Catholicism or fundamentalism:which is more ridiculous [Archive I]

MattofVA

January 17, 2003, 05:45 PM

Originally posted by ArvelJoffi
It's a tough call.

One bases the so-called Word of God (add ominous echo)on a book that has the word "version" in it's title.

The other is paganism and idolatry (sp?) all mixed up with the religion that specifies that paganism and idolatry (sp??) are Satanic.

It would be kind of funny if only three or four people believed in it. As billions go for it, it often scares the hell out of me.

Yep, you hit the nail on the head on both counts, and all those people actually believing this stuff...yeah, kind of scary. As for the Catholics, though, there dont seem to be any sincere, devout ones in the USA under the age of 70, tell me if I'm wrong, but while the protestant/baptist fundamentalist types usually actually believe that stuff, most catholics under retirement age seem to be just nominal, bovine, occasional churchgoers.

happyboy

January 17, 2003, 05:49 PM

religion in general is frightening, because it frightens me that people could believe in such nonsense, in today's science-saturated world.

happyboy

Strawberry

January 17, 2003, 06:16 PM

I voted "both," but I think Amie has a point. The degree to which someone uses religion as a base for their world view has a lot to do with how scary and/or ridiculous the faith is.

In that respect, I probably should have voted "fundamentalism," because, while there is such a thing as a liberal Catholic who goes to mass on Sunday and acts like a normal person the rest of the week without believing all the horseshit that comes along with Catholicism, there is no such thing as a liberal fundie.

Triple Six

January 17, 2003, 06:24 PM

Tough but I voted for fundies, mostly because they are unashamedly stupid and so rigid they always will be. Catholicism, though ridculous, has managed to change its stance on issues through its history when the position has become untenable. Which would make it a more sinister threat but we aren't voting on that.

Psycho Economist

January 17, 2003, 10:59 PM

It's not a tough call for me: my mom's a fundie and drives me nuts; my girlfriend who I love dearly is Catholic. :p

Just kidding.

Seriously though, as dogmatic as the Vatican gets on social issues, at least Vatican II, the pardoning of Galileo and their recent statement of evolution being the mechanism by which God created life demonstrates that they're capable of changing in the face of countervailing facts.

Fundamentalism says "LA LA LA!!! I CAA-AAN'T HEAR YOU!!!" to what they dismiss as worldly knowledge.

Sephiroth

January 17, 2003, 11:32 PM

Both. One's too stubborn to let go of Creationism and the other is too stubborn to encourage birth control in the Third World countries.

The Naked Mage

January 18, 2003, 01:56 AM

They're both so far off the top of the "horrid" scale that it would take sensitive scientific instruments to determine which one is actually worse.

sullster

January 18, 2003, 04:12 PM

I say that Catholicism is the most ridiculous religion but the followers of fundamentalism are the most ridiculous on a personal level.

Catholicism with all its saints, statues, bloody paintings, confusing dogmas, strange hats, funny dresses worn by men, weird gloomy buildings, belief in miracles, peices of bones from long dead clergy, absurd superstitions and many more medievalisms seems more weird than simplistic fundyism and thus more ridiculous.

Yet, people I know who are catholic are not anyway near as much a pain in the ass as those who are fundy. Fundamentalism with its persecution complex, anti-science, bible absolutism and obsession with their jesus seems to produce the more ridiculous followers.

Perhaps a good question would be:"Who would you rather be stranded on a deser island with? A catholic or a fundy?". I say a catholic anytime.

David Bowden

January 18, 2003, 05:13 PM

Originally posted by MattofVA
Which do you godless heathens think is more ridiculous:
Russian Orthodoxy. No question. That funky cross does it for me.

Seriously, I'd have to pretty much agree with Amie - how differently do individuals represent these systems! I know both sensible and wacky Catholics, as well as both sensible and wacky protestants (and even a few sensible fundies, as long as the issue of religion doesn't come up). There are many criteria to judge by.

As far as beliefs go, since they both start with theism I'd have to put them about equally off-base, so that's how I voted. From a theistic starting-point, anything's possible - hence the multiplicity of traditions within catholicism, and the innumerably branched protestant denominations, all sharing the same root system. When we get down to things like creationism vs evolution, catholics seem okay with evolution but fundies don't - but I've known Baptists who don't have a problem with evolution either, and Catholics who reject it. Catholics are okay with bingo, but seem to have more trouble ousting clergy who've committed sex crimes (unless the media draws attention to the problem). Both preach against hypocrisy, but as we all know everyone's a hypocrite if they can get away with it, so who am I to cast the first stone there?

Now, as far as attire goes. Catholic ministers lose points for owning dresses. However, given the utter lack of style in the ranks of fundy ministers, and the fact that most priests wear just a collar on a workaday basis, it's too close for me to call. Jewish rabbis, on the other hand, seem uniformly to dress well. Where catholic cardinals wear those enormous mitres, and fundy televangelists sport hairdos from Vidal Sassoon's worst nightmare, Jews wear those simple caps or, at worst, a stylin' black sombrero.

