pat@ih1ap.UUCP (06/02/83)
Not knowing what to call myself, I choose "observer". What bothers me about all religions is they always exclude instead of including people. Each separate religious order has either Scripture based or Pope based laws which ultimately divide all people into classes. Yet science seems to search for universal understanding that provides a basis for all things. This exclusion makes religions hipocritical of their own beliefs. There is also a strong brainwashing effects of religion. Catholics, of which I was raised, place their children in sunday school at a young age and teach the Catholic view. This view is usually one of why it is so neat to be Catholic. If you bear with me I will try and give an example: I recently married a divorced Catholic with an 11 year old daughter which attends a Catholic grade school. First, statements such as "I glad your Catholic or I wouldn't want to live with you!" came from the 11 year old. When we went to a Methodist to be married he explained that if we continue to participate in the Catholic Sacrements, we are fooling ourselves. In the eyes of the Church, we were not married and living in sin. I could go on but I think I have made my point. Patrick A. Fargo Married Again - forever? BTL -IH
mat@hou5e.UUCP (06/03/83)
I hope this sort of thing isn't happening too often: "I glad your Catholic or I wouldn't want to live with you!" came from the 11 year old. When we went to a Methodist to be married he explained that if we continue to participate in the Catholic Sacrements, we are fooling ourselves. In the eyes of the Church, we were not married and living in sin." First of all, if your concern is legitimacy within the Roman church, all you need is to have an appropriate minster of the church (us. a priest) as a witness to the ceremony. If you are willing to accept a Methodist minister's statement on Catholic doctrine, Ok. I would ask SEVERAL Catholic priessts if it mattered to me. As to ``living in sin'' and the Cathoic sacraments -- while there may be one position espoused by the Vatican, it certainly insn't a universal consensus. Most folk these days outside, perhaps, of the Rosary Altar Society will admit that there is a certain amount of ``posturing'' going on in Vatican statements. As far as the 11-year old, I hope that her attitude changes. Of course some education is in order. Children, especially in primary school, tend to view everything as black-and-white or us-and-them. And older folk in the rather closed religious communities often involved in teaching probably find it easier to teach that ``they are bad guys'' than ``they don't believe exactly the same things we do''. The latter can easily raise questions, and there usually isn't either the time or the manpower to answer them all properly. In any case, let's try to increase tolerance, not intolerance, huh? Mark Terribile Duke of deNet
tim@unc.UUCP (06/03/83)
What bothers me about all religions is they always
exclude instead of including people. Each separate
religious order has either Scripture based or Pope
based laws which ultimately divide all people into
classes. Yet science seems to search for universal
understanding that provides a basis for all
things. This exclusion makes religions hipocriti-
cal of their own beliefs.
Please do not make unwarranted assumptions about all religions if
all that you have known are popular religions. These thrive by
feeding the lowest impulses of people and telling them that they
are noble. That is how they get popular, by telling their members
that the mere fact of membership is sufficient to make them superior
to non-members. There are religions (mine, for instance) which do
not require this attitude, in which our motivations are simply to
appreciate beauty and bring it into our own lives VOLUNTARILY.
Members of these religions do not necessarily desire all people
to belong to their religion.
There is also a strong brainwashing effects of re-
ligion. Catholics, of which I was raised, place
their children in sunday school at a young age and
teach the Catholic view. This view is usually one
of why it is so neat to be Catholic.
It is unreasonable to expect members of a religion not to bring
up their children within that religion. However, this need not
involve brainwashing and jingoism. Your sweeping generalities
are very insulting to people of all religions. Do not speak
of "all religions" unless you know virtually all.
Tim Maroneysjk@sri-unix.UUCP (06/04/83)
Someone recently defined religion and using that definition I think that an "all religions" generalization is probably valid. Intent, rather than content, is the issue. I desire a commonplace modality of expression in which intent is clearly presented and is beheld by those who wish to receive. Words are so cumbersome at times! scott kramer <sjk@ucbvax, ucbvax!sjk> PS - What's the shortest mail route to Tim Maroney via ucbvax? Thanx.
eric@whuxlb.UUCP (06/05/83)
#R:ih1ap:-15100:whuxlb:13300004:000:1536
whuxlb!eric Jun 4 19:09:00 1983
Note: things in [[ ]] are from unc!tim, our resident
flamer.......
