Features

VinceZeb · #26

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 · #27

What a fucking cop-out.

Helm · #28

Quote:

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 · #29

Quote:

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 · #30

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 · #31

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 · #32

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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

Its more of a lifestyle.

Quote:

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

It has a goal.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 · #33

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.

Quote:

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 · #34

Quote:

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.

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

ziggytrix · #35

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 · #36

El Blanco · #37

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · #38

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]