suprised indeed. The book of Judas was only just released, after over 1000 years after it ws written. That is just one example to show that these people think things over VERY carefully.
I honestly have no idea what you're getting at here.
I would craft a meticulous recreation of the naval warfare of the Napoleonic era, and nothing, no matter how excruciating, would be omitted. It would be an intensely unpopular game, for the battles would take hours, and frequently come to no conclusion. Travel would take weeks and weeks. I could be merciful and include a time-speed-up feature, but that would hardly be fun.
It may be beyond the capabilities (or interests) of anyone, but it would please me greatly.
I don't rally agree with "The Catholic Church." The Catechysm of the Catholics says that all non-catholic christians are going to hell.
Cite it.
it says that if you aren't baptised you are going to hell.
How does this differ from any other Christian group? Special note: "Baptism" is not necessarily "Baptism by Water."
It turns Mother Mary into an idol.
And the Church's steadfast and continued insistence that this is precisely what she is not doing, does not wish to do, and never will do if she can help it means nothing?
It claims that she was perfect and an ever-virgin,
Yep.
even though the bible clearly states that Jesus had brothers.
It does not, in fact, clearly state this. Or, if it does, it also clearly states that Lot and Abraham were brothers, or that Jacob and his own uncle were brothers.
As far as I'm concerned, the Catholic church is full of false doctrines that totally go against the bible
You're certainly welcome to think this, though you'd probably find yourself to be mistaken.
(That isn't to say that all catholics are evil; most catholics I've met don't even know what their ties to Catholicism entail.)
Or, perhaps, they really do know such a thing, and somebody else involved in the conversation is ignorant of what's going on.
So yeah, basically, The Catholic Church could say that Jesus was actually a cross-dresser from Indeanapolis and I couldn't care less.
If you say so. You seem to care enough about what the Catholic Church says to be angry when the Church says someone who isn't Jesus is slightly different from what you believe her to be, so I'm afraid I don't actually buy that you couldn't care less about this.
So if the Church said that god didnt exist, would he just cease to exist, or would the Church? what woudl happen??
Nothing would happen. The validity of the statement would simultaneously repeal the Church's authority to make it, and you'd be back to square one. It's also worth noting that the Church is not infallible in temporal or "new" teachings (such as that God doesn't exist). To put it somewhat plainly, she is infallible in clarification rather than invention.
It's an interesting question. Not, perhaps, a useful one, but interesting.
Quote from Sin6079 »
The Roman Catholic church for one is just another sect of Christianity.
Exactly; like England is just another American state, after the fashion of North Dakota or Oregon.
Although if the Pope did come out andsay God doesn't exist many devout catholics would be shaken, the catholics that are pure indoctrinated fools.
In other words, the Catholics who actually care about the religion they follow, yes? Your broad statements are poor.
But if the church says that God doesn't exist, whoop dee doo, it doesn't prove anything
Wrong; it proves the Church is illegitimate, one way or another.
Hawkings is probably smarter than the whole church
You'd be surprised, I think, just how smart some of these people are and have been.
No doubt, no doubt. I imagine that you might attribute such events as a kind of failure in that effort, or as the results of dubious actions of certain leaders, such as the aforementioned Mr. Luther - in other words, that this kind of thing wouldn't happen had Protestantism not become so popular, or if all Christians were Catholic.
Not necessarily. The very fact that the Catholic Church had to oppose such things in the first place is pretty conclusive evidence that her mere primacy doesn't prevent them from happening. I mean, we had Cathars literally killing themselves in transports of self-satisfaction. That's not the sort of thing that you can just rationally dissuade, you know, no matter how common-sensical you are about it.
But I find such a conclusion erroneous. The same could be done with Catholicism (in name, at the least) as it is with general Christianity (in name, at the least). This is within people to do, and they find a way to do it. Of course, one could argue that the many forms of Protestantism encourage it, though I am usually loathe to either project such a cause-effect relationship, or claim that "it could have been prevented if things had gone well in the past." I honestly do not think it can be prevented, at least not in such a way.
