First off, don't take this personal. Though you may consider yourself a Catholic, you are not a Vatican official, nor do you dictate which doctrines to practice.
To sum them up with another adjective... "The Dark Ages"... or "The Middle Ages."
Hmm... power hungry crusades... the Inquisition... I know you had nothing to do with it. Just understand that there is a reason why people have anti-religious sentiment..... when it comes to organized ins utions...
Of course protestants are not excluded from this shame (Salem Witch Trials, the KKK come to mind).
People without the guidance of the Holy Spirit no matter their denomination will fall prey to their own flesh (power, greed, lust, deceit, envy, lack-of-restraint). GOD will judge all people no matter their race, gender or religious affiliation and all will be accountable to Him alone. Only then will his chosen flock be known.... I tell you this though, there will be Catholics, Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Messianic Jews, Episcopalians...etc... and the common denominator in the bunch will be that they all accepted Jesus's sacrifice and repented of their sin.
It's on a person by person basis with GOD as the judge... not feeble human minds.
gtownspur actually commented on a lesser known Catholic practice of setting up an "identifiable" saint in each of its domains in order to appease the locals.
I'm just trying to show that my views aren't as narrowminded as some in here would like to suggest.
I can criticize deficiencies in any ins ution... after all, they are only human. The church is not made up of temples or organizational charts... it is made up of those that genuinely pursue the fulfillment of GOD's purpose in their lives.
Back to the article itself I've noticed no one has addressed this double-standard...
The Church was not responsible for the "Dark Ages". Actually was one of the only educational resources around during that time.
Partially true... because any 'education' or thinking that conflicted with the Catholic Church could get you in big trouble. Progress was therefore limited...
Why were people like Galileo persecuted by the Pontificate at the start of the Renaissance period?
Two reasons. One, he was claiming results he hadn't proven yet as fact, and he was rather politically incorrect about the way he did things.
A (possibly biased) review of that incident can be read at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
Joch, you are one of my favorite posters when it comes to debating religion. That is why I am disappointed that you truly believe the above statement.
The only instances where the Roman Catholic Church was against the laity reading the Bible was because the versions of the Bible which were being printed were not the Catholic Bibles but Bibles which, according to the Catholic Church, had mistakes, important omissions and, in some cases, unwanted additions. In summary, these were corrupted versions of the Bible. It makes all the sense of the world that the Church was against the propagation of these kinds of Bibles.
By the way, Protestant leaders of the time, such as Calvin and Henry VIII, ordered versions of the Bible, which they did not agree with, burnt.
I have not read enough about this subject to talk intelligently about it.
As a Roman Catholic, I believe the Church was established by Christ himself (the whole thing about “Peter you are the rock and on this rock . . .”) and Christ promised that the Church would not err (“and the gates of shall not prevail against it”). Therefore, I believe the Church will always guide me.
It’s hard for me to believe that God wanted his Church to be established the Protestant way (and this is not bashing Protestantism, it’s simply the way I see reality around me). Just see how many Protestant denominations there are, all claiming they hold the true teaching of Christ.
My questions is you have jillions of different fossils dating back billions of years but not one transitional fossil. Common Sense should tell us there should be thousands of transitional fossils if evolution is true. Maybe the more intelligent athiest on the board can explain it to me.
There are transitional fossils.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
Your post makes little sense.
The Virgin of Guadalupe is simply the Virgin Mary who appeared to a poor “campesino” in Mexico. Nothing to do with transposed deities.
The rest of what you have written I simply cannot follow given you poor grammar:
“GUadalupedelaROsa Santa Maria de Quaxaca Simon DOn Patron Jose Cuervo”
Why is it so obscure?. There should be hard concrete evidence and fossils and not evidence that can be easily countered. At this point of the discussion it takes as muchif not more faith to believe in evolution as it does God.
Is this in the bible?
So?
As Travis put it, the Catholic Church was one of the few ins utions which, regarding knowledge and learning, bridged the Old World with the Renaissance.
You need to read about these historic events from non-biased writer.
I don’t think the Catholic Church teaches something different from you statement above.
Way to twist reality. This is not what I would expect from you.
No.
The Church does not require its flock to believe in personal revelations, such as the appearance of the Virgin in Guadalupe, Fatima or Lourdes.
