TF wrote:
Which brings to mind a video and commentary on Mother Theresa by Christopher Hitchens, which I watched a couple of years ago. I will leave this for you to watch in the interim period as I have run out of time to contemplate my answer to the remainder of your post, which I will endeavour to do so later on.
Happy viewing…
For the remainder of my post, the regulations have been around longer than the English language has. Consider that before dismissing it or demanding explanation, it’s built into how states deal with priority of communication, who can say what. That came out of the Catholic-Orthodox tradition.
If in my own ontology, I state that 2+2=4, it is not because I am “borrowing from someone else”, but because by my own deduction and design, 2+2=4, regardless of what anyone else had ever said or done.
Every great mountain has much greatness within. One can hardly form a vast religion void of any repetition of former vast religion’s concerns. Just try to form a new science but not use mathematics, logic, or any current scientific principles. Such would be utter nonsense.
The fact that all religions have many things in common is merely testimony that there are many things that reality requires of everyone, regardless of heritage. And frankly, that is very largely what Catholicism is about.
No. Catholicism includes philosophies that aren’t very deductive, in fact is about as antheyical to deductive and comparitive reason as one can get, more radical than Buddhism gets.
People outside of the religion really don’t get that the religion might share a ethics, but not necessarily a larger philosophy outside of this. It’s a very massive religion, it be like combining the Sunni and Shia sects together within Islam under one caliph, then every other minor sect, ancient and minor, who are sharply opposed to one another, and letting things be.
On thus site I’ve seen people attack me thinking I was a Franciscan or Jesuit, it doesn’t work like that. I’m not obligated to join any order, can start a new one in fact, or just be quiet. We have purely ontologically oriented Catholics, others focused on purely faith, pure science, etc. It’s massive, we even have a few kinds of odd atheists, such a near Marxist liberation theologians or whatever George Satanaya was doing (see this as a phase in Erik’s future). I try to just be more secular traditional, Roman Era, with emphasis on ethics. Member of the Cult of Boethius, and try not to interfere at all with the unity of the churches, so am careful to to upset or offend the orthodox or eastern orthodox.
James isn’t without a place, in his statement, but it is much more than that as well. You might not find much commonality between two Catholic philosophers as you would expect. One would say turn the other cheek, and another would roll their eyes and say punch back. We’re not a new religion, we’ve been around a few thousand years, lots of competing schools of thought. We’re united in Christ. Can’t say we’re united on a whole lot else, anyone studying the history of philosophy during Catholic eras would quickly grasp that.
Yes.
No plus one to infinity over any attempt on your part to assert yes more so.
The Catholic establishment wrestles with the same problem every established religion has to deal with. How to make the secret mysteries of faith intelligible to the masses, if in fact that was the intent of the founder of the particular religion.
The average Catholic could not conceive of a Vatican where, according to the memoirs of a recently passed away excorcist , Satanic rituals take place, because the average Catholic cannot comprehend the magnitude and the power of an unplacated Evil.
Yeah, I really wouldn’t take that case of money laundering through the back door of the Vatican banking system as a “Satanic Ritual”.
About the early roots of the Roman Catholic church and its early development (of taking in pagan customs and incorporating them; taking in foreign religion’s dogmas and incorporating them): In religious studies, they call the splintering of old, and springing to life new religions “schizms”. The same process can be viewed from a systems point of view. Systems was a budding and promising discipline of thought in the seventies. One of the tenets or discoveries of Systems was that systems, successful systems, never start out on their own; new systems are only viable if they grow out of old, established systems.
This is a hindsightful description of religions’ schizms.
Nobody talks about Systems any more, but it had a schizm, giving life to System’s splinter as its sister discipline, Chaos Theory. CT is still talked about.
Christianity was a splinter religion off of Judaism, and it incorporated many new elements, hardly any of which were brand new. “There is nothing new under the sun”, as the Torah aptly found out, and the scriptures (of Jews, and the scriptures of Christians, as well as of Muslims, Hindus, Greek gods, etc.) recursively applied the very saying to its own origin.
Why RC is referred to as if it were a human female, or a biological mammarian female?
The church is IT. It is a neutral gender entity, not a female entity.
Ships and nations are seldom referenced in the feminine gender any more. But religion? It has never been referenced as a lady. No, sir.
Turd, I ain’t kidding: I must find you the source, however I have only a few minutes here and there to post, and now going to a festival called 'Sinolog’to celebrate the Infant Jesus. Biggest festival here.
Please realize by now I am on the level as far as references are concerned.
-1- wrote:
Take it up with the Catholic Church
No Jerkey. Not since the snake cult or the cult of mithras who occupied the location prior in pagan times, has this been the case. The Vatican isn’t 100% Catholic, it also has a Greek Orthodox Priest stationed inside a Greek Chapel there via treaty (only Treaty with the Byzantine Empire still in force today), I assure you, any satanic rites even hinted at would of been announced by the Greek Patriarch instantly. Absolutely no doubt about this.
Your talking absolute bullshit.
I’ll dig it up when I get home, if you think it’s bull, then the renown excorcist, who just passed is some kind of a pervert, adding lying to his list of sins.
Exorcism is just a reading of the baptismal rights. Vast majority of the US has had a exorcism without knowing it, that’s all it is. No women crawling walls shooting peas out of their mouths. It’s the most extremely overrated rite we have, people don’t grasp that’s all you do, and you don’t even need to be a priest to baptize someone in any of the ancient churches. I can do a exorcism in under 5 minutes. If you want the theatrics of a full immersion in water, your gonna get wet.
For a lot of people, this is enough to solve psychological neurosis by removing stress, guilt, memories. Best if a priest does it cause he is a authority figure, makes for a stronger subjective connection on the person being baptized.
I don’t grasp the theology beyond that, but do readily acknowledge the expediency of the simple rite central to Christianity. It’s just a extra baptism, it either works or doesn’t as in the placebo effect from a strictly emperical standpoint. Nothing inherently satanic about it, nothing too special, every priest is trained to baptize, so doesn’t involve much intellectual arguments. It works, or it doesn’t, and costs next to nothing to try. It’s one of those arts most applauded in religion, as it can be highly effective psychologically, and causes no obvious danger in and if itself. Just recommend not relying on that alone.
A Baptism is more than you think it is.
Baptism is idolatry.
You guys are suckers for the ceremonious.
Ceremony is idolatry, churches are idolatry, crosses are idolatry …
Do you folks have any clue what it’s like to try to save a bunch of assholes from damnation??
Yes, I was actively supporting Trump during the election, had to talk to a lot of Democrats. I know exactly what it is like Ecmandu.
Trump is married.
Marriage is idolatry.
You know, for all the shit you folks sling at me, I actually have a really hard job here.
Ecmandu is self-idolatry.