Marriage

Domina Nostra

Well-known member
Messages
6,251
Reaction score
1,388
I think most people that didn't like it because of the racial undertones (some outright) and "mein kompf" nature of his opinions. His call to embrace elitism was the cause of backlash.. not because of misguided political allegiance, as you suggest.

If you think Charles Murray is like Adolf Hitler you need to read a whole lot more!

I didn't suggest the cirticimsm was misguided. What I suggested was that some people dismissed it before they opened the book because it came to conclusions that they didn't like.

As far as elitism, one of the things he points out is that upper-middle class people (the "elite"), whatever the say they believe, live according to certain norms that breed a lot of stability. The idealogical undermining of those norms, often by the elite, has had much worse effects on lower classes that can't shield themselves from the consequences of their actions like wealthier people.
 

Veritate Duce Progredi

A man gotta have a code
Messages
9,358
Reaction score
5,352
What data? I still have seen no link. Again, you also stated it as fact, not as an opinion based off of studies you've seen. There is a big difference.

One Study

I'll add more as the day wears on, I actually have to get some work done and I've spent the better part of 2-3 hours this morning replying to various threads.
 

woolybug25

#1 Vineyard Vines Fan
Messages
17,677
Reaction score
3,018
If you think Charles Murray is like Adolf Hitler you need to read a whole lot more!

I didn't suggest the cirticimsm was misguided. What I suggested was that some people dismissed it before they opened the book because it came to conclusions that they didn't like.

As far as elitism, one of the things he points out is that upper-middle class people (the "elite"), whatever the say they believe, live according to certain norms that breed a lot of stability. The idealogical undermining of those norms, often by the elite, has had much worse effects on lower classes that can't shield themselves from the consequences of their actions like wealthier people.

I didn't compare him to Hitler, I compared his belief that the elite class of people are somehow superior to the poor is similar to the beliefs of Mein Kompf. Which is entirely accurate. I did not compare them as people or insinuate that Murray was antisemetic (although many of his beliefs could easily be considered rascist).

His beliefs on elitism did not stop at the ability of different classes being able to shield themselves. He elaborated and clearly states that the wealthy class is more intelligent, morally superior and genetically superior.

How is that not similar to Mein Kompf? I have read both, btw.
 

woolybug25

#1 Vineyard Vines Fan
Messages
17,677
Reaction score
3,018
One Study

I'll add more as the day wears on, I actually have to get some work done and I've spent the better part of 2-3 hours this morning replying to various threads.

According to the Abstract of that study (i'm not buying it to read it) it states that "cohabiting experiences significantly increase young people’s acceptance of divorce" not that actual statistics show that it is true.

Again, its not even the lack of reference that was so bothersome to me in your comments, it was your insinuation that it was a fact. Which it absolutely is not. I doubt that either side is a fact, but rather an opinion. Your comment clearly stated that it was a fact.
 

Domina Nostra

Well-known member
Messages
6,251
Reaction score
1,388
I didn't compare him to Hitler, I compared his belief that the elite class of people are somehow superior to the poor is similar to the beliefs of Mein Kompf. Which is entirely accurate. I did not compare them as people or insinuate that Murray was antisemetic (although many of his beliefs could easily be considered rascist).

His beliefs on elitism did not stop at the ability of different classes being able to shield themselves. He elaborated and clearly states that the wealthy class is more intelligent, morally superior and genetically superior.

How is that not similar to Mein Kompf? I have read both, btw.

A whole lot of things are "similar," from very limited perspectives.

However, comparing the work of a social scientist who is trying to interpret data objectively for the sake of knowledge to that of a mad man with political ambitions declaring his racial ideology through his life story to try to inspire a movement is not a very useful analogy, IMHO.
 

woolybug25

#1 Vineyard Vines Fan
Messages
17,677
Reaction score
3,018
A whole lot of things are "similar," from very limited perspectives.

However, comparing a social scientist who is trying to interpret data objectively for the sake of knowledge to a mad man with political ambitions declaring his racial ideology through his life story to try to inspire a movement is not a very useful analogy, IMHO.

At the time, Hitler wasn't considered a mad man yet.... and again... I never compared them as people. I compared the glaring similarities between the two books regarding social elitism.
 

Domina Nostra

Well-known member
Messages
6,251
Reaction score
1,388
At the time, Hitler wasn't considered a mad man yet.... and again... I never compared them as people. I compared the glaring similarities between the two books regarding social elitism.

You cover a whole lot of ground with "social elitism"! Not sure that what Hitler was going for and Murray was conveying is usefully packaged in that term.

Who in history wouldn't say that education and ordered lives, both marks of the "elite," are superior to lack of education and lving according to one's passions. Is that elitism? Does that make everyone similar to Hitler in their basic thought processes?
 

woolybug25

#1 Vineyard Vines Fan
Messages
17,677
Reaction score
3,018
You cover a whole lot of ground with "social elitism"! Not sure that what Hitler was going for and Murray was conveying is usefully packaged in that term.

Who in history wouldn't say that education and ordered lives, both marks of the "elite," are superior to lack of education and lving according to one's passions. Is that elitism? Does that make everyone similar to Hitler in their basic thought processes?

I don't know how many times I can continue to tell you that I am not comparing Murray to Hitler. You keep saying it and I keep clarifying that I am comparing their work, not them as people. There is a distinct difference.

"Education and ordered lives" isn't where Murray's points stopped. He clearly makes the judgement that the elite class is morally and genetically superior to the poor. Do you agree with that?

