Catholicism in general is paganistic, ritualistic idolotry

[ziggytrix]

What's with the Vatican, full of riches?

What's with all the icons?

What's with the veneration of the saints? The veneration of Mary?

Speaking in Latin, wearing elaborate costumes, the chanting of ritual response when the priest says a certain phrase... it goes on and on.

I think Catholicism is the most ludicrous intrepretation of the message of the Bible one could come to without the use of heavy psychedelics.

;)

[KevinTheOmnivore]

We're also cannibals, so watch your back, pork chop. >:

[AChimp]

Who founded the Catholic Church? The Romans did, and they were big on pomp and ceremony, hence so were their religions.

Regardless, I think all religion is stupid. And gay. >:

[ziggytrix]

Hush your mouth monkey, this thread is for the baiting of Catholics, not other religious suckers.

[AChimp]

Sorry. :(

[Sethomas]

What's with the Vatican, full of riches?

19 centuries give you plenty of time to accumulate stuff. For much of history, the Vatican was the only instutition in Europe with any motivation to cultivate art. Maybe this wasn't absolutely necessary, but art as we know it today wouldn't exist without the Church's sponsorship. Also we'd have little knowledge of Classical art, since the Church was the only significant body that sought to preserve ancient works. The fruits of these labors are available to everyone who wishes to see them, regardless of faith.

Oh, and despite the fact that it entertains millions of visitors every year, the Vatican's standing revenue is less than that of many universities.

What's with all the icons?

In short, why not? Despite slander to the contrary, we don't ever idolize them as anything more than just works of man, so claims of "worshipping graven images" are unfounded.

What's with the veneration of the saints? The veneration of Mary?

In a mild sense of the term, this veneration is no different than the interest a patriot has for the founding fathers, or the pride someone has for his heritage. It's not like we are allowed to worship Mary or the saints, we merely pray to them for intercessions. It's the exact same logic as asking a friend to pray for you when facing trouble.

Speaking in Latin

Latin was the most universal language. A uniform language prohibited the decay of meaning by repeated translation. The world has moved on from this. So have we.

wearing elaborate costumes

Dignity and respect of God's presence in the Eucharist.

the chanting of ritual response when the priest says a certain phrase

That's an ad hominem attack of aesthetics. There's no logic in saying that mass should be done differently every time. Every mass is the exact same celebration of God, with the exact same emphasis on the presence of Christ. Logic dictates that we should develop a working protocol, and implement it universally. That's why the very word "Catholic" means "universal", that's why mass in Germany has the exact same elements as mass in the US.

I think Catholicism is the most ludicrous intrepretation of the message of the Bible one could come to without the use of heavy psychedelics.

Nah, I think you have to admit that Latter Day Saints are worse. Besides, we wrote the New Testament, we were here first, so interpretting the message of the Bible into our protocol is our prerogative.

[mburbank]

Well argued.

Like many religious disciplines, Roman catholocism is frequently abused and many practitioners can't see past the rituals and symbols to the things they represent.

Like many religous disciplines, the abusers and the blind do not alter it's validity as a path to God.

Knowlege of God is difficult. Falling by the wayside early in the path and deciding you're in heaven is common to all religous practice.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

We're also cannibals, so watch your back, pork chop. >:

Nobody gets me. :(

[ziggytrix]

19 centuries give you plenty of time to accumulate stuff.

Not if you practice what you preach. Jesus commanded the rich to give up their riches. The Catholic Church instead accumulates wealth.

Also we'd have little knowledge of Classical art, since the Church was the only significant body that sought to preserve ancient works. The fruits of these labors are available to everyone who wishes to see them, regardless of faith.

That's wonderful, it really is. But the pupose of the Catholic Church is not to preserve art, and so again I say they are not practicing what they preach.

It's the exact same logic as asking a friend to pray for you when facing trouble.

Assuming the friend is dead, and you went to a medium to ask him to pray for you, then sure.

Besides, we wrote the New Testament, we were here first, so interpretting the message of the Bible into our protocol is our prerogative.

That's a rather arrogant statement. It seems to imply that the Catholic Church existed before someone thought to distinguish between various interpretaions of the Gospel. Certainly the Apostles wrote the New Testament, not the Catholics who came 300 years later.

