4 ms·

The Catholic Church also held orgies in its sacred halls, enabled and hid a variety of pedophiles, and led a variety of violent conflicts for selfish gains. Tha

The Catholic Church also held orgies in its sacred halls, enabled and hid a variety of pedophiles, and led a variety of violent conflicts for selfish gains. That doesn’t mean Catholicism is bad, or even “the church”. but citing a few saints as evidence that something is good is some pretty serious cherry picking. Religious structure is good. People do better when they have a compelling framework and a strong social community. The issue with specific religions is it holds specific beliefs as a pre requisite, so it’s hard to just jump in amidst large bodies of diverse opinions and conflicting scientific evidence. Most people would benefit from joining any well intentioned religious group. And most of the moral arguments for any specific one tend to be compatible with the rest. So yeah, religion is generally a good thing for people; no, it’s not fair to claim it’s unilaterally good; and in general, mixing emotional arguments with world views on the nature of existence is likely to annoy others.

sdegutis 7y ago
> The Catholic Church also held orgies in its sacred halls You were lied to, my friend. > enabled and hid a variety of pedophiles Individuals did that, and that's very sad and damaging. > and led a variety of violent conflicts for selfish gains Read up on the Crusades (and Spanish Inquisition) from a Catholic perspective. It's not as cut and dry as people make it. > The issue with specific religions is it holds specific beliefs as a pre requisite, That's fine, as long as the beliefs are true. > so it’s hard to just jump in amidst large bodies of diverse opinions Look into any religion hard enough and you will find all categories of them to be logically and historically unsustainable except Catholicism. That's why I'm here. It is the only belief system fully compatible with intellectual integrity. Saint Thomas Aquinas said the same thing when he said that anyone who actually looked into Islam would see clearly that it is utterly absurd and full of contradictions. > and conflicting scientific evidence. There is none.
- b_tterc_p 7y ago
  Sure
- sudosteph 7y ago
  > Look into any religion hard enough and you will find all categories of them to be logically and historically unsustainable except Catholicism. That's why I'm here. It is the only belief system fully compatible with intellectual integrity. Saint Thomas Aquinas said the same thing when he said that anyone who actually looked into Islam would see clearly that it is utterly absurd and full of contradictions. Roman Catholicism says that communion will turn wine and bread into literal flesh and blood. How on earth is that "compatible with intellectual integrity"? Or believing in a literal virgin birth? Another thing I can't intellectually justify is insisting on priest celibacy and keeping women out of the priesthood. I'm not going to debate in favor of Islam, but it seems that mainstream protestant beliefs (or at least those which I'm familiar with, the beliefs of United Methodism) are just as capable of claiming the good parts of Christian philosophy, without insisting on the parts which clearly just exist due to the the Roman Catholic penchant for power wrangling and hierarchies.
  - sdegutis 7y ago
    > Roman Catholicism says that communion will turn wine and bread into literal flesh and blood. How on earth is that "compatible with intellectual integrity"? That is called Transubstantiation and it is a daily recurring miracle. Miracles, by definition, are God bending the rules of physics, which He created and continually sustains, and is thus allowed to bend. This is philosophical but logically consistent. > Or believing in a literal virgin birth? Another miracle. > insisting on priest celibacy That's a rule, and put there for a very good reason. The less divided your heart is by worldly cares, the more you can care only for the people God put in your care. > keeping women out of the priesthood Just as much as men are kept out of giving birth. Consider this quote from G. K. Chesterton: "How can it be a large career to tell other people's children about the Rule of Three, and a small career to tell one's own children about the universe? How can it be broad to be the same thing to everyone, and narrow to be everything to someone? No. A woman's function is laborious, but because it is gigantic, not because it is minute." > are just as capable of claiming the good parts of Christian philosophy, without insisting on the parts which clearly just exist due to the the Roman Catholic penchant for power wrangling and hierarchies. They say "you are saved by faith alone" and "the Bible is the sole authority on religion" and yet the Bible literally says "you are not saved by faith alone". That's plenty enough to disregard all their remaining arguments in my opinion. After using the process of elimination, only the Catholic Church's doctrines remain intact.
- pretendscholar 7y ago
  What makes, for example, Hinduism unsustainable?
  - morsmodr 7y ago
    Username checks out
    - pretendscholar 7y ago
      I'm not pretending to know anything I'm trying to understand what the op meant with this remark. >Look into any religion hard enough and you will find all categories of them to be logically and historically unsustainable except Catholicism.
      - morsmodr 7y ago
        It was a joke. Take a chill pill. As far as I am concerned, all religion is nothing but a brain management technique to allow us to elevate ourselves over our basest of instincts. Beyond that the difference is primarily influenced by when the religion evolved, where it evolved and is a matter of specifics. That said, Hinduism is interesting when it comes to the concept of moksha because no other known religion (there could be other ones that state this idea, but I don't know) talks about it - the world is an illusion wrapped around your eyes, wake up from it! But that's me, my subjective view. Someone else might find something else as more interesting. Someone who dislikes this comment will downvote it.