Also, to the original point, you said that "some people dismissed it because they didn't like the conclusions". My point is that you failed to mention that the conclusions are widely seen as offensive, and not because of political leanings.
 
Last edited:

Domina Nostra

Well-known member
Messages
6,251
Reaction score
1,388
I don't know how many times I can continue to tell you that I am not comparing Murray to Hitler. You keep saying it and I keep clarifying that I am comparing their work, not them as people. There is a distinct difference.

"Education and ordered lives" isn't where Murray's points stopped. He clearly makes the judgement that the elite class is morally and genetically superior to the poor. Do you agree with that?

Also, to the original point, you said that "some people dismissed it because they didn't like the conclusions". My point is that you failed to mention that the conclusions are widely seen as offensive, and not because of political leanings.

1) Not trying to put words in your mouth. I think hitler's book is pretty in-line with his belief systems--its supposed to be the expression of it. He was a madman that lived by and proclaimed the ideology in MK. Not true with Murray. He is just a researcher trying to interpret social science data. Not sure how differnt "Murray is like Hitler" is from "Murray's book is like MK."

2) Murray could go beyond my definition of "social elitism" and even get into offensive genetic stuff, without creating a work usefully comparable to MK (conceding, as I already did, that its obviously comparable in some limted ways).

3) I am conflating "political correctness" with what is seen as offensive. I did not mean political in the sense of "how to run the country."

My point is that whether something is offensive or not, in might be true. As far as whether "the elite class is morally and genetically superior to the poor," I don't personally believe that, but I am also not committed to the idea science couldn't actually demonstrate that to be true, depending on how the terms are defined. If science did prove that, it would not change my perspective on things.

I think that the term "all men are created equal" is ultimately a religious expression that has to be grounded in God (". . .all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights."). I believe that God intended all men to be treated equally, regardless of their relative endowments, as so I must.

On the other hand, I don't believe that all men are actually equal (me vs. Einstein, me vs. Stephon Tuitt), and I also do believe some traits get past down genetically (as anyone on a football board would have to concede-legacies). I have absolutely no reason to believe that all races or nationalities or classes of people must, necessarily show-up the same in social science data. So I don't have to dismiss the data simply because it says something that is threatening to my world view (I'm not saying you are doing this either).
 

ulukinatme

Carr for QB 2025!
Messages
31,516
Reaction score
17,382
Sure, I should have expanded on my Lol. I apologize for being an ass and not explaining my position, I was in a bad mood earlier.

Having said that, I find it frustrating with individuals try to judge the actions of others (not that you tried to do this necessarily) but depicting premarital sex as a "grave sin" rubbed me in this manner. Feel free to believe what you wish, but even as a Catholic, I have trouble when people attempt to determine what God's judgement will be as if it were a fact.

This.

I consider myself a practicing Catholic, for...most intents and purposes. I go to Church, I live by most of the rules, however I refuse to believe that everything bottled into Catholicism is right and what God wants. Popes and upper clergy-men decide what Catholicism believes in and follows, not God. To that extent, I don't believe I'm going to hell if I happen to eat meat every Friday during Lent. I understand the significance of the fasting, and it's certainly not hard...most times to remember not to eat meat, but I want to believe that God finds gestures like this to be silly. If you really want to respect the Lenten season there are certainly more worthwhile things you can do.

Theres a few other sticking points for me. Given that I married a Baptist girl, they do not believe in Baptizing babies. It's a different system for them, they have no Confirmation, so instead of a parent or guardian speaking for the child they wait until a certain age and then perform the Baptism. That became an issue between the two of us that we had to work out obviously. In the end our children still ended up Baptized, maybe not right at birth...but do I honestly think that my children could have been damned if something horrible would have happened to them prior to Baptism? I believe Jesus died for our sins, and I don't seriously believe God sends innocent babies to hell. This Catholic mandate has been around since the time of the Apostles. Peter said:

"Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him"

If you ask me, I believe they took Peter's words a bit to literally. When he said "and to your children" I'm betting that he meant Baptism is for all of us (The people in attendance at the time) as well as future generations. I don't think he necessarily meant "Baptize the babies." Why would God bless a parent with a tiny baby, and then for reasons unknown to us possibly take that child before his time and damn him to hell before he could be Baptized? I don't believe God works like that. I think God wants us to Baptize, but he wouldn't punish the child if the child's time was up before the Baptism actually occurs.

Finally, theres the topic of contraception. I believe as most Catholics do that the moment of conception is the start of life, and nothing should be done to end that. However...the Catechism of the Catholic Church specifies that all sex acts must be both unitive and procreative. It used to be that all Christian faiths believed this at one point, and today only Catholics are still not really budging on this topic. The only Christian group that's stricter is probably the Amish because they don't even approve of calendar based methods of family planning. In any case, I've got 3 kids already. People during the time of the New Testament didn't have to contend with college and rising tuition costs. Sorry, but things are tight enough while my wife is out of work. I can't imagine if we had several more mouths to feed.
 
Last edited:

Veritate Duce Progredi

A man gotta have a code
Messages
9,358
Reaction score
5,352
This.