But is has nothing to do with it being in the Bible or not.
Where is it written in the Bible that the Bible is the only rule of Faith?
Or if evolution is true you would see animals that have organs and appendages, inherited from the ancestors they evolved from, that are still present but do not currently serve any purpose.
Otherwise, you would have to believe that God created man and animal with organs and other parts that are completely useless and just happen to resemble features found on other animals.
It's my understanding fossilization isn't all that common an occurence. I'd have to look it up to get any real numbers, but it kind of stands to reason when you think about what happens to most animals after they die.
Why is it so obscure to you? what kind of evindence where you expecting to be discovered after several million years?
At least evolution has "obscure evidence"...
I'm just trying to say that defense of your personal relationship with GOD should not be intertwined with defense of the Catholic Ins ution as interpreted by the various Vatican Pontificates. They are not without error. But don't take that as a way of me trying to imply that my particular denomination is perfect... far from it.
And as I tried to explain... they put road blocks to certain forms of thinking.
Such as Coppernicus' claim that the Earth was not the center of the universe... The way I see it... the Vatican had limited understanding in several fields... so rather than seeing that these new concepts were irrelevant or rather, non-contradictory to the concept of a Divinely created universe... they thought that the concepts posed threats.
Again, this is why people fear 'religious' involvement in science. They believe we will somehow revert to this inflexible thinking....
I've read plenty of books regarding both subjects..... All I know is that they were very bad pursuits... and showed misdirected judmentment. Especially, when it concerns the decision to end people's lives in the name of GOD.
A protest against indulgences initially spurred about the creation of the 'protestant' church. Essentially, people were paying money to the church to obtain 'forgiveness from sin'. Bad practice.
The Catholic Church denounced the practice over a century later.
True... not the current 'modernized' Catholic Church.... but they are still very ritualistic... With beliefs such as: "You can't obtain entry into heaven without being baptized", "The bread and the wine literally turn into Christ's body and blood", not to mention the fact that they practice several rites not even in the Bible...
All that is necessary;
"If you confess with your mouth JESUS is Lord, and believe in your heart that GOD hath raised him from the dead.... YOU SHALL BE SAVED. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation."
- Romans 10:9-10
I'm not twisting reality.... The Catholic church was having major problems keeping order in early Mexico with native converts and non-converted habitants... everything always seemed to favor the Europeans, such as the best par ions of land, livestock and access to fresh water... the natives were getting fed up with Spanish rule to the point where the Spanish leaders feared a widespread uprising. The church tried to mitigate the problem and literally made up the story of the apparition to Juan Diego... conveniently the "Virgin" had hispanic traits that would make it easier for the natives to accept her, conveniently she appeared to a native and not someone of European descent... The ploy worked wonders for the Catholic church in Mexico. Look at how fervently Mexicans defend the name of "La Virgen de Guadalupe" till this day. If only they would do the same to defend the name of JESUS.
This ploy was also used in Columbia, Brazil, Ecuador, Guatemala... Haiti... Cuba...
Again, I'm in no way bashing you....
Last edited by hegamboa; 01-20-2006 at 07:03 PM.
True because fossilization is not a process that can be observed for any of the animals dying presently. Interesting, no???
Animals decay way too fast to leave any fossilized remains.... unless they are somehow quickly buried.
Which is why the premise of a cataclysmic flood can explain the burial of millions of animals and a high fossilization rate that can not be explained by any modern-day mechanism.
DUDE I went to the Musues of natural History in new york and found almost 1 million fossils. However, not one a transitional form.
So there was a high fossilization rate at one point. Great.Which is why the premise of a cataclysmic flood can explain the burial of millions of animals and a high fossilization rate that can not be explained by any modern-day mechanism.
a preponderance of the fossil evidence supporting creation doesn't seem obscure to me.Why is it so obscure to you? what kind of evindence where you expecting to be discovered after several million years?
At least evolution has "obscure evidence"...
Nevertheless, even the Darwin says you can't know for sure so Faith has a lot to do with what you believe.
IMO being an evolutionist is the biggest gamble you could ever take.
yeah but we have discovered fossils for every period in time, but them transitional forms never seem to show up.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