So many Christian denominations claim to be the first this or that, but few do it like the Catholics. Truly the first church was not the Catholic Church, but merely many Christian churches. The very act of naming it "Universal" indicates an attempt to unify personal spiritualism under clerical dogma.

[El Blanco]

We're also cannibals, so watch your back, pork chop. >:

Nobody gets me. :(

Transubstaniation. Even an idiot like me knows that.

[El Blanco]

Not if you practice what you preach. Jesus commanded the rich to give up their riches. The Catholic Church instead accumulates wealth.


Also, the Catholic Church is a world power. How many peace negociations are held in the Vatican? How many charitable acts go through there. Its kind of hard entertaining the crowd that attracts (presidents, kings, prime ministers etc) in a one room shack next to a sewer.

That's wonderful, it really is. But the pupose of the Catholic Church is not to preserve art, and so again I say they are not practicing what they preach.


I think Miss Mod would have an issue with that. The art they are preserving helps to educate people to the past, inculding the life and times of Christ.
[/quote]

[ziggytrix]

Its kind of hard entertaining the crowd that attracts (presidents, kings, prime ministers etc) in a one room shack next to a sewer.

Where did Jesus command Peter to entertain kings?

[El Blanco]

When you want to hold a peace conference, it helps to invite the leaders of the countries at war. You may not know this, but Jesus was a big advocate of peace.

[ziggytrix]

So was Ghandi, yet he no palaces, and he spoke with many world leaders.

[El Blanco]

And how many wars did he stop? How much in charity was he responsible for?

Not to belittle Ghandi. He was an important figure of strength, but you can't compare the two.

[The_Rorschach]

Largely catholicism is the result of the Christian Cult merging with Mithraism. Ingenius really.

Not much to discuss though. :(

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Transubstaniation. Even an idiot like me knows that.

Now now Blanco, before I buy you a box of tissues, you should probably re-read the other thread.

[El Blanco]

I like the kind with tha alhoe.

[Zero Signal]

In fact, many of the things that they do are in direct violation of the Bible. How quaint.

I find it quaint that other denominations claim we misuse the Bible, when it's painfully obvious that the New Testament was written and compiled by the Roman Catholic Church itself. Funny how fundamentalists conveniently ignore that fact.

Hmmm, where to start. Oh, yes.

The New Testament essentially abolishes the need for priests. It states that no man should know your personal situations; only God has any business knowing what your sins are.

This also precludes the ludicrous notion that you need to pray to Mary to deliver your message to Jesus, and THEN God finally gets it. Nevermind that many Catholics see Mary as an object of worship, something expressly forbidden. Idolotry.

Christening babies is a horrific practice, as well. The Bible states that baptism should only be performed on an individual that is of the mature understanding of what he is doing. Catholics have this notion of children being damned if they are not baptised. Babies have no perception of what is being done, and so baptising them at that age is ridiculous.

There is more, certainly, but I have to leave for a movie right now. I will return later.

[El Blanco]

The New Testament essentially abolishes the need for priests. It states that no man should know your personal situations; only God has any business knowing what your sins are.

Actually, it expands the role of priests in the community.

This also precludes the ludicrous notion that you need to pray to Mary to deliver your message to Jesus, and THEN God finally gets it. Nevermind that many Catholics see Mary as an object of worship, something expressly forbidden. Idolotry.


She is not an object of worship. she is a person we hold in high esteem. We treat her like the USA treats Washington, Lincoln etc. Not as a diety herself, but as a human who pulled off an extrodinary fete.

Christening babies is a horrific practice, as well.

No more than birth or a flu shot.

The Bible states that baptism should only be performed on an individual that is of the mature understanding of what he is doing.

Which is the reason for godparents and for the Sacrement of Confirmation.

Catholics have this notion of children being damned if they are not baptised. Babies have no perception of what is being done, and so baptising them at that age is ridiculous.

Its a practice from the Middle Ages when there was sky high infant mortality rate. And really, do kids have any concept of half the shit we put them through?

There is more, certainly, but I have to leave for a movie right now. I will return later.

Its not Left Behind by any chance, is it?

[Zero Signal]

Actually, it expands the role of priests in the community.
I should have more clear on that issue. I meant regarding confessions. I apologize.