[[ Please do not make unwarranted assumptions
about all religions if all that you have known are
popular religions. These thrive by feeding the
lowest impulses of people and telling them that
they are noble. That is how they get popular, by
telling their members that the mere fact of
membership is sufficient to make them superior to
non-members. ]]
Gee, Tim, that sounds like a fat generalization to me.
I am Catholic, and I have NEVER felt that I was noble just
because I was Catholic and Person X was not. I resent the
accusation that my religion feeds only my lowest impulses to
keep me interested. Maybe yours does and that's why you're
so into it......
[[ It is unreasonable to expect members of a
religion not to bring up their children within
that religion. However, this need not involve
brainwashing and jingoism. Your sweeping
generalities are very insulting to people of all
religions. Do not speak of "all religions" unless
you know virtually all. ]]
Thanks, Tim. I think you just abolished all need for
this newsgroup. No one on netnews has seen everything, so I
guess no one has the right to submit an opinion, huh?? Yeh,
RIGHT!! I don't think YOU have experienced every religion
around, so why are you saying anything about the popular
ones. Ease up.
Eric Holtman
harpo!whuxlb!ericemma@uw-june.UUCP (06/05/83)
In regard to a Methodist wedding being accepted by the Roman Catholic Church-- I wound up hearing a short lecture by the head of the Tribunal for the Archdiocese of Seattle on Canon Law not long ago. As a large part of his job involves annullments, he wound up on the topic of valid and invalid marriages. Basically, a marriage is considered valid (by the Church) if it meets a fairly short list of requirements-- desire and ability to form a community; that sort of thing (I don't rmembr the whole list). One thing that was consipicuously ABSENT was any requirement that the Church be involved in any way, shape or form with the wedding. While there were additional requirements for a sacramental wedding, the priest said that the Church would recognize a marriage between two Hindus as "valid". -Joe P.
bch@unc.UUCP (06/05/83)
I disagree. Tim Maroney is not our only resident flamer. He's just the one (or one of the few) that doesn't use the Bible or Holy Writ to try and justify his beliefs. Flames can come from "Divine revelation" as well as from anywhere else. Byron Howes
tim@unc.UUCP (06/06/83)
At first, I wasn't going to respond to this. I get so many per-
sonal insults on net.religion that answering all of them would
keep me from doing anything else. However, I hate to turn down a
clear challenge.
Note: things in [[ ]] are from unc!tim, our resident fla-
mer.......
[[ Please do not make unwarranted assumptions
about all religions if all that you have known
are popular religions. These thrive by feeding
the lowest impulses of people and telling them
that they are noble. That is how they get popu-
lar, by telling their members that the mere fact
of membership is sufficient to make them superior
to non-members. ]]
Gee, Tim, that sounds like a fat generalization to me. I
am Catholic, and I have NEVER felt that I was noble just
because I was Catholic and Person X was not. I resent
the accusation that my religion feeds only my lowest im-
pulses to keep me interested. Maybe yours does and that's
why you're so into it......
Gee, Eric, that sure doesn't sound like the Catholicism I was
raised in. The Church had this thing called "exclusive salva-
tion". In laymen's terms, if you aren't a Catholic, well, sorry
about that but you have to go to Hell. In Prolog, damned(X) :-
not_catholic(X). This is a perfect example of the sort of ex-
treme preferentialism fostered by popular religions. How can you
treat the damned as equals when you are saved? Perhaps this is
possible for a few, but it would be silly to imagine that most
people can do this. This sort of doctrine encourages a lack of
respect for unbelievers, and bolsters the ego of believers.
As for your accusation about my religion, it is irresponsible and
sophomoric, and has no place in a reasonable discussion. A ra-
tional person does not talk about things he or she knows nothing
about.
[[ It is unreasonable to expect members of a re-
ligion not to bring up their children within that
religion. However, this need not involve
brainwashing and jingoism. Your sweeping gen-
eralities are very insulting to people of all re-
ligions. Do not speak of "all religions" unless
you know virtually all. ]]
Thanks, Tim. I think you just abolished all need for this
newsgroup. No one on netnews has seen everything, so I
guess no one has the right to submit an opinion, huh??