- pesmhey 7y ago
  What is a social organization but a group of individuals?
  - sdegutis 7y ago
    When individuals agree on basic absolute truths, they are organized into a social group. When a few individuals deviate from what the original group agreed on to be absolute truth, and the remaining individuals who do agree with the originally agreed upon original truths say that those people are not "one of us", even if the dissenters shout "we are part of the original group", it's obvious to everyone that they aren't. This is also true of the Protestants (Luther, Zwigli, Calvin) and all heretics before and after them. But it's just as true for those in the Church who do evil, because even though they aren't committing formal heresy, they are showing by their evil actions that they do not really know the God that we teach, because otherwise they wouldn't be doing evil. That's not to say they aren't formally part of the Church -- the Catholic Church is a hospital for sinners just as well as a museum of Saints. But these evil people don't at all represent what we teach, because they don't follow it. I myself have done plenty of wrong in my past and I have no excuse except that I was a poor excuse for a Christian, and I did not represent what my holy Church teaches, and for that I am deeply ashamed. But that doesn't change that what my Church teaches is true, even though I did not understand it correctly it apply it to myself well.
sudosteph 7y ago
Couldn't agree more with that. Despite some of the talented thinkers the Roman Catholic church has produced, there are too many obviously despicable things they've supported to hold them in very high regard in my views (their refusal to allow women in leadership is another one which just doesn't jive). It's not honest to ignore that the bad parts were created by the exact same doctrines and structures that enabled good parts. After all, "By their fruits you will know them."
0942v8653 7y ago
The saints are people who followed the principles of the religion. It's disingenuous to suggest that the actions of those who flouted Christianity's principles and rules should be allowed to define it. > mixing emotional arguments with world views on the nature of existence is likely to annoy others Perhaps, but the moral framework you cite as a benefit of religion is inextricably tied with a particular view on the nature of existence. People are far more likely to follow rules if they make sense.
- b_tterc_p 7y ago
  It’s not that disingenuous when it’s the officials of the governing body of the faith as defined by the faith. But this is the problem with any movement from feminism to Catholicism. It’s defined by its members but it’s members are individuals. If a group of people in the name of a movement do a bunch of things that most find disagreeable it’s not easy to separate them from the vanilla definition of the movement. There’s no objective definition of a collection of ideas. Religions and political persuasions can’t be intrinsically good, (though perhaps they can be intrinsically bad). There are certainly excellent ideas to be found in feminism and Catholicism. Yet Individuals in a belief system still have their own beliefs. There’s no purity of belief that can be identified. It’s a pointless endeavor. And thus, saying my belief system is good as evidenced by these good people adhering to said system is a meaningless statement. I have no reason to believe that your interpretation of said system is the same as theirs. Similarly pointing to the villains of the system doesn’t mean anything either.
  - sdegutis 7y ago
    That's the beauty of the Catholic Church: there is purity of belief. There is a core set of things that all Catholics absolutely must believe, and any who do not, are not truly Catholics. These beliefs are laid down in many different ways and in many different books but they're all saying the same thing. The "table of contents" of these beliefs would be a book called the Catechism of The Catholic Church: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM Even though it's a full book of its own, it only barely touches on the core beliefs of our religion, like a tree trunk. The branches go very far and very wide, and you'll find them in all the writings of the Saints, all the writings of the Fathers of the Church, the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Bible, and many other good books. A good portion of them are laid down for free online at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/index.html http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/index.html which has the Catholic Encyclopedia, Summa Theologica (Summary of Theology), many writings of the Fathers of the Church, the Bible, and many other Catholic Church documents such as Papal encyclicals.
XorNot 7y ago
I object that "religious group" is a per-requisite (we live in a religion-soaked culture still, it's a default). Most people benefit from joining any structured organization with strong-shared belief system. For example, the military very specifically operates and trains this way (it's in the wording - "a soldier will..." etc.). There's of course obvious reasons they should, but the concept is the same - build up a shared base of truth. If we look to another area, think about the term "company man" and what's actually happened in the last 50 years to how the big corporations (or maybe any?) treat their workers. That used to once be a source of a identity and purpose as well (possibly not the most healthy or reliable one) but it's very much something which has changed. The active effort to kill the Union movement has similar consequences.

