judy@ut-ngp.UUCP (04/04/84)
(hi Vince!) >I must say that it is quite interesting to see the scriptures used as >arguments against the Catholic Church. To my eyes, such attacks come from >selective and biased readings of the Bible, focusing first on Catholic >practices, and then searching for ways to "fit" verses as arguments against >them. I sense a definite undercurrent of anti-Catholic bias in Judy's >comments, and not merely a dispassionate enumeration of the differences >between the Catholic Church and her fundamentalist sect. What's more, her >attacks do not address any substantive issues of faith and belief at all, >preferring instead to chip away at the unimportant ornaments that any >organized religion picks up over the course of 2000 years. My, my some people are SO touchy! I NEVER SAID THAT CATHOLICS ARE NOT CHRISTIANS !!!!! I simply said that the two are not equivalent, that there are some PRACTICES that are not consistant with Christ's teachings. Some one asked me to back it up - so I did. For your information, I do not even consider myself a Christian, and do NOT belong to a "fundamentalist sect". I will admit to some bias against the Church as it existed when I was a child. As I have mentioned before, I was raised Catholic - but all I was taught by them was don't do this and don't do that, but if you don't do this it's a sin, plus all the rituals that are the trappings of the Catholic Church. NEVER was I shown the love, understanding, patience and acceptance that is SUPPOSED to be inherent in Christianity. So I turned away. But in High School a friend asked me if I ever actually READ what was in the Bible. Well, I hadn't.But I soon did. The passages I quoted I remembered from that reading. I realized then that much of what I had been taught by the Church wasn't in there. Mr. Dyer made no effort to refute MATTHEW 15.9 about teaching the commandments of men as scriputure. But when the Church is THE authority it makes its commandments equal to scripture. >No one would argue that the Catholic Church relies solely on Scripture. I would. Tell me the scriptual basis for confession. The practice of confession must have changed in the last 20 years - I am not familiar with the "new rite of Penance", so perhaps the "vain repetitions" part is no longer relevant. But I still believe that one's sins and the forgiveness of such are strictly between the sinner and God. Mr. Dyer did not like my interpretation of MATTHEW 23.9 (call no man on earth Father). I would agree that this does not refer to one's male parent. (Actually, I call my dad - Dad) However he does NOT offer an alternative interpretation and I don't know what else is left! He says that it's just an "honorific". I believe that is EXACTLY what Christ was telling us NOT to do. Since other passages also say don't call anyone Master, or Teacher either, I can only conclude that he wants us to look only to God for spiritual guidance and not to ANY man. >Am I the only one who takes offense at the transparency of such >allegations? Is 'net.religion' a forum to knock selected organized >religions? One can discuss doctrinal differences clearly and calmly, >perhaps ending with an agreement to disagree. This is not what I see >in ut-ngp!judy's most recent postings. Perhaps Mr. Dyer takes offence when none is intented and sees only what he wants to see. I rely on truth, not on blind obedience. Those passages are there, I did not make them up. I know that the Catholic Church is undergoing many changes and I am glad that the leaders of these changes did not abandon the Church. I still feel, however that the ultimate authority that the Church gives itself is responsible for many of the terrible things that were done in its name. Remember that absolute power corrupts. Read my article a little closer and you will notice that I feel the same way about other organized churches. Judy
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (04/09/84)
Time to clear up a very important misconception here. Some people seem to think that anti- and non-religionists in this newsgroup are "attacking" Christianity. I can only speak for myself, but my purpose is not to attack Christianity. It is to debunk the notion of religion itself, and to clarify the reasons that people "leap" into religion without hard evidence, and to (hopefully) show those reasons to be flawed from a logical standpoint. Of course, many Christians are quite firm in their belief that their belief system is absolutely true, and that there is evidence for this belief system that unbelievers will never understand unless they make that infamous "leap of faith". These people seem to feel that any discussion denigrating the very idea of religion is really meant to be an attack on Christianity, since (after all) it's the only true way... It's much like Gary Samuelson's article which stated "I have to *prove* that I'm an American citizen, or that I'm Democrat/Republican, or