Yeh, RIGHT!! I don't think YOU have experienced every
religion around, so why are you saying anything about the
popular ones. Ease up.
More sophomoric nonsense. My exhortation not to make sweeping
generalizations about all religions has nothing to do with what
you claim I said. This is obvious to any rational reader, so I
won't belabor it here. It is amazing to me that you could let
your temper control you like this in a public forum. Ease up
yourself. Remember, Christians have this thing about "Love thy
neighbor as thyself"?
Tim Maroneyemma@uw-june.UUCP (06/08/83)
Hold on, Tim. I don't know what Catholicism you were raised in, but it most assuredly does not sound like the one I was raised in and practice now. The church does not hold that it is necessary to be a Catholic to be saved. In fact, there was a priest unfrocked 26 years ago for making precisely that claim, and refusing to recant. Protestants are most assuredly saved as well. The Church does take the attitude that Catholics have a fuller faith than Protestants, but then I tend to get worried about any denomination that doesn't believe that about themselves. -Joe P.
laura@utcsstat.UUCP (06/10/83)
The Roman Catholic Church, despite its centralised desent from the Pope does not really have a "Standards Committee". By the time you get to Vatican Councils and the Curia, yes, you have found a central authority, but the whole things is terribly decentralised in practice. 2 years ago I was in a R.C. church with my parents at the town closest to their cottage. The Sunday was "a day for Christian Unity Sunday". We were treated to a roaring sermon (oops. homily) on why all the Jews were going to rot in Hell for not being Christians and incidentally crucifying Jesus. According to my mother, this went on for about 45 minutes. I dont know about this, for as soon as I heard enough to be sure that this guy was serious, I left. My father and I wrote letters to the Archbishop of the dioscese complaining. We were told that the priest was not in conflict with doctrine, and so could not be chastised. More importantly, only about 5 people left the Church in question during the aforementioned lecture. The priest gave more "fire and brimstone" shoutouts and at the end of his first year at the Church announced how "all the community was pleased that he was getting back to REAL Catholicism". No matter how unprejudiced you are, it behooves you to see whether the same can be said for your Church as a whole. Officially, Roman Catholics ought not to hate non-Catholics or non-Christians. Officially, Berkeley 4.2 should have been out for months. While ideal Catholics would be a pleasure to be with, on the grass roots level there are a lot of people who are very difficult. They are part of the same group that complains that Vatican Council 2 was a bad idea in part because it reformed the official Church attitude towards non-Catholics. Concluding that they are wrong does not make them go away. Reeducating them might, but often they do not want to be reeducated. It is necessary to remember them when you consider why the Roman Catholic Church is not an attractive proposition to outsiders. Anybody got any suggestions on how to reform it or any Church? This discussion about whether the Bible can be taken literally can go on for ever... Laura Creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura -
tim@unc.UUCP (06/10/83)
The church does not hold that it is necessary to be a
Catholic to be saved. In fact, there was a priest un-
frocked 26 years ago for making precisely that claim, and
refusing to recant. Protestants are most assuredly saved
as well. The Church does take the attitude that Cathol-
ics have a fuller faith than Protestants, but then I tend
to get worried about any denomination that doesn't be-
lieve that about themselves.
You are probably right in that this is not currently a doctrine
of the Church, although I am not completely taking your word for
it. This isn't because I don't trust you, it's because I've
found that asking different Catholics what Catholics believe fre-
quently gets different answers. I once had a Ctaholic tell me
that the Church no longer believed in Hell. Hey, guess he's read
the Gospels, huh? One might also profitably contrast your atti-
tude with that of Catholics in Ireland (and Protestants too, for
that matter).
The fact reamins that up until very recent times, the Church did
hold this view. The topic being discussed is how religions got
popular. The present toleration that marks the Catholic Church
is a welcome break from many centuries of rabid intolerance and
absolutism, during which times the Church was more popular than
today.
In any case, your letter shows that you DO probably think that no
non-Christian (or non-Jew) will go to Heaven. Your acceptance of
Protestantism is nice, but to someone on the outside of Chris-
tianity it is still more evidence of your system's claim of ex-
clusive salvation.
Tim Maroney