Originally posted by RCLefty
I am confused as to why you have not chosen to post this reply in the Forum. I was going to suggest that it is not necessary to continue the debate in both venues, but I had assumed the Forum would be the more logical place to continue it.
But if that is not what you wish, I am happy to oblige.
Quote:
\"patently ridiculous\".
You honestly need to look at the history of the 19th and 20th Centuries and then tell me that Charles Darwin had absolutely no social influence. Then you would find that you are the one who is patently ridiculous. Now, what I am pretty sure you meant was the Charles Darwin had not thought or concern for what his social influence would be. That is NOT the same thing. That only indicates the degree of his selfishness or the extent of his own unconsciousness or stupiditiy. I suppose next you will defend scientist for building Megaton Yield Nuclear Weapons because they never bothered to infer that maybe they would be used to destroy the World. Turning out one's destructive works without thinking of anything beyond the Paycheck one will receive does not absolve us from our Moral Responsibilities and our Karma.
Oh, yes, and Machiavelli was also influencialin his time and well beyond, but no one prior to the most destructive wars in History were referring to Social Machiavellism. Machiavelli said nothing to refer to Racial and Ethnic Supremacies and Inferiorities. Machiavelli was all about power politics and balance of powers. It was Darwin's Theories that lent them out to the Idea of a Huge Slug Fest and a Giant Blookbath.
Moving on. What good are the advances of science the very moment the surface of the Earth is transformed to glass by the heat of a 1000 nuclear warheads. What good are all the Medical Advances when some 'designer plague' is turned loose by the Europeans to kill all Asians, or the other way around. We already have one Cold War Laboratory to thank for AIDS. Also, while we are thinking about ultimate things, we need to wonder where all of the Science that brought on first the Industrial and the Technical Revolutions are ultimately to the benefit of Humanity and the Planet. If we had stayed Agrarian would we now have Global Warming. Look at the choices which we will need to make in the next Century. Now we have Urban Areas spilling over onto Farm Land, and we have grains being converted into Fuel Oils. Already entire populations are being left to starve in Africa. It seems the Trend of the Future is for the selective removal of some Population Centers. Where is that to stop? You know, History has seen Agrarian Civilizations which had thrived for Centuries -- Several of the Chinese Dynasties -- a Number of the Egyptian Dynasties --- the Roman Empire --- The High Medievel Period of Catholic Civilization -- Persia. But we have no way of knowing that Technological Civilization will not destroy the viability of the entire Planet as it crashes and burns. So, ultimately speaking, we may have nothing to thank your Scientists for, as they have never been able to or even inclined to guess to what results their inventions would end. Oh, take Robotics. Do we really need Unemployment while the only plan Capitialist Civilization has for the general distribution of Wealth is in exchange for Labor, so lets invent Robots so that people will no longer be paid. I suppose the Real 20% Unemployment Rate in every Industrial Society has Mr. Science to thank for that.
Moving on. What is wrong with Confession? Confession is at least Catholicism acknowledgment that Sin is Still Wrong, something that Protestantism, under Paul, completely denies. It is the Protestant position that if Sin is Entirely Forgiven then there is no longer anything to confess for. To a Protestant the only Sin is to do an Act of Righteousness since that would imply that one has not enough Faith in one's Salvation. And don' t think I exaggerate. I have heard Fundamentalist Preachers damn Catholics to Hell for relying on Good Works and not Faith. And it is indeed traceable back to Paul -- who argues that Good Works are 'like rags'.
And about the Gospel of John. Really, you seem smarter than to need this present explanation. Ofcourse you must know from the internal evidence provided in the Gospel of John that it was the work of a 2nd Century Greek Mind and not that of an early 1st Century Hebrew. We have the Letters of John. John is zeolously Jewish but his writing are confused and he did without editing. The Gospel of John was clearly writen by a Platonist and refined Greek Language would have been impossible for Rough John the Apostle. And the Doctrines elaborated are not those presented by Christ in the other Gospels but are the salient points that had grown out of Paulist Gentile Greek Christianity. The Gospel of John is not a source document at all, but a Position Paper on what the Gentile Churches believed a hundred years after the death of Christ. Now, tell me I really had to tell you any of that, and that you were not being Intellectually very dishonest with me when you claimed that the Gospel of John was not somehow a Paulist Document.