I consider myself a practicing Catholic, for...most intents and purposes. I go to Church, I live by most of the rules, however I refuse to believe that everything bottled into Catholicism is right and what God wants. Popes and upper clergy-men decide what Catholicism believes in and follows, not God. To that extent, I don't believe I'm going to hell if I happen to eat meat every Friday during Lent. I understand the significance of the fasting, and it's certainly not hard...most times to remember not to eat meat, but I want to believe that God finds gestures like this to be silly. If you really want to respect the Lenten season there are certainly more worthwhile things you can do.

Theres a few other sticking points for me. Given that I married a Baptist girl, they do not believe in Baptizing babies. It's a different system for them, they have no Confirmation, so instead of a parent or guardian speaking for the child they wait until a certain age and then perform the Baptism. That became an issue between the two of us that we had to work out obviously. In the end our children still ended up Baptized, maybe not right at birth...but do I honestly think that my children could have been damned if something horrible would have happened to them prior to Baptism? I believe Jesus died for our sins, and I don't seriously believe God sends innocent babies to hell. This Catholic mandate has been around since the time of the Apostles. Peter said:



If you ask me, I believe they took Peter's words a bit to literally. When he said "and to your children" I'm betting that he meant Baptism is for all of us (The people in attendance at the time) as well as future generations. I don't think he necessarily meant "Baptize the babies." Why would God bless a parent with a tiny baby, and then for reasons unknown to us possibly take that child before his time and damn him to hell before he could be Baptized? I don't believe God works like that. I think God wants us to Baptize, but he wouldn't punish the child if the child's time was up before the Baptism actually occurs.

Finally, theres the topic of contraception. I believe as most Catholics do that the moment of conception is the start of life, and nothing should be done to end that. However...the Catechism of the Catholic Church specifies that all sex acts must be both unitive and procreative. It used to be that all Christian faiths believed this at one point, and today only Catholics are still not really budging on this topic. The only Christian group that's stricter is probably the Amish because they don't even approve of calendar based methods of family planning. In any case, I've got 3 kids already. People during the time of the New Testament didn't have to contend with college and rising tuition costs. Sorry, but things are tight enough while my wife is out of work. I can't imagine if we had several more mouths to feed.

You really majored in Roman Catholicism and believe some of the points you posted above? I recognize you think I'm silly for wanting to honor the Lenten traditions, to make sure nothing prevents the procreative and unitive meeting between me and my wife and for following the guidelines of the Church and I can harbor no ill-will towards you for it.

It's very bold of you to claim "they took it too literally" after 2000 years of pondering over such issues, which includes many men smarter than you or I. I'll leave you to that thought because it obviously serves a purpose in your life but to believe some and not the rest truly crumbles the whole thing.

If the Church is not in guidance from God or if their theology is not inerrant then you may as well join yourself to something far less taxing, like a non-denominational church. They are far less rigid in their views and you can even find prosperity message preachers like Joel Olsteen, to tell you God just wants you to be happy.

As an aside, did you learn that you go to hell for eating meat during Lent in your Roman Catholic studies? I can't say I've ever heard that it's a grave sin to not follow the Churches fasting practices.
 

pkt77242

IPA Man
Messages
10,805
Reaction score
719
You really majored in Roman Catholicism and believe some of the points you posted above? I recognize you think I'm silly for wanting to honor the Lenten traditions, to make sure nothing prevents the procreative and unitive meeting between me and my wife and for following the guidelines of the Church and I can harbor no ill-will towards you for it.

It's very bold of you to claim "they took it too literally" after 2000 years of pondering over such issues, which includes many men smarter than you or I. I'll leave you to that thought because it obviously serves a purpose in your life but to believe some and not the rest truly crumbles the whole thing.

If the Church is not in guidance from God or if their theology is not inerrant then you may as well join yourself to something far less taxing, like a non-denominational church. They are far less rigid in their views and you can even find prosperity message preachers like Joel Olsteen, to tell you God just wants you to be happy.

As an aside, did you learn that you go to hell for eating meat during Lent in your Roman Catholic studies? I can't say I've ever heard that it's a grave sin to not follow the Churches fasting practices.

I would say something different. The truth is the Church is very conservative (not politically but in that it is resistant to change), so the fact that things haven't changed for 2000 years and that people much smarter than many of us have discussed it, is in and of itself no proof that they got it right or that they didn't take it too literally. I am not questioning if they got it right or wrong just the manner in which you frame the argument. Also the church is by no means an institution that smiles upon dissenters and encourages differences of opinions, so that many smart people who disagreed left. People such as yourself are quick to tell what we use to call "lukewarm Catholics" that they should leave the church or find another religion or that they aren't truly Catholic.

I would just add that there is plenty room under the Catholic umbrella for both the believe that follows every teaching as well as those that pick and choose.

For example, a Gallup poll found that 82% of American Catholics say that birth control is morally ok, should the Church the tell those 82% to leave?

Americans, Including Catholics, Say Birth Control Is Morally OK
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
I would say something different. The truth is the Church is very conservative (not politically but in that it is resistant to change), so the fact that things haven't changed for 2000 years and that people much smarter than many of us have discussed it, is in and of itself no proof that they got it right or that they didn't take it too literally. I am not questioning if they got it right or wrong just the manner in which you frame the argument. Also the church is by no means an institution that smiles upon dissenters and encourages differences of opinions, so that many smart people who disagreed left. People such as yourself are quick to tell what we use to call "lukewarm Catholics" that they should leave the church or find another religion or that they aren't truly Catholic.

I would just add that there is plenty room under the Catholic umbrella for both the believe that follows every teaching as well as those that pick and choose.