sdegutis 7y ago

> The Catholic Church also held orgies in its sacred halls You were lied to, my friend. > enabled and hid a variety of pedophiles Individuals did that, and that's very sad and damaging. > and led a variety of violent conflicts for selfish gains Read up on the Crusades (and Spanish Inquisition) from a Catholic perspective. It's not as cut and dry as people make it. > The issue with specific religions is it holds specific beliefs as a pre requisite, That's fine, as long as the beliefs are true. > so it’s hard to just jump in amidst large bodies of diverse opinions Look into any religion hard enough and you will find all categories of them to be logically and historically unsustainable except Catholicism. That's why I'm here. It is the only belief system fully compatible with intellectual integrity. Saint Thomas Aquinas said the same thing when he said that anyone who actually looked into Islam would see clearly that it is utterly absurd and full of contradictions. > and conflicting scientific evidence. There is none.

b_tterc_p 7y ago
Sure
sudosteph 7y ago
> Look into any religion hard enough and you will find all categories of them to be logically and historically unsustainable except Catholicism. That's why I'm here. It is the only belief system fully compatible with intellectual integrity. Saint Thomas Aquinas said the same thing when he said that anyone who actually looked into Islam would see clearly that it is utterly absurd and full of contradictions. Roman Catholicism says that communion will turn wine and bread into literal flesh and blood. How on earth is that "compatible with intellectual integrity"? Or believing in a literal virgin birth? Another thing I can't intellectually justify is insisting on priest celibacy and keeping women out of the priesthood. I'm not going to debate in favor of Islam, but it seems that mainstream protestant beliefs (or at least those which I'm familiar with, the beliefs of United Methodism) are just as capable of claiming the good parts of Christian philosophy, without insisting on the parts which clearly just exist due to the the Roman Catholic penchant for power wrangling and hierarchies.
- sdegutis 7y ago
  > Roman Catholicism says that communion will turn wine and bread into literal flesh and blood. How on earth is that "compatible with intellectual integrity"? That is called Transubstantiation and it is a daily recurring miracle. Miracles, by definition, are God bending the rules of physics, which He created and continually sustains, and is thus allowed to bend. This is philosophical but logically consistent. > Or believing in a literal virgin birth? Another miracle. > insisting on priest celibacy That's a rule, and put there for a very good reason. The less divided your heart is by worldly cares, the more you can care only for the people God put in your care. > keeping women out of the priesthood Just as much as men are kept out of giving birth. Consider this quote from G. K. Chesterton: "How can it be a large career to tell other people's children about the Rule of Three, and a small career to tell one's own children about the universe? How can it be broad to be the same thing to everyone, and narrow to be everything to someone? No. A woman's function is laborious, but because it is gigantic, not because it is minute." > are just as capable of claiming the good parts of Christian philosophy, without insisting on the parts which clearly just exist due to the the Roman Catholic penchant for power wrangling and hierarchies. They say "you are saved by faith alone" and "the Bible is the sole authority on religion" and yet the Bible literally says "you are not saved by faith alone". That's plenty enough to disregard all their remaining arguments in my opinion. After using the process of elimination, only the Catholic Church's doctrines remain intact.
pretendscholar 7y ago
What makes, for example, Hinduism unsustainable?
- morsmodr 7y ago
  Username checks out
  - pretendscholar 7y ago
    I'm not pretending to know anything I'm trying to understand what the op meant with this remark. >Look into any religion hard enough and you will find all categories of them to be logically and historically unsustainable except Catholicism.
    - morsmodr 7y ago
      It was a joke. Take a chill pill. As far as I am concerned, all religion is nothing but a brain management technique to allow us to elevate ourselves over our basest of instincts. Beyond that the difference is primarily influenced by when the religion evolved, where it evolved and is a matter of specifics. That said, Hinduism is interesting when it comes to the concept of moksha because no other known religion (there could be other ones that state this idea, but I don't know) talks about it - the world is an illusion wrapped around your eyes, wake up from it! But that's me, my subjective view. Someone else might find something else as more interesting. Someone who dislikes this comment will downvote it.
pesmhey 7y ago
What is a social organization but a group of individuals?
- sdegutis 7y ago
  When individuals agree on basic absolute truths, they are organized into a social group. When a few individuals deviate from what the original group agreed on to be absolute truth, and the remaining individuals who do agree with the originally agreed upon original truths say that those people are not "one of us", even if the dissenters shout "we are part of the original group", it's obvious to everyone that they aren't. This is also true of the Protestants (Luther, Zwigli, Calvin) and all heretics before and after them. But it's just as true for those in the Church who do evil, because even though they aren't committing formal heresy, they are showing by their evil actions that they do not really know the God that we teach, because otherwise they wouldn't be doing evil. That's not to say they aren't formally part of the Church -- the Catholic Church is a hospital for sinners just as well as a museum of Saints. But these evil people don't at all represent what we teach, because they don't follow it. I myself have done plenty of wrong in my past and I have no excuse except that I was a poor excuse for a Christian, and I did not represent what my holy Church teaches, and for that I am deeply ashamed. But that doesn't change that what my Church teaches is true, even though I did not understand it correctly it apply it to myself well.