When you ask for proof of some things which should be clear by my explanations, you are just coming across as being hardheaded and stubborn. After all, WHY ELSE would the Protestants have come up with the new and exclusive doctrine that Every Word of the Bible is the Absolute Word of God except to Deify Paul. They always had a huge problem of not being able to refer enough to any quote from Christ while referring entirely to Paul. And then they had Paul's problem that in 14 books he never once quoted Christ. They were painted into the Corner and frankly had to Deify Paul or they would have had no Religion. Now, what Proof is needed for a Truth so obvious? Do you think that some Protestant Theologian would publish such a Rationale. It was a Doctrine arrived at through all of the shady efforts aimed at Damage Control and White Wash. It was a Doctrine established so they would not have to speak about these things.
I still can't figure out what you mean about Trent. Whatever you are saying simply has no resonance for me one way or the other. But it does seem like nothing more than second hand hate speech. Maybe you should involve yourself a little bit more and do an essay with more truth and less stridency and venom. And you seem to have you timing wrong. Trent came AFTER the defeat of the Roman Church. Trent came after the Inquisitions. Trent came after any secular political influence that the Church had ever exercised. What you seem to be talking about is whatever established The Catholic Church as the Political Center of Catholic Civilization.... and what do you have against Civilization? Your argument seems to be with Gregory the Great. One would think you would have approved of the Surrender at Trent. You got the Defeat of the Catholic Church... and isn't that what you seemed to have wanted. Trent lead directly to what the Church is today -- a Pope held house prisoner in some tiny city block in Rome, without the secular power of a simple Dog Catcher.
And about Mary. If find it distasteful for a Catholic to be talking about Minimizing Mary. You are not apologizing to some Protestant now. You are talking to a devout Marian and you should take that under consideration when you tippitoe so close to insulting Her. It seems clear that you have no actual Feeling for Her or you wouldn't be able to reduce Her Importance so well. Perhaps you should become a Bishop and join in the Movement to Eccumenically bond the Church over to the Protestants, since you are already so comfortable with contemplating a Catholicism with little or no remaining Marian Influence.
No real Marian would ever use that silly word 'venerate' -- it is an insult to Mary by a scheming pack of Paulist Bishops that they would want to foist on the Marian Religious Orders, who should rightly throw it back in their faces. Mary is Queen of Heaven, The Immaculate Conception, the Mediatrix of All Grace. Co-Redemptrix. What exactly in all of that does not qualify Her for Worship. Those Bishops deserve to be flogged and transferred out to the Protestant Churches.
Firstly, I must apologize for a fairly aggregious error I made which has caused a great deal of confusion. When I reffered to Trent, I was thinking of the First Council of Nicaea. When you replace my reference to Trent with Nicaea, I am sure my argument will make a great deal more sense. I can only ask your pardon for my error.
Now, to business. You can't dismiss all of science on the basis of Nuclear Proliferation. I could just as easily say your arguments are moot, because you are a human, and humans created Nuclear Weapons. After all, I would not take council from people of that sort. Now, I ask you to defend the assertion that Darwin's observations, which are undoubtedly true, (Even Creationists aknowledge this, claiming their beef is with Evolution, not natural Selection.) are responsible for the existance of politics based upon the elite wanting to stay elite. The Elite have always wanted to stay elite, and i challenge you to produce one
relevant text that uses his observations as a justification for policy. Nuclear weapons are an entirely different issue.
The only new claims you bring regarding Darwin is the vague suggestion of a link between his observations and political racism. If you are going to suggest to me that racism and genocide did not exist prior to the nineteenth century, then I cannot any longer take any of your claims seriously. That would be ludicrous.
Your views on Mary are confusing, to say the least. At what point was it Church policy to worship mary as a deity, and when exactly did we deviate from that? It is certainly not the view of the current Church in Rome that we should do so.
And who said anything about minimizing? Mary is first of all the Saints, even before Peter, but she is not part of the Holy Trinity. Queen of Heaven she may be, but a godess, she is not. We Catholics are monotheists. There is no God except for the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the three in one. Mary was, as you correctly pointed out, conceived immaculate, perfect, and free of original sin, which brings her up arguably to the level of an angel, but even the angels have been quick to warn humans not to worship them. To draw worship from the Lord, even for the Holy Mother Mary, is folly.
I'm sorry if you disagree, but I don't find your claims about Paul's relationship to the protestants self-evident, as you say. I share your reservations about the view of modern biblical infallibility, but I don't agree that they have anything to do with Paul. If you would just present some evidence of that, you might well sway me, but you have shown me nothing. To suggest that John (the most beloved among Apostles) is also no more than a mouthpiece for Paul is, I think, silly. Is it your opinion that paul masterminded Revelations as well? As I assume you are aware, it is also accredited to John.
It is obvious that you have many disagreements with the current Roman Church, on some very fundamental issues. I have postulated nothing in this conversation that is inconsistant with the views of the Magesterium.[/i][/b]