It's certainly possible that it's just some sort of coincidence, though I don't think this is very likely. One thing that we can say with certainty, however, is that the frequency of such movements is rising, and that they no longer consider themselves infamous in and of themselves. That is to say, the Cathars and the Waldenses and so forth knew that what they were doing was a dramatic and profound departure from Christian orthodoxy. They knew that they were doing something novel. And, when they didn't feel this way, it was because they felt that they were tapping into the legitimate historical practice of earlier, truer Christians, and were vindicating the efforts of a group that had been swallowed up, perhaps, by Rome. As incorrect as both of these propositions may have been, they were honest, and they were propositions.
These modern groups don't necessarily feel either way, which is disastrous. Most commonly, historicity just doesn't concern them one way or another. It makes no difference to them that the likes of Peter or Paul would likely have given their lives rather than insulting the Lord with some retarded stick dance or smashing coffee mugs. It matters not to them that the Man Himself would have called down His not inconsiderable wrath upon them for bowing in prayer before the image of some mere secular ruler. This is not the cry of His followers; this ("we have no king but Caesar") is the cry of His tormenters.
That said, I think that the dichotomy you have stated (between the subjective morals you mentioned and the authoritarian, almost completely non-subjective morals of groups such as Catholicism) is a false one. Example:
The "rule of conscience," and so forth, are definitely examples of what you have noted. However, the idea of being "one's own priest," so to speak, is a more complicated matter. What a priest is and how a priest functions is a pertinent icon for this case, I think, for something which happens anyway in decision making.
The idea was actually "every man his own Pope," now that I think about it, which makes it even worse. If I can find the actual quote for you, I'll post it. One of his that I did find while searching, though, seems fairly close. Concerning the practical effects of the Reformation:
"There are nowadays almost as many sects and creeds as there are heads."
I think it's both illogical and unfair to assume that a moral system not contingent on authority-backed traditional beliefs (such as those codified by a Magisterium) is, by default, a purely subjective morality devoid of practical standards.
I don't. There can be no moral system without some sort of authority, and if it's not an objective external authority, to which all men may appeal in times of dispute, then there's nothing in it worth considering. When we ask moral questions, and try to discover the truth of moral systems, we are asking just how it is that we are to order our lives. We can not order them without a measure, and we can not measure if the points are not fixed.
Protestantism is a system or (what's more accurate) a set of systems that attempts to appeal to the objective external authority of the Holy Spirit, which is all well and good but for the fact that, were such appeals being legitimately reviewed by the aforementioned Spirit, there should not be such widespread disagreement and division among the parties appealing thereto. To be clear, I am not saying that lots of people disagreeing about something makes that thing necessarily false, or makes those people idiots. That's a terrible argument, and should not be supported by anyone. What I am saying is that lots of people disagreeing about something, after having ostensibly consulted the same authority for clarification, can be taken as an indication that either the authority is worthless or many of them are simply wrong. Naturally, for my own part, I believe the latter.
Now, I'm not trying to pull any punches, or whatever, for Protestantism. I personally believe that there are problems with both Protestantism and Catholicism, and thus don't wholly ascribe to either. However, I do think the original idea Luther advocated had some merit to it, even if it was inchoate or poorly implemented. It's impractical, I feel, to make this kind of thing (religious morality) seem like it's something binary when it simply isn't.
Well, Luther's "original idea," as I've said before in these parts, was taken up and implemented by the Church. The abuse of indulgences was addressed, and reform really did take place. If that's where it had ended, then well may it have been. However, as this video shows, it didn't end there.
Of course, I may have been reading a bit too much into your original comment, but there it is.
Well, I was wrong in saying "priest" instead of "pope" in that one instance, and the difference in duties between priest and pope could certainly account for some difference in interpretation, here.
Well, it looks like we're going to have to put the dream of judges on hold for the time being, as owing to their busy schedules they were unable to spare the time to adjudicate this process. As such, we'll throw the entries for Contest #4 up for common voting in the usual manner, which I will repeat here for those who may have forgotten:
After all the deadline for submissions, the submission thread will be closed and a voting thread will be opened. ONLY CLAN REPRESENTATIVES ARE ALLOWED TO POST IN THIS THREAD. We will not initially warn anyone for posting on a voting thread (unless something gets out of hand), but all posts from members who are not clan representatives will be deleted.
In this thread, each clans' representative should post their clan's first and second place vote for the contest being voted on, knowing that their first voted clan gets 2 points in the contest and their second voted clan gets 1 point. Clans cannot vote for themselves. In the end, clans will be awarded "Clan of the Year Race" points as described earlier. Please note also that a clan who submits an entry to the clan contest, but does not vote in that contest, is not eligible for points.
