of fair competition rule.
The RCC bishops nominate Catholic Religion teachers for the State schools - but their wages must be paid by the Ministry, and if the bishop revoke their nomination they must be taken in by the Ministry as teacher of some other subject, even if they aren't qualified for that.
The RCC uses a lot of buildings that are property of the State (like many historical churches) without paying even a symbolical rent - but the State has to pay for maintenance works.
The Italian State also pays for RCC religious events through the Protezione Civile agency.
The Italian Regions also have programs funding RCC schools.
Your simply implying that because Italy is the homeland of the Romans, the converted people and founders of the first established church, and the native population has a natural tie to the RCC, that the RCC tends to get more funds.
No. I'm not implying that.
There is plenty of native Italian population who isn't catholic. Like atheists, jews, muslims, orthodoxes, waldenses, protestants, calvinists etc. Are you perhaps implying that who isn't catholic cannot be a native Italian?
Well, this is very true, but what more can you expect in the homeland of the faith? Why are you surprised in the least that the people would naturally opt for the RCC To receive the funds they opt in their taxes?
Actually every year more and more people opt for the Waldenses for the 8/1000 IRPeF. This doesn't prevent the RCC from getting an always increasing funding and benefits from the State through other channels - because many political parties are keen on gathering the votes of the mostly-Catholic centrists.
3.with non-lapsed Catholics: a necrophagous bunch (see the trinity dogma and the transubstantiation dogma).
A Catholic who does not take the Eucharistic Adoration with the intent of honoring Jesus as his apostles did at his last supper are not true Catholics. This is probably one of the biggest pillars in the church!
And Catholics claim they're eating the flesh of a dead man.
Jesus was BOTH man and God. "Verbum caro factum est": the Word was made into flesh. Gospel!
The transubstantiation dogma implies that the eucharist is turned into Jesus' flesh physically, not just symbolically.
Necrophagia follows logically from the above.
If you want to state that the Eucharist isn't necrophagia, you have some options:
1.claim that the transubstantiation is just symbolical - that would be haeresy - protestant-like afaik.
2.claim that Jesus wasn't a man - that would be haeresy - a sort of reverse Arianism, and contradicting the Word of thy LORD.
3.claim that logics doesn't apply to religion. Hence, it is pointless to debate religion because it is basically founded on special pleading - which is a logical fallacy.
Terraius wrote:To accept his blood and body is not to accept a literal body but a celestial, holy body that we are all destined to shelter in after our deaths.
The Council of Trent wrote:In the arguments which characterised the relationship between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism in the 16th century, the Council of Trent declared subject to the ecclesiastical penalty of anathema anyone who:
"denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue" and anyone who "saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood - the species only of the bread and wine remaining - which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation, let him be anathema."[8]
Anathema is on you. Repent!
Must've been the lack of sleep.