For example, a Gallup poll found that 82% of American Catholics say that birth control is morally ok, should the Church the tell those 82% to leave?

Americans, Including Catholics, Say Birth Control Is Morally OK

So we're going to base determinations of sinfulness by polling the sinners? Brilliant.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4
 

pkt77242

IPA Man
Messages
10,805
Reaction score
719
So we're going to base determinations of sinfulness by polling the sinners? Brilliant.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

That want my point at all. My point is that if the Catholic Church asked everyone to leave who disagreed with some of it's teachings that it would all of a sudden be a very small religion especially in the U.S. Not that it makes it right or wrong just that the attitude that if you don't agree with a few teachings you should leave is misguided. Hell, you would have to boot out some of the priests as well.
 

IrishJayhawk

Rock Chalk
Messages
7,181
Reaction score
464
That want my point at all. My point is that if the Catholic Church asked everyone to leave who disagreed with some of it's teachings that it would all of a sudden be a very small religion especially in the U.S. Not that it makes it right or wrong just that the attitude that if you don't agree with a few teachings you should leave is misguided. Hell, you would have to boot out most of the priests as well.

FIFY
 

ulukinatme

Carr for QB 2025!
Messages
31,516
Reaction score
17,382
You really majored in Roman Catholicism and believe some of the points you posted above? I recognize you think I'm silly for wanting to honor the Lenten traditions, to make sure nothing prevents the procreative and unitive meeting between me and my wife and for following the guidelines of the Church and I can harbor no ill-will towards you for it.

I hope I didn't mislead you into thinking I majored in Catholicism, I'm not sure where you're getting that from. If I lead you to believe that, I apologize. I'm just a normal Catholic guy that goes to Mass most Sundays, couldn't find a Catholic girl, married the Baptist woman I love for reasons that had nothing to do with religion, and was part of the K-8 Catholic education system. That's the extent of my Catholic education, aside from a few courses in college.

Veritate Duce Progredi said:
It's very bold of you to claim "they took it too literally" after 2000 years of pondering over such issues, which includes many men smarter than you or I. I'll leave you to that thought because it obviously serves a purpose in your life but to believe some and not the rest truly crumbles the whole thing.

So you're saying that the Catholic church is infallible and always just? Are you saying that the translations of the Old Testament and the New Testament are word for word what was spoken by the prophets and the Apostles 2000 years ago? Don't forget that much of that history was recited and not written down into Latin until hundreds of years later. It wasn't translated into English until the 1400s...and at the time the Pope was so infuriated by the translation of the Bible into English, that 44 years after the author had died, he ordered the bones to be dug-up, crushed, and scattered in the river! The Church has had a long and bloody history, and those in the top of it's hierarchy haven't always done what was right. Surely these wise, just men for 2000 years have always been handing us the pure, unadulterated word of God?

Veritate Duce Progredi said:
If the Church is not in guidance from God or if their theology is not inerrant then you may as well join yourself to something far less taxing, like a non-denominational church. They are far less rigid in their views and you can even find prosperity message preachers like Joel Olsteen, to tell you God just wants you to be happy.

It looks like I may have offended you in my perceptions of Catholicism today. While I do still identify myself as a Catholic and follow most of the traditions and rules, as pkt77242 mentioned I'm probably more in the majority in my beliefs than you are considering 82% say the Catholic church is wrong on birth control. Most of Christianity has evolved with the times, while Catholicism seems more dogmatic and stubborn with their approach on many topics. I'm NOT saying that they're incorrect in that approach, but they're certainly not helping bring in new blood.

Mass attendance is down 5% in this country in the last 10 years, and if not for the influx of Latin American Catholic population it would be down further. I'm sure I'm not stating anything ground breaking there, if you attend church regularly you've probably noticed declining numbers. 1/3 of Americans that were raised Catholic no longer identify with the religion. Millennials are a big part of that. 54% of pre-Vatican II Catholics attend mass regularly, while just 23% of Millennials do. That older generation isn't getting any younger, they're passing on and leaving more empty seats than the Millennials are replacing.

You may think I'm some heretic for having a different opinion than the Catholic church on a few issues, but I'm not the only one. For a religion that we consider to be strict by most standards, we've also been categorized as more willing to break the rules than most. Of course theres the 82% already mentioned when it comes to birth control. Check out this excerpt from an article on the Huffington Post:
Catholics also are less likely to hold on to key theological claims.

For example, nearly a third of the Catholics surveyed, including 15 percent of highly committed church members, said one could be a good Catholic without believing Jesus rose from the dead.

In a culture that exalts personal autonomy, many Catholics are increasingly comfortable making their own decisions on issues from same-sex marriage to the need to attend Mass regularly, researchers indicated.

When someone like New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan talks of affirming the "authentic teaching" of the church, "I think that, most Catholics, when they hear that, are saying ... 'Where are you coming from?'" Dillon said.
Seriously, 1/3 of Catholics believe they can be a good member of the church and not even believe in one of the fundamental aspects of the religion...that Jesus died for our sins and rose again on the 3rd day. I can't explain that one...even if I don't believe in everything the Catholic church puts out there, it boggles my mind that such a fundamental truth to the religion can be brushed away by such a large portion of the community.

Veritate Duce Progredi said:
As an aside, did you learn that you go to hell for eating meat during Lent in your Roman Catholic studies? I can't say I've ever heard that it's a grave sin to not follow the Churches fasting practices.