Whenever you, as a clan representative, give your clan's votes, beware not to make mistakes, because you cannot change your voting post. If for any reason, you do make a mistake, inform one of the clan mods and he will change the vote for you, but IT'S NOT ALLOWED FOR A USER TO CHANGE THEIR CLAN'S VOTING POST. Failure to abide by this rule will result in disqualification.
The really important stuff has been bolded.
Because we inevitably get folk who, even after all this explanation, still don't seem to understand how it all works, your Clan Rep's vote in this thread should look like this:
Quote from Clan Rep »
[Clan X] casts its vote for:
[Joe's Clan] - First Place - 2 Points
[Bob's Clan] - Second Place - 1 Point
==
And now, here are the entries from which you must choose:
Good luck with all of your endeavours, Cameron. Be sure to keep in touch on AIM, when you're around.
Tho' much is taken, much abides; and tho'
We are not now that strength which in the old days
Moved earth and heaven; that which we are, we are;
One equal-temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
This Sort Of Thing is the heir to the legacy of the Great Awakening of Jonathan Edwards' (and others') time, in which the concept of a "religion of enthusiasm" rather than of reason, empiricism or even doctrine was the popular thing. It's the religion of doing whatever you want so long as you feel it's right, and what better guide than one's internal aesthetic and conscience? And if it feels right to you, it must, in fact, be right, because the Holy Spirit and Your Exalted Conscience wouldn't steer you wrong. And if it's right for you, it must be right for everyone, full stop, because that's how these things work, and at that point it's time to start preaching the true gospel, as specially revealed unto you and you alone, for the first time since the death of Christ, and that means starting your own church. That's where the platitudinous "thirty thousand denominations" of protestantism come from.
The leap to this concept from the Lutherish notions of "by faith alone," "the rule of conscience" and "every man his own priest" is not a difficult one, and need not have been made at all if Luther himself hadn't come along. For all of the complaints many of you no doubt have against her, it's worth noting that what you saw in that video is precisely the type of nonsense the Catholic Church of old expended every effort to stamp out.
I honestly have no idea what you're getting at here.
I never have, in fact. Is it similar to what I've described, or more abstract?
I prefer the second one.
It may be beyond the capabilities (or interests) of anyone, but it would please me greatly.
Still, one does one's best.
Cite it.
How does this differ from any other Christian group? Special note: "Baptism" is not necessarily "Baptism by Water."
And the Church's steadfast and continued insistence that this is precisely what she is not doing, does not wish to do, and never will do if she can help it means nothing?
Yep.
It does not, in fact, clearly state this. Or, if it does, it also clearly states that Lot and Abraham were brothers, or that Jacob and his own uncle were brothers.
You're certainly welcome to think this, though you'd probably find yourself to be mistaken.
Or, perhaps, they really do know such a thing, and somebody else involved in the conversation is ignorant of what's going on.
If you say so. You seem to care enough about what the Catholic Church says to be angry when the Church says someone who isn't Jesus is slightly different from what you believe her to be, so I'm afraid I don't actually buy that you couldn't care less about this.
Nothing would happen. The validity of the statement would simultaneously repeal the Church's authority to make it, and you'd be back to square one. It's also worth noting that the Church is not infallible in temporal or "new" teachings (such as that God doesn't exist). To put it somewhat plainly, she is infallible in clarification rather than invention.
It's an interesting question. Not, perhaps, a useful one, but interesting.
Exactly; like England is just another American state, after the fashion of North Dakota or Oregon.
In other words, the Catholics who actually care about the religion they follow, yes? Your broad statements are poor.
Wrong; it proves the Church is illegitimate, one way or another.
You'd be surprised, I think, just how smart some of these people are and have been.
Not necessarily. The very fact that the Catholic Church had to oppose such things in the first place is pretty conclusive evidence that her mere primacy doesn't prevent them from happening. I mean, we had Cathars literally killing themselves in transports of self-satisfaction. That's not the sort of thing that you can just rationally dissuade, you know, no matter how common-sensical you are about it.