She is not an object of worship. she is a person we hold in high esteem. We treat her like the USA treats Washington, Lincoln etc. Not as a diety herself, but as a human who pulled off an extrodinary fete.
You would think that a person of such "high esteem" would be mentioned more than say 5 or 6 times throughout the entire Bible. Explain to me then why so many Catholics pray to her? She is thought of my many Catholics as an intermediary between humans and God. An idol.

Which is the reason for godparents and for the Sacrement of Confirmation.
You miss the point. The baptism should not be done in the first place until they fully understand its implications FOR THEMSELVES. Not for some godparent to decide for them.

Its a practice from the Middle Ages when there was sky high infant mortality rate. And really, do kids have any concept of half the shit we put them through?
Yes, and the Middle Ages were also referred to, in part, as the Dark Ages. It seems that many of Catholicism's rituals seem to come out of that period.

Its not Left Behind by any chance, is it?
Cute. I do not subscribe to what the Left Behind movies and books teach. I went to see Terminator 3 for a second time, if that is any consolation to you.

What is also amusing are the myriad of Catholic churchs, cathedrals, etc across Europe that claim to have artifacts in the form of bone material (fingers, thighs, etc.) from the apostles. They venerate them like some pagan shaman as if they can grant the power of God through them. Given the number of bones claimed, there must have been over 10,000 apostles and not 12. Right.

[ziggytrix]

Actually, it expands the role of priests in the community.

Nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus talk about a need for priests.

[Mary] is not an object of worship. she is a person we hold in high esteem. We treat her like the USA treats Washington, Lincoln etc. Not as a diety herself, but as a human who pulled off an extrodinary fete.

Presuming we went to mediums to ask Washington, Lincoln, etc. thier opinions on current political policy, this would be a fair comparison.


The Bible states that baptism should only be performed on an individual that is of the mature understanding of what he is doing.

Which is the reason for godparents and for the Sacrement of Confirmation.

That is a rediculous response. How do godparents give a baby a mature understanding of its decision to be baptised? Surely you were joking.

Its a practice from the Middle Ages when there was sky high infant mortality rate. And really, do kids have any concept of half the shit we put them through?

This is so beside the point as to be confirming my belief that your response is facetious. The point you are dodging is that a child makes no decision to be baptised, and as such, the ritual thru which Christians are redeemed is turned into a pointless baby-washing. >:

I mean, hell, if one can be baptised without thier consent, why don't we see an active wing of the Church running around baptising people commando-style so that the work of the Chruch (saving souls) can be even more successful!

[El Blanco]

I should have more clear on that issue. I meant regarding confessions. I apologize.


When Jesus said, "Any sins you forgive are forgiven, whatever you hold bound are held bound" (I don't have my Bible on me so I will clean that up later), He didn't say it to the crowds. He said it to the Apostles. Thats where our ideas about confession come from.

Explain to me then why so many Catholics pray to her?

Why do Klan members claim the Constitution gives them the right to hang black people? They are misenterpeting it.

A lot of that is cultural, also. When Christianity was brought to the New World, a lot of the native people thought the saints were meant to be worshiped. Thats where the practice of "worshipping the saints" came from. The Church doesn't condone it at all.

You miss the point. The baptism should not be done in the first place until they fully understand its implications FOR THEMSELVES. Not for some godparent to decide for them.

It is a Sacrament of Inititiation. The other part of it is to start the child on their way towards a Catholic life.

Yes, and the Middle Ages were also referred to, in part, as the Dark Ages. It seems that many of Catholicism's rituals seem to come out of that period.


And the majority have very logical beginings and reasons.

What is also amusing are the myriad of Catholic churchs, cathedrals, etc across Europe that claim to have artifacts in the form of bone material (fingers, thighs, etc.) from the apostles. They venerate them like some pagan shaman as if they can grant the power of God through them. Given the number of bones claimed, there must have been over 10,000 apostles and not 12. Right.

Thats not against the Church. Your gripe is against the certain individual churches that did this 500 years ago. The Vatican sometimes goes into this, but it is so widespread and so trivial that there is no real reason other than to placate people who will dig up any excuse to bash the RCC.

Nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus talk about a need for priests.


