|
Grex > Agora47 > #75: Help! Is there a Catholic in the house? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 66 responses total. |
tsty
|
|
response 32 of 66:
|
Oct 11 04:58 UTC 2003 |
you prefer ribbed instead?
we should all remember this?
<<sorta sorry, but not really>>
|
jp2
|
|
response 33 of 66:
|
Oct 13 00:49 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
krj
|
|
response 34 of 66:
|
Oct 13 20:11 UTC 2003 |
Let us know what Bible you get.
|
goose
|
|
response 35 of 66:
|
Oct 15 16:21 UTC 2003 |
RE#26 -- Do you have a URL for that Ron Jeremy/Jack Chick thing?
|
flem
|
|
response 36 of 66:
|
Oct 15 18:19 UTC 2003 |
I guess it's true that catholics are encouraged to read the bible on their
own now, however... It is still the official position of that church that
to *understand* the bible, you must have divine guidance through the
revelations given to the catholic church. So, while you are allowed to read
the bible, you are strongly discouraged from actually forming your own opinion
on it.
|
cross
|
|
response 37 of 66:
|
Oct 15 21:07 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
flem
|
|
response 38 of 66:
|
Oct 16 14:32 UTC 2003 |
I stand corrected, cross. Apparently I hallucinated the first 20 years of
my life.
|
lynne
|
|
response 39 of 66:
|
Oct 16 16:20 UTC 2003 |
<giggles at #38>
I think #36 is a pretty standard approach in many churches. They've settled
on their interpretation of the Bible; they want you to go along with them
and not rock the boat with actual thought. Hence my general disillusionment
with organized religion. Faith in God is one thing; faith in someone that
read the Bible x hundred years ago and declared an arbitrary and
absolute interpretation of it is another thing entirely. I was really
surprised to read the Bible for the first time (specifically the Old
Testament) and see how different it was from church-recommended lifestyles.
In particular, I've always been puzzled as to why the Catholic church puts
so much emphasis on Mary, who all things considered was a fairly minor
player in the New Testament.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 40 of 66:
|
Oct 16 18:28 UTC 2003 |
They had to in order to make a big point of the "Virgin Birth".
|
jep
|
|
response 41 of 66:
|
Oct 16 19:33 UTC 2003 |
I guess there's a lot of anti-religious bigotry on Grex.
|
lynne
|
|
response 42 of 66:
|
Oct 16 20:01 UTC 2003 |
re 41: I don't often find myself strongly disagreeing with you, jep,
but in this case absolutely. According to webster:
big*ot*ry: 1. The state of mind of a bigot; obstinate and unreasoning
attachment of one's own belief and opinions, with narrow-minded intolerance
of beliefs opposed to them.
My opinions (and flem's, and likely most of those stated here) are based
on a lifetime of personal experience and serious consideration of the issues
involved. They are not obstinate or unreasoning; they are however well-
grounded. Hopefully, so are the pro-religious views. There is disagreement,
as exists in any worthwhile discussion, and it is not surprising that a few
volleys online fail to reverse long-held opinions. I don't think any of
this can be characterized as intolerance.
|
jep
|
|
response 43 of 66:
|
Oct 16 22:58 UTC 2003 |
re resp:42: Sorry, Lynne, but I think there's unusual zeal for hatred
of religion here on Grex. I think that attitude is unreasoning, narrow
minded and intolerant.
|
asddsa
|
|
response 44 of 66:
|
Oct 16 23:01 UTC 2003 |
Now jep, what about that m-net item you've refused to link to policy?
|
other
|
|
response 45 of 66:
|
Oct 16 23:15 UTC 2003 |
The difference, jep, is that while many of us on Grex who reject religion
also support the rights of others to hold religious beliefs we think are
idiotic, bigotry has no place in it for such tolerance of other beliefs.
That is a major difference between religious and non-religious political
movements in this country as well: the religious movements tend to want
to make laws which require everyone to be subjected to their religious
beliefs, while the non-religious tend to want to make laws which only
prohibit the religious from subjecting the non-religious to religious
beliefs.
|
cross
|
|
response 46 of 66:
|
Oct 17 02:53 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
lynne
|
|
response 47 of 66:
|
Oct 17 14:53 UTC 2003 |
re 45: Exactly. I don't subscribe to organized religion myself, and I
enjoy discussing and/or arguing about the subject. But I fully support
your right, and every other person's right, to worship at a Lutheran,
Methodist, or Catholic church, a Jewish synagogue, a Muslim mosque, at
the Church of the Big Green Potato with Little Purple Spots. Or wherever
else you want to worship. I also support my right to disagree with these
religions, and to talk about why. Apparently, jep does not support my
right to hold and discuss different opinions than his--in my estimation,
this makes him something of a bigot.
|
jep
|
|
response 48 of 66:
|
Oct 17 15:20 UTC 2003 |
"Apparently, jep does not support my right to hold and discuss
different opinions than his"
Wow.
Did I tell you to shut up and keep it to yourself, and not notice, or
something? A comment like that... it really doesn't seem like I'm the
one shutting off conversation.
|
flem
|
|
response 49 of 66:
|
Oct 17 16:14 UTC 2003 |
re #46: I can't speak for a majority of american catholic churches/priests,
but in the church I grew up in, there was a strong message that thinking about
the bible for yourself was frowned upon. Nobody said that you couldn't do
it, that it was a sin oranything like that, just that you were likely to come
to incorrect conclusions if you did not base your biblical studies on the
official catholic interpretation, and therefore it was better not to study
independently. I wish I had access to some actual quotations; the best I can
do is paraphrase, like this: "Because of Catholic doctrine, you don't have
to struggle with interpretation of scripture, because the Church provides the
correct answers for you." It was very much a case of "you can have any color
you want, so long as it's black."
|
cross
|
|
response 50 of 66:
|
Oct 17 17:31 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
flem
|
|
response 51 of 66:
|
Oct 17 17:37 UTC 2003 |
Allow me to add that this was explained to me as being official catholic
doctrine.
There, now you can accuse me of making blanket statements, we can move on to
that particular flame war. Here, let me get you started:
So, I'm not allowed to attempt to make generalizations *based on my own
personal experience*? On what, pray tell, am I supposed to be base my
generalizations? The word of some self-professed "expert" on the internet,
whose main qualifications seem to be the fact that he calls the opinions of
people who disagree with him "nonsense"?
|
jp2
|
|
response 52 of 66:
|
Oct 17 17:44 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 53 of 66:
|
Oct 17 18:50 UTC 2003 |
Re #51: You're supposed to only base your generalizations on what cross
says. Duh.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 54 of 66:
|
Oct 17 19:56 UTC 2003 |
I don't think flem was generalizing, as he was careful to point out that
he was speaking of his own experience. I will say that my experience in
the Catholic parishes I grew up in was different than flem's -- either
that or we're just talking about different degrees of latitude in
interpretation. I pretty much agree that allowable personal interpretation
of scripture among Catholics is bounded by some core tenets of the faith,
I'm just not sure that that's what flem is talking about.
|
other
|
|
response 55 of 66:
|
Oct 17 21:04 UTC 2003 |
i think people take comments made by other people about their own
particular experiences and respond to them as if the original comment WAS
a gross generalization about everybody, and this happens with far greater
frequency than actual gross generalizations being made on the basis of
personal experience, at least for most people posting on Grex.
There ARE some who post as if their particular limited experience was
representative.
|
cross
|
|
response 56 of 66:
|
Oct 18 02:14 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|