I stretched the truth there trying to make a point. I've never read that it's a mortal sin to eat meat on Friday during Lent. I try to practice it..when I remember. I usually stick with giving up something more important during Lent, or improving myself spiritually or improve the lives of those around me.
 
Last edited:

BobD

Can't get no satisfaction
Messages
7,918
Reaction score
1,034
I hope I didn't mislead you into thinking I majored in Catholicism, I'm not sure where you're getting that from. If I lead you to believe that, I apologize. I'm just a normal Catholic guy that goes to Mass most Sundays, couldn't find a Catholic girl, married the Baptist woman I love for reasons that had nothing to do with religion, and was part of the K-8 Catholic education system. That's the extent of my Catholic education, aside from a few courses in college.



So you're saying that the Catholic church is infallible and always just? Are you saying that the translations of the Old Testament and the New Testament are word for word what was spoken by the prophets and the Apostles 2000 years ago? Don't forget that much of that history was recited and not written down into Latin until hundreds of years later. It wasn't translated into English until the 1400s...and at the time the Pope was so infuriated by the translation of the Bible into English, that 44 years after the author had died, he ordered the bones to be dug-up, crushed, and scattered in the river! The Church has had a long and bloody history, and those in the top of it's hierarchy haven't always done what was right. Surely these wise, just men for 2000 years have always been handing us the pure, unadulterated word of God?



It looks like I may have offended you in my perceptions of Catholicism today. While I do still identify myself as a Catholic and follow most of the traditions and rules, as pkt77242 mentioned I'm probably more in the majority in my beliefs than you are considering 82% say the Catholic church is wrong on birth control. Most of Christianity has evolved with the times, while Catholicism seems more dogmatic and stubborn with their approach on many topics. I'm NOT saying that they're incorrect in that approach, but they're certainly not helping bring in new blood.

Mass attendance is down 5% in this country in the last 10 years, and if not for the influx of Latin American Catholic population it would be down further. I'm sure I'm not stating anything ground breaking there, if you attend church regularly you've probably noticed declining numbers. 1/3 of Americans that were raised Catholic no longer identify with the religion. Millennials are a big part of that. 54% of pre-Vatican II Catholics attend mass regularly, while just 23% of Millennials do. That older generation isn't getting any younger, they're passing on and leaving more empty seats than the Millennials are replacing.

You may think I'm some heretic for having a different opinion than the Catholic church on a few issues, but I'm not the only one. For a religion that we consider to be strict by most standards, we've also been categorized as more willing to break the rules than most. Of course theres the 82% already mentioned when it comes to birth control. Check out this excerpt from an article on the Huffington Post:

Seriously, 1/3 of Catholics believe they can be a good member of the church and not even believe in one of the fundamental aspects of the religion...that Jesus died for our sins and rose again on the 3rd day. I can't explain that one...even if I don't believe in everything the Catholic church puts out there, it boggles my mind that such a fundamental truth to the religion can be brushed away by such a large portion of the community.



I stretched the truth there trying to make a point. I've never read that it's a mortal sin to eat meat on Friday during Lent. I try to practice it..when I remember. I usually stick with giving up something more important during Lent, or improving myself spiritually or improve the lives of those around me.

If you were to go in front of the church on Sunday morning and tell everyone to leave if they:

Used or condoned the use of birth control.

Think it's ok for homosexuals to marry.

Don't observe lent traditions.

How many do you suppose would still be there? Of the people still there, how many would be lying and thinking ...I've been sitting here lying to myself about what I really believe for so long, I'm not gonna stop now.

I agree with what you're saying 100%.
 

Veritate Duce Progredi

A man gotta have a code
Messages
9,358
Reaction score
5,352
First of all, let me be state outright that I appreciate each of your posts in this thread. I am not intending to "push" someone out of the Church. I may have been less than charitable with some of my replies and for that, mea culpa.

That want my point at all. My point is that if the Catholic Church asked everyone to leave who disagreed with some of it's teachings that it would all of a sudden be a very small religion especially in the U.S. Not that it makes it right or wrong just that the attitude that if you don't agree with a few teachings you should leave is misguided. Hell, you would have to boot out some of the priests as well.

I don't think everyone should leave if they are wrestling with difficult teachings. I also don't believe the Catholic church is in a popularity contest. What they have to sell does not change with the times. It is not routinely updated to capture the latest swing in pollster's numbers.

You either believe there is a Truth in this world that is unchanging, that there is a universal reference point by which things can be assessed and judged of value, or you believe all things are relative. I don't know of any in-between. I've read various authors attempt to dress up relativism to sound like it's an ultimate truth of which we are the gods but it falls flat when it's given the "reductio ad absurdum" litmus test.

We are either merely sensory creatures who happen to have the cruelest evolution imaginable in that we've arrived at consciousness with no barometer for what truly should be done and thus we continue updating our thoughts on things to appeal to the mob lest we be lynched or, we have more than sensate perception. Many attest to this "6th" sense which has been popularized by the occult as of late. This is not to discount the cerebral aspect of religion, of which I believe can arrive you squarely at the point that it's a 50/50, from there you put your faith in nothingness or something-ness. The history of humanity is fraught with search for signs and symbols, for a reason, a savior, a redeemer and a good shepherd.