Other than responding to the term "rabbi". The word "priest" is not recorded, but His actions clearly show that He saw the need for a group of religious scholars and community leaders.

Presuming we went to mediums to ask Washington, Lincoln, etc. thier opinions on current political policy, this would be a fair comparison.


People actually do that.

But, the RCC does not tell people to worship saints. Only to look up to them. They are humans that did follow Christ's teachings and show us it can be done.

I mean, hell, if one can be baptised without thier consent, why don't we see an active wing of the Church running around baptising people commando-style so that the work of the Chruch (saving souls) can be even more successful!

Because in our society, parents speak for the child. Is it really that difficult to get through your skull?

[VinceZeb]

Not a good idea to bait Catholics on the internet. This may suprise you, but when both atheists and fundies give you shit, you gotta know how to duke it out.

[ziggytrix]

No parent can speak for a child's soul. It seems rather difficult to get that thru your skull, but then, presumably, you have been taught this from a very early age (another way of saying this is indoctrinated, but that has ugly connotations).

It just seems rediculous, unless you believe that entire households are saved by the baptism of the head of the household, which wouldn't be so odd in a Romanic tradition, but the Christian tradition should be based on the Bible, and not on the practices of the old men who used to have the only copies of it.

Jesus said, "No man may come to the father, but by ME." He did not say anything about the intercession of any body of clergy. Especially not some group of old men that credit the existence of their vocations to when Jesus called Peter a rock.


edit: To Vince, Please, by all means, BRING IT. If you have ANYTHING to say that is not just parroting something your priest has told you. IF you have a single, independant thought in your head regarding the Chruch, I'd love to hear it.

[VinceZeb]

Religion is admittedly my best subject that I can go on and on about about this isn't the type of board that wants to read an essay about something. I think the others are doing just fine in explaining what being Catholic is and is not.

[ziggytrix]

What a fucking cop-out.

[Helm]

wearing elaborate costumes

Dignity and respect of God's presence in the Eucharist.

Jesus went in rags. Dignity is not in the clothes. Your response is a weak one.

[El Blanco]

Jesus said, "No man may come to the father, but by ME." He did not say anything about the intercession of any body of clergy. Especially not some group of old men that credit the existence of their vocations to when Jesus called Peter a rock.


Priests are the religious thinkers of a community. They work with us to help better understand Jesus and the Bible.

And the idea of priesthood doesn't come from that instance. Its the fact that Jesus took a large group (the Disciples) and preached to them away from the crowd so they could relay the Word to the masses. He then took another smaller group ( the Apostles) and gave them even more information and thought to bring to the masses.

Thats not to say they are some better higher social class, just that they are the specialists who are trained to handle that specific job.

[Helm]

Spiritual salvation is not something you can specialize on, inherently. The process of achieving it for yourself or others cannot be likened to a job, because it, again inherently, involves neither a clearly defined service or product, nor a need for such to be achieved. Spiritual salvation was last time a checked a matter of faith, and a matter of determination, neither of which can be sold or bought.

And I'm an atheist, but playing devil's advocate once in a while is interesting. Especially over such an easy subject.

[VinceZeb]

But there inlies your problem: You are an atheist. Atheist do not believe in a spiritual force or existance, so the very nature of spirituality or religion is foreign.

[El Blanco]

Spiritual salvation is not something you can specialize on, inherently.

Which is why they specialize in spritiual thought. Salvation comes through God. Priests are there to help us figure out how it works.

The process of achieving it for yourself or others cannot be likened to a job

Its more of a lifestyle.

involves neither a clearly defined service or product, nor a need for such to be achieved.

It has a goal.

Spiritual salvation was last time a checked a matter of faith, and a matter of determination, neither of which can be sold or bought.

It can be searched for, coached along, discussed, studied, counciled etc.

And I'm an atheist, but playing devil's advocate once in a while is interesting. Especially over such an easy subject.

Calling it an easy subject goes to show just how far in over your head you are.

[Helm]

Well... God cannot be argued to either exist because 'existing' is a term which applies to logically quantifiable subjects. Thusly, anything that cannot be argued to exist or not is filed under 'irrelevant' which is very very close to "nonexistent" but not exactly.