sudosteph 7y ago

Couldn't agree more with that. Despite some of the talented thinkers the Roman Catholic church has produced, there are too many obviously despicable things they've supported to hold them in very high regard in my views (their refusal to allow women in leadership is another one which just doesn't jive). It's not honest to ignore that the bad parts were created by the exact same doctrines and structures that enabled good parts. After all, "By their fruits you will know them."

0942v8653 7y ago

The saints are people who followed the principles of the religion. It's disingenuous to suggest that the actions of those who flouted Christianity's principles and rules should be allowed to define it. > mixing emotional arguments with world views on the nature of existence is likely to annoy others Perhaps, but the moral framework you cite as a benefit of religion is inextricably tied with a particular view on the nature of existence. People are far more likely to follow rules if they make sense.

b_tterc_p 7y ago
It’s not that disingenuous when it’s the officials of the governing body of the faith as defined by the faith. But this is the problem with any movement from feminism to Catholicism. It’s defined by its members but it’s members are individuals. If a group of people in the name of a movement do a bunch of things that most find disagreeable it’s not easy to separate them from the vanilla definition of the movement. There’s no objective definition of a collection of ideas. Religions and political persuasions can’t be intrinsically good, (though perhaps they can be intrinsically bad). There are certainly excellent ideas to be found in feminism and Catholicism. Yet Individuals in a belief system still have their own beliefs. There’s no purity of belief that can be identified. It’s a pointless endeavor. And thus, saying my belief system is good as evidenced by these good people adhering to said system is a meaningless statement. I have no reason to believe that your interpretation of said system is the same as theirs. Similarly pointing to the villains of the system doesn’t mean anything either.
- sdegutis 7y ago
  That's the beauty of the Catholic Church: there is purity of belief. There is a core set of things that all Catholics absolutely must believe, and any who do not, are not truly Catholics. These beliefs are laid down in many different ways and in many different books but they're all saying the same thing. The "table of contents" of these beliefs would be a book called the Catechism of The Catholic Church: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM Even though it's a full book of its own, it only barely touches on the core beliefs of our religion, like a tree trunk. The branches go very far and very wide, and you'll find them in all the writings of the Saints, all the writings of the Fathers of the Church, the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Bible, and many other good books. A good portion of them are laid down for free online at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/index.html http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/index.html which has the Catholic Encyclopedia, Summa Theologica (Summary of Theology), many writings of the Fathers of the Church, the Bible, and many other Catholic Church documents such as Papal encyclicals.

XorNot 7y ago

I object that "religious group" is a per-requisite (we live in a religion-soaked culture still, it's a default). Most people benefit from joining any structured organization with strong-shared belief system. For example, the military very specifically operates and trains this way (it's in the wording - "a soldier will..." etc.). There's of course obvious reasons they should, but the concept is the same - build up a shared base of truth. If we look to another area, think about the term "company man" and what's actually happened in the last 50 years to how the big corporations (or maybe any?) treat their workers. That used to once be a source of a identity and purpose as well (possibly not the most healthy or reliable one) but it's very much something which has changed. The active effort to kill the Union movement has similar consequences.