I will be very clear in this statement: the Catholic church would be better off if it booted some of the people who claim the Catholic title yet work to undermine the Church, this includes some priests. Please receive this message with as much charity as you can as I am not directing it at anyone on this message board but there are priests and congress who openly claim the Catholic religion on stage and their life is anathema to it's mission. And to be clear, this isn't directed at someone who wrestles with sin, this is directed at the people who have their mind made up and merely use the Catholic badge to their own gain.

1. I hope I didn't mislead you into thinking I majored in Catholicism, I'm not sure where you're getting that from. If I lead you to believe that, I apologize. I'm just a normal Catholic guy that goes to Mass most Sundays, couldn't find a Catholic girl, married the Baptist woman I love for reasons that had nothing to do with religion, and was part of the K-8 Catholic education system. That's the extent of my Catholic education, aside from a few courses in college.



2. So you're saying that the Catholic church is infallible and always just? Are you saying that the translations of the Old Testament and the New Testament are word for word what was spoken by the prophets and the Apostles 2000 years ago? Don't forget that much of that history was recited and not written down into Latin until hundreds of years later. It wasn't translated into English until the 1400s...and at the time the Pope was so infuriated by the translation of the Bible into English, that 44 years after the author had died, he ordered the bones to be dug-up, crushed, and scattered in the river! The Church has had a long and bloody history, and those in the top of it's hierarchy haven't always done what was right. Surely these wise, just men for 2000 years have always been handing us the pure, unadulterated word of God?



3. It looks like I may have offended you in my perceptions of Catholicism today. While I do still identify myself as a Catholic and follow most of the traditions and rules, as pkt77242 mentioned I'm probably more in the majority in my beliefs than you are considering 82% say the Catholic church is wrong on birth control. Most of Christianity has evolved with the times, while Catholicism seems more dogmatic and stubborn with their approach on many topics. I'm NOT saying that they're incorrect in that approach, but they're certainly not helping bring in new blood.

4. Mass attendance is down 5% in this country in the last 10 years, and if not for the influx of Latin American Catholic population it would be down further. I'm sure I'm not stating anything ground breaking there, if you attend church regularly you've probably noticed declining numbers. 1/3 of Americans that were raised Catholic no longer identify with the religion. Millennials are a big part of that. 54% of pre-Vatican II Catholics attend mass regularly, while just 23% of Millennials do. That older generation isn't getting any younger, they're passing on and leaving more empty seats than the Millennials are replacing.

5. You may think I'm some heretic for having a different opinion than the Catholic church on a few issues, but I'm not the only one. For a religion that we consider to be strict by most standards, we've also been categorized as more willing to break the rules than most. Of course theres the 82% already mentioned when it comes to birth control. Check out this excerpt from an article on the Huffington Post:

6. Seriously, 1/3 of Catholics believe they can be a good member of the church and not even believe in one of the fundamental aspects of the religion...that Jesus died for our sins and rose again on the 3rd day. I can't explain that one...even if I don't believe in everything the Catholic church puts out there, it boggles my mind that such a fundamental truth to the religion can be brushed away by such a large portion of the community.



7. I stretched the truth there trying to make a point. I've never read that it's a mortal sin to eat meat on Friday during Lent. I try to practice it..when I remember. I usually stick with giving up something more important during Lent, or improving myself spiritually or improve the lives of those around me.

1. My apologies, I completely mistook you for another poster and simply posted based on that assumption. Much of my post could be redacted, as I would've worded it much differently and far less aggressive had I known to whom I was replying.

2. I don't believe the Catholic church is infallible and always just, I believe there have been atrocities committed in Her name and their have been poor leaders but I do not believe any of that affected her doctrinal statements or creeds. I am firmly in belief that what is promulgated from Rome as theological or doctrinal is inerrant in form and substance. I believe the transmission through the ages harbors no error in that it was divinely guided and that Christ's words have been handed on as He so intended.

The hypostatic union of Christ is either true or false. It is not some half way point on the scale. If he was truly God, there is no room for error. If He came down to establish His Church and give a template for life that is most fulfilling and worthy of His kingdom, then to fail would be impossible. Errant man could not override inerrant God.

If God is all powerful, then no matter how impoverished man is, he would be unable to destroy the message, even through audible transmission. There is this idea that once we understand it at a historical level and understand all of the snares that would've resulted in poetry being distorted, that we must assume the same was true for something Jesus would've given us. That is a logical fallacy unless Jesus was a schizophrenic who talked about being God, who said He was the way but was simply delusional. If He was what He says He was, the buck stops there.

3. No offense and my apologies for coming across more abrasive than I intended. You are certainly in the majority but as I stated above, Catholicism does not sway on the popular vote. The Church will continue to feel the effects of modernity as it's increasing reach continues. The Church's words are caustic if you find yourself on the other side of them. There is no half way point in the Church, not in the matters of grave sin and not in the matters of it's Theology or tenants of faith. If any of the creeds are spoken at Mass and intended in the heart, then it is logically impossible to pick and choose what we want at the Catholic buffet line.

Stubborn implies the Catholic church sees a better way to be and resists it, I would suggest it sees the folly of the world in all it's changes and is merely waiting for the pendulum to reach it's apex. As it begins to swing back with the fires burning in the background from our great modern experiment, it'll be standing where you last saw it, with the same message, but it'll seem warmer and much more inviting amidst the chaos and pain.

4. This is a very sobering point but probably not as you intended. It saddens me that these trends exist but it is to be expected. All ages have their plights and we are no different.