It's certainly possible that it's just some sort of coincidence, though I don't think this is very likely. One thing that we can say with certainty, however, is that the frequency of such movements is rising, and that they no longer consider themselves infamous in and of themselves. That is to say, the Cathars and the Waldenses and so forth knew that what they were doing was a dramatic and profound departure from Christian orthodoxy. They knew that they were doing something novel. And, when they didn't feel this way, it was because they felt that they were tapping into the legitimate historical practice of earlier, truer Christians, and were vindicating the efforts of a group that had been swallowed up, perhaps, by Rome. As incorrect as both of these propositions may have been, they were honest, and they were propositions.
These modern groups don't necessarily feel either way, which is disastrous. Most commonly, historicity just doesn't concern them one way or another. It makes no difference to them that the likes of Peter or Paul would likely have given their lives rather than insulting the Lord with some retarded stick dance or smashing coffee mugs. It matters not to them that the Man Himself would have called down His not inconsiderable wrath upon them for bowing in prayer before the image of some mere secular ruler. This is not the cry of His followers; this ("we have no king but Caesar") is the cry of His tormenters.
The idea was actually "every man his own Pope," now that I think about it, which makes it even worse. If I can find the actual quote for you, I'll post it. One of his that I did find while searching, though, seems fairly close. Concerning the practical effects of the Reformation:
"There are nowadays almost as many sects and creeds as there are heads."
I don't. There can be no moral system without some sort of authority, and if it's not an objective external authority, to which all men may appeal in times of dispute, then there's nothing in it worth considering. When we ask moral questions, and try to discover the truth of moral systems, we are asking just how it is that we are to order our lives. We can not order them without a measure, and we can not measure if the points are not fixed.
Protestantism is a system or (what's more accurate) a set of systems that attempts to appeal to the objective external authority of the Holy Spirit, which is all well and good but for the fact that, were such appeals being legitimately reviewed by the aforementioned Spirit, there should not be such widespread disagreement and division among the parties appealing thereto. To be clear, I am not saying that lots of people disagreeing about something makes that thing necessarily false, or makes those people idiots. That's a terrible argument, and should not be supported by anyone. What I am saying is that lots of people disagreeing about something, after having ostensibly consulted the same authority for clarification, can be taken as an indication that either the authority is worthless or many of them are simply wrong. Naturally, for my own part, I believe the latter.
Well, Luther's "original idea," as I've said before in these parts, was taken up and implemented by the Church. The abuse of indulgences was addressed, and reform really did take place. If that's where it had ended, then well may it have been. However, as this video shows, it didn't end there.
Well, I was wrong in saying "priest" instead of "pope" in that one instance, and the difference in duties between priest and pope could certainly account for some difference in interpretation, here.
The really important stuff has been bolded.
Because we inevitably get folk who, even after all this explanation, still don't seem to understand how it all works, your Clan Rep's vote in this thread should look like this:
==
And now, here are the entries from which you must choose:
The Greek Alliance
The Forum Pirates
The Called
The Random Bull**** Society
The Simic Combine
The 499
The Alliance of Rogue Deckers
The Rakdos
==
Voting will remain open until 11:59PM EST, Saturday, October 7th.
Good luck to all who entered, and have fun. Be sure to read each story carefully before casting your vote.
Tho' much is taken, much abides; and tho'
We are not now that strength which in the old days
Moved earth and heaven; that which we are, we are;
One equal-temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
This Sort Of Thing is the heir to the legacy of the Great Awakening of Jonathan Edwards' (and others') time, in which the concept of a "religion of enthusiasm" rather than of reason, empiricism or even doctrine was the popular thing. It's the religion of doing whatever you want so long as you feel it's right, and what better guide than one's internal aesthetic and conscience? And if it feels right to you, it must, in fact, be right, because the Holy Spirit and Your Exalted Conscience wouldn't steer you wrong. And if it's right for you, it must be right for everyone, full stop, because that's how these things work, and at that point it's time to start preaching the true gospel, as specially revealed unto you and you alone, for the first time since the death of Christ, and that means starting your own church. That's where the platitudinous "thirty thousand denominations" of protestantism come from.
The leap to this concept from the Lutherish notions of "by faith alone," "the rule of conscience" and "every man his own priest" is not a difficult one, and need not have been made at all if Luther himself hadn't come along. For all of the complaints many of you no doubt have against her, it's worth noting that what you saw in that video is precisely the type of nonsense the Catholic Church of old expended every effort to stamp out.
Thanks!
So very much.
If they do, I will burn down the entire world.