My belief in this however (or Ziggys, I'd guess), does not stop me from furthering the argument along a line I do not strictly follow myself. Besides, this matter we're discussing here does not tie in with the onotological argument and/or anyone's belief in god; It ties in with one's belief in Jesus' sayings, and apparently one's capacity for hypocritical behaviour. It is a moral issue, a social issuem ultimately not an ontological philosophical issue so I do not see the harm in persuing it regardless of my heathen nature.

I would appreciate it if you would not question the first argument of this post in this thread. If you insist on more information on what I am saying, or (more likely) fervently desire to oppose it, start a new thread.

Its more of a lifestyle.

You said a job. They are getting paid after all. If they weren't, I wouldn't be discussing this at all.

And thank you for insulting me. It's always nice to be reminded where you are.

[AChimp]

But there inlies your problem: You are an atheist. Atheist do not believe in a spiritual force or existance, so the very nature of spirituality or religion is foreign.
:lol

You don't have to believe in it or practice it to know what it is about.

[ziggytrix]

Spritiuality is about a personal connection to the divine. It has nothing to do with the opinion of one's priest, community, or family.

[Sethomas]

So?

[El Blanco]

Spritiuality is about a personal connection to the divine. It has nothing to do with the opinion of one's priest, community, or family.

Didn't someone important say, "Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in their midst"?

Being Catholic is about the community. We believe that one's relationship with God is important, but so is the relationship with thwe community.

[Sethomas]

I just thought I'd dig this back up because I was reminded of something.

As far as choosing a faction of Christianity goes, you have the orthodox group (Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism, Eastern/Russian Orthodox, Eastern Rite Catholicism, & cetera), the Protestant factions (Methodist, Baptist, Lutheran, & cetera), and sola scriptura Christianity (non-denominational).

Of these, all but Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and sola scriptura were born of the ideas of specific figureheads in a confined historical context. It hardly seems providentially likely God would intend his message to be "discovered" in such a narrow manner. Eastern Orthodoxy has simply lacked the integrity to hold up well against the forces of time, and has far too often made logical errors and shaped itself into a tool of politics.

The main issue that can be made against Roman Catholicism is the amount of corruption it has endured, especially in the middle ages. But it has a self-sustaining rationalization of this, which is that to prevail through time it must be dynamic. To be dynamic it must incorporate a body of human intellect, and it is therefore subject to human error. The Church has often violated its own principles, but it has maintained its integrity by having never incorporated such corruption into its doctrine.

What most people have concluded is that sola scriptura is the most logically sound flavor of Christianity, which irks me to no end because this idea is inherently flawed. These people worship the bible without any sounds logic for doing so whatsoever. The books that comprise the New Testament were not made official until they were translated by St. Jerome in the 380s. By that time in history, Christianity was irrevocably catholic in nature. Sola scriptura has no sound explanation whatsoever for why it considers some books canon and not others, except for the fact that they stole the Bible from the Catholics. If this weren't so, then why haven't they introduced a single new work into the bible out of the shitloads of apocryphal literature that abounded in the early centuries?

A favorite game of sola scripturists is to point at the passage in Revelations that curses those who would modify "this book". Guess what, THE BIBLE WAS NEVER CONSIDERED A SINGLE BOOK UNTIL THE NINTH CENTURY, so that quote by John of Patmos is quite irrelevant. Furthermore, in idolization of Martin Luther and the translators under King James, almost all sola scripturists neglect to use seven books of the Old Testament that contradict teachings against the importance of good works and the existance of purgatory. The rationale is that Jews don't consider them sacred books anymore. The truth is, they DID consider them sacred in the time of Christ, Christ NEVER refuted them, Christ USED THEM himself, and they weren't removed from Jewish canon until FORTY YEARS AFTER HE WAS DEAD.

The blind hypocrisy is quite frustrating.[/i]

[The Retro Kat]

I hate Catholisism. All the rules, belief in a higher power and his son that we have no proof of. That's why I'm an atheist.[/list]

[Zero Signal]

I have no proof that YOU exist, so why should I listen to anything that YOU say?

[El Blanco]

I hate Catholisism. All the rules, belief in a higher power and his son that we have no proof of. That's why I'm an atheist.[/list]

I guess you don't use dollars either.