On the upside, the Churches that didn't throw out their statues and that maintained the alter in it's traditional placement and have Latin Masses and live out the faith to the fullest have seen increasing number in the pews and in young men called to the seminary. These reports are coming in across the country, so there are signs of life but they are most likely not at the Mass conducted by the hippy priest.

5. I don't think you are a heretic unless you actively preach anathema to the Church's teachings. I'll leave you to decide as I don't know you personally nor do I care to pronounce judgement from the webz. I've read plenty on how often people don't live out their proclaimed faith, we can merely agree that their is a line drawn by the Church and we all choose on which side we fall. I claim I have the Church on my side, you claim the majority sentiment. We appeal to what we can with the choices we have made.

6. This we can agree on. It is saddening indeed to wear the title and not carry it's duties with you. It's the continued fallout of bad formation and modernity.

7. I know you stretched the truth, that's why I called it out ;)

Good for you with the Lenten resolution. Even if it's not for spiritual reasons, it's good to force ourselves to live without something we desire on occasion. It helps strengthen the will.
 
Last edited:

kmoose

Banned
Messages
10,298
Reaction score
1,181
As an aside, did you learn that you go to hell for eating meat during Lent in your Roman Catholic studies?

Not directed at you, particularly, Veritae, but your post brought to mind something that has always bugged me, so I figured that I would ask, here: Isn't fish meat? If poultry is meat, then why isn't fish meat? You can have tuna steaks.......... so...........
 

irish1958

Príomh comhairleoir
Messages
1,039
Reaction score
112
According to Canon Law, it is a "grave" sin to disobey the laws of the Church. If the bishops require you to fast and abstain from meat (currently on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday, but when I was younger all Fridays were meatless) and you knowingly fail to do so, it is a "grave" sin. The vernacular for "grave sin" is "mortal sin."
The punishment meted out is the same at that received by Hitler for his sins.
 

Veritate Duce Progredi

A man gotta have a code
Messages
9,358
Reaction score
5,352
According to Canon Law, it is a "grave" sin to disobey the laws of the Church. If the bishops require you to fast and abstain from meat (currently on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday, but when I was younger all Fridays were meatless) and you knowingly fail to do so, it is a "grave" sin. The vernacular for "grave sin" is "mortal sin."
The punishment meted out is the same at that received by Hitler for his sins.

The offense is the defiance, not the fact that someone ate meat on Fridays. As it is with everything in the Church. If there are clear directives and you knowingly defy them without cause, you are separating yourself from the Church.

A better reply to your statements above were found on the webz:
Saying "Eating meat on a Friday is grave matter and can send you to hell" makes God out to be a tyrant for punishing so apparently small an infraction with so steep a penalty. But saying, "Violating a precept of the Church is grave matter and can send you to hell," emphasizes the eternal, divine law in a way that doesn't trivialize the act of rebellion or make God out to be a tyrant: it makes sense that violating a precept of the authority God left on earth should be grave matter. Saying it one way emphasizes the incidentally grave matter that is eating meat on a Friday; saying it the other way emphasizes the fundamental rule responsible for the gravity of such an act.
 
Last edited:

Veritate Duce Progredi

A man gotta have a code
Messages
9,358
Reaction score
5,352
Not directed at you, particularly, Veritae, but your post brought to mind something that has always bugged me, so I figured that I would ask, here: Isn't fish meat? If poultry is meat, then why isn't fish meat? You can have tuna steaks.......... so...........

Ha ha, I've often thought it strange as well. There was a distinction drawn at some point and it's continued since it's inception. I'll see if I can find a historical explanation and post back later.
 

pkt77242

IPA Man
Messages
10,805
Reaction score
719
First of all, let me be state outright that I appreciate each of your posts in this thread. I am not intending to "push" someone out of the Church. I may have been less than charitable with some of my replies and for that, mea culpa.



I don't think everyone should leave if they are wrestling with difficult teachings. I also don't believe the Catholic church is in a popularity contest. What they have to sell does not change with the times. It is not routinely updated to capture the latest swing in pollster's numbers.

You either believe there is a Truth in this world that is unchanging, that there is a universal reference point by which things can be assessed and judged of value, or you believe all things are relative. I don't know of any in-between. I've read various authors attempt to dress up relativism to sound like it's an ultimate truth of which we are the gods but it falls flat when it's given the "reductio ad absurdum" litmus test.

We are either merely sensory creatures who happen to have the cruelest evolution imaginable in that we've arrived at consciousness with no barometer for what truly should be done and thus we continue updating our thoughts on things to appeal to the mob lest we be lynched or, we have more than sensate perception. Many attest to this "6th" sense which has been popularized by the occult as of late. This is not to discount the cerebral aspect of religion, of which I believe can arrive you squarely at the point that it's a 50/50, from there you put your faith in nothingness or something-ness. The history of humanity is fraught with search for signs and symbols, for a reason, a savior, a redeemer and a good shepherd.

I will be very clear in this statement: the Catholic church would be better off if it booted some of the people who claim the Catholic title yet work to undermine the Church, this includes some priests. Please receive this message with as much charity as you can as I am not directing it at anyone on this message board but there are priests and congress who openly claim the Catholic religion on stage and their life is anathema to it's mission. And to be clear, this isn't directed at someone who wrestles with sin, this is directed at the people who have their mind made up and merely use the Catholic badge to their own gain.



1. My apologies, I completely mistook you for another poster and simply posted based on that assumption. Much of my post could be redacted, as I would've worded it much differently and far less aggressive had I known to whom I was replying.