that I'm Jewish/Hindu... but if I say I'm a Christian, it's just assumed that I am." I'm not sure what kind of lines Gary is drawing, but it would seem to me that they are artificial. No one has ever asked me to prove that I'm Jewish. I have been asked to prove my citizenship and my party affiliation. But those are different matters. It is another example of christocentrism (oh, how I bandy that word about!) ["BANDY"??? -ED.] where because the Christian makes the bold assumption that his/her way is the one true way, he/she sees his/her belief system as something unique. "Evidence? You're asking me for evidence? Aha! That's just another attack on Christianity!!! You haven't asked anyone else for evidence, have you?" (Actually, all proponents of all religions have been asked for evidence.) "Oh... well they can't supply evidence anyway, since their way isn't the true way..." It's like that joke about the atheist who goes to heaven and is sent to a place for atheists who led good lives to enjoy heaven. After seeing places where people of all belief systems are enjoying heaven in their own way, the atheist sees a wall and hears people on the other side. When the atheists attempts to climb the wall to see what's going on on the other side, an angel says "Don't go there. The Christians are on the other side of that wall, and they think they're the only ones up here." [I know, an *atheist* in *heaven*??? But that's the point. A truly just deity would provide a heaven for *all* those who led good lives, not just the "politically correct" people (religiously correct???)] O.K., this article *was* directed at Christians. But it wasn't so much an "attack" on belief systems as an observation on the nature of how some Christians feel about their belief system. -- "Submitted for your approval..." Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (04/12/84)
Rich Rosen is correct in saying that I (and perhaps others) have missed the
fact that he is attacking, not Christianity, but all religion (isn't "debunk"
not too different from "attack"?). It just happens that those in this group
who do believe strongly enough to respond all happen to be in the Christian
belief system; so that's what you end up with. I will await Rich's promised
batch reply before discussing this "debunking" any further.
(It is, in a way, a shame that net.religion.jewish was created; apparently the
Jews who might have some good things to say to Rich have all moved over there.
I stopped reading that group when many of the first articles in it dealt with
finding good kosher restaurants on the East Coast [quite irrelevant to me in
Indiana], rather than with meaty, interesting questions about Judaism; I had
hoped to use that group to learn more about that religion. Sigh....)
The Christian way, reduced to its essentials, IS the one true way. It all
boils down to the question: Do you submit to, and serve, God (and other
people -- see Matthew 25:31-46); or do you keep yourself for yourself?
Differences in doctrine, and PERHAPS (this is pure speculation) even radical
differences in belief systems, are of much less importance than that basic
choice to put your own advantage (in the earthly sense) last or to put it
first. Of course, the thing that gives Christianity the advantage over
other religions (as far as my limited knowledge of other beliefs goes) is
that we are undergirded by the knowledge that we are loved, unconditionally,
no matter how much we rebel or how many mistakes we make ("God shows His
love for us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" -- Romans
5:8); and that we can apply for help to One who has Himself shared our
experience of the difficulty of submitting one's will to God (it was difficult
even for Jesus, per Gethsemane) but Who succeeded in doing it, so that He has
blazed the trail and enabled us to follow. If you're going to try to be good
at all, you'll find that you "fall short of the mark" (literal translation of
the Greek word usually translated "sin") a LOT; you might as well follow the
belief which (or, correctly, the Person Who) promises you both love and help
when you fail, so that you need never despair.
--
-- Jeff Sargent
{allegra|ihnp4|decvax|harpo|seismo|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq
One man's data are another man's garbage.rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (04/13/84)
<> Responding to Jeff Sargent: >Rich Rosen is correct in saying that I (and perhaps others) have missed the >fact that he is attacking, not Christianity, but all religion (isn't "debunk" >not too different from "attack"?)... Hmmm...Jeff, whose side are you on? As I see it, "debunk"=="attack" of a belief system only if the belief system is "bunk". >The Christian way, reduced to its essentials, IS the one true way... Score one for tolerance. -- "A friend of the devil is a friend of mine." Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303) 444-5710 x3086