2. I don't believe the Catholic church is infallible and always just, I believe there have been atrocities committed in Her name and their have been poor leaders but I do not believe any of that affected her doctrinal statements or creeds. I am firmly in belief that what is promulgated from Rome as theological or doctrinal is inerrant in form and substance. I believe the transmission through the ages harbors no error in that it was divinely guided and that Christ's words have been handed on as He so intended.

The hypostatic union of Christ is either true or false. It is not some half way point on the scale. If he was truly God, there is no room for error. If He came down to establish His Church and give a template for life that is most fulfilling and worthy of His kingdom, then to fail would be impossible. Errant man could not override inerrant God.

If God is all powerful, then no matter how impoverished man is, he would be unable to destroy the message, even through audible transmission. There is this idea that once we understand it at a historical level and understand all of the snares that would've resulted in poetry being distorted, that we must assume the same was true for something Jesus would've given us. That is a logical fallacy unless Jesus was a schizophrenic who talked about being God, who said He was the way but was simply delusional. If He was what He says He was, the buck stops there.

3. No offense and my apologies for coming across more abrasive than I intended. You are certainly in the majority but as I stated above, Catholicism does not sway on the popular vote. The Church will continue to feel the effects of modernity as it's increasing reach continues. The Church's words are caustic if you find yourself on the other side of them. There is no half way point in the Church, not in the matters of grave sin and not in the matters of it's Theology or tenants of faith. If any of the creeds are spoken at Mass and intended in the heart, then it is logically impossible to pick and choose what we want at the Catholic buffet line.

Stubborn implies the Catholic church sees a better way to be and resists it, I would suggest it sees the folly of the world in all it's changes and is merely waiting for the pendulum to reach it's apex. As it begins to swing back with the fires burning in the background from our great modern experiment, it'll be standing where you last saw it, with the same message, but it'll seem warmer and much more inviting amidst the chaos and pain.

4. This is a very sobering point but probably not as you intended. It saddens me that these trends exist but it is to be expected. All ages have their plights and we are no different.

On the upside, the Churches that didn't throw out their statues and that maintained the alter in it's traditional placement and have Latin Masses and live out the faith to the fullest have seen increasing number in the pews and in young men called to the seminary. These reports are coming in across the country, so there are signs of life but they are most likely not at the Mass conducted by the hippy priest.

5. I don't think you are a heretic unless you actively preach anathema to the Church's teachings. I'll leave you to decide as I don't know you personally nor do I care to pronounce judgement from the webz. I've read plenty on how often people don't live out their proclaimed faith, we can merely agree that their is a line drawn by the Church and we all choose on which side we fall. I claim I have the Church on my side, you claim the majority sentiment. We appeal to what we can with the choices we have made.

6. This we can agree on. It is saddening indeed to wear the title and not carry it's duties with you. It's the continued fallout of bad formation and modernity.

7. I know you stretched the truth, that's why I called it out ;)

Good for you with the Lenten resolution. Even if it's not for spiritual reasons, it's good to force ourselves to live without something we desire on occasion. It helps strengthen the will.

God gave us free will, why couldn't we have used that free will to change the message?

Do you believe that the Bible we read today is unchanged from when it was first written?

From everything that I have read the ending to the Gospel Mark was added much later (Mark 16:9-19), and there are various other changes that have been made throughout time to the bible.

As to the first part of your post, I don't think that the Catholic Church should be a popularity contest. Having said that isn't it possible that the early church leaders who built the foundation of the Church were seeing Jesus's message through their own prism which was grounded in the time that they lived?
 
Last edited:

ulukinatme

Carr for QB 2025!
Messages
31,516
Reaction score
17,382
Veritate Duce Progredi, I hope you don't think this is a cop out, but I spent a good deal of time formulating my earlier response this morning :laugh: I won't be able to respond to all your points, but I will say that I agree with most of your points and I commend you for sticking to your principles. You're absolutely right that the church doesn't sway with the popular vote. Sometimes I wish they would consider rethinking their stance on a few topics and make a few concessions, but it's for them to decide how God wants us to live. I do still love the Catholic church, and I don't see myself ever leaving. If my views on a few topics don't agree with the Church, I can accept that. If they don't agree with God, then I'll meet a punishment in Purgatory if needs be.
 

RDU Irish

Catholics vs. Cousins
Messages
8,622
Reaction score
2,722
I also don't believe the Catholic church is in a popularity contest. What they have to sell does not change with the times. It is not routinely updated to capture the latest swing in pollster's numbers.

Sorry couldn't make it through the whole post.

To your point above, may I ask if you think Jesus was really born on December 25?
 

Veritate Duce Progredi

A man gotta have a code
Messages
9,358
Reaction score
5,352
Sorry couldn't make it through the whole post.

To your point above, may I ask if you think Jesus was really born on December 25?

I'm guessing you are intending to insult me with this question given you won't read my post but you'll pick out the first line you can exploit with a question of seeming absurdity.

Having said that, I'll respond:

I haven't done much research into the birth of Christ, nor do I believe it is of much consequence in regards to how I choose to celebrate His life and entry onto this earth. There may be at best a 1/365th chance of him actually having been born on Dec 25th and that would be acceptable.

There was an intention in the Chruch to construct the liturgical year based around significant events in the life of Christ and whether that circle is on the historical mark or we are X+7 or X + 53 makes no difference to me, nor should it to any discerning Christian.

What do you believe RDU?
 
Top