-David

Amos

January 18, 2003, 10:49 PM

Originally posted by sullster
I say that Catholicism is the most ridiculous religion but the followers of fundamentalism are the most ridiculous on a personal level.

Hey sullster, good choice and I sense that you regard Catholics as "other worldly" and can see why you would want a little if this around you when stranded on a deserted island. Thanks.

Puck

January 19, 2003, 06:55 AM

In different times, I would have voted for both. But considering who we have in our White House right now, and the way they are affecting the whole world, I have to go with 'The Fundie/Baptist/Calvinist thing'.

Of course the question is which is more ridiculous, and in this case I am looking at more dangerous, from a very personal point of view.

Sabine Grant

January 19, 2003, 08:09 AM

I am as challenged as Amie is on this one...However, IMO the best form of criticism is the one motivated by genuine concern. I would have used the adjective " harmful" rather than " ridiculous". Ridiculous has something trivia within its definition. All forms of fundamentalism are harmful to oneself and others.

I noted that on the non catholic side, Calvinist and Baptist are what come to mind as fundie theology ( based on most posts). Am I to assume that for most of you, Methodists, Pentecostals, Lutherans, etc etc are not considered fundamentalist?

sullster

January 19, 2003, 08:58 AM

Originally posted by Amos
Hey sullster, good choice and I sense that you regard Catholics as "other worldly" and can see why you would want a little if this around you when stranded on a deserted island. Thanks.

Hey Amos,
I know you appreciate my compliment towards people who are catholic, but please do consider that I see the religion of catholicism as more "ridiculous" than fundyism. The contemplation of your coveted "other world", produces the weirdest and most bizarre ideas, statues, buildings and rituals. Protestantism, in practise, is essentially simplistic and thus doesn't exhibit the same ridiculousness.

No, I would not want any "other worldliness" if I was with a catholic on a desert island. If I was stuck with any religious person, I would just want them to shut up, and my experience has shown that catholics do not bring up their religious stuff anyway near the the amount that fundys do.

Amos

January 19, 2003, 09:23 AM

Originally posted by sullster
No, I would not want any "other worldliness" if I was with a catholic on a desert island. If I was stuck with any religious person, I would just want them to shut up, and my experience has shown that catholics do not bring up their religious stuff anyway near the the amount that fundys do.

I fully understand, sir. I was just trying to make some hay while I saw some sunshine coming my way. I know Catholics well enough to know that they would not bother you even if you were isolated with them.

Shake

January 19, 2003, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by The Naked Mage
They're both so far off the top of the "horrid" scale that it would take sensitive scientific instruments to determine which one is actually worse. I'd like to second this opinion.

atheist_in_foxhole

January 19, 2003, 01:53 PM

I think Catholicism is fascinating. It has a rich history, tons of great historical figures, spectacular cathedrals, and lots of neat ceremonies and rituals. It may be all a delusion, but it's still kind of cool.

The fundies, on the other hand, are just plain pathetic. These idiots are proud of their ignorance and actually look forward to seeing non-believers "burn" for eternity. And their architecture sucks.

Compare this:

http://www.co.arlington.va.us/sistercities/bike_tour/images/day7/cathedral.JPG

with this:

http://hometown.aol.com/youthcarebaptist/myhomepage/lawsonville%20baptist%20church.jpg

See what I mean?

sullster

January 19, 2003, 03:58 PM

Atheist in Foxhole,
The fundy shack church can't compare with a Gothic cathedral on an artistic or architectual level but I find the cathedral to be totally ridiculous.(Keeping in tune with this thread)

That cathedral was built with money which was stolen by priests from credulous European peasants and sometimes aristocrats. The catholic church's stranglehold on European culture, politics and finances are what the cathedrals represent, no matter how cool they are.

I am no fan of the irrational and ignorant fundamentalists, but their dumpy little churches at least show that they haven't sponged all the wealth of the society in order to build strange looking edifices to their delusion.

Jekyll

January 19, 2003, 08:24 PM

Originally posted by sullster
Catholicism with all its saints, statues, bloody paintings, confusing dogmas, strange hats, funny dresses worn by men, weird gloomy buildings, belief in miracles, peices of bones from long dead clergy, absurd superstitions and many more medievalisms seems more weird than simplistic fundyism and thus more ridiculous. Not at all - no more weird than any other world religion. They all have that.

What matters most is the ill which any one given religion can produce - what sort of parasitic like effect it has on the whole of mankind that surrounds it. Ritualism isn't inherantly bad; most of us have a hygenic morning ritual (at least, I hope so). I, an athiest raised traditional Catholic, like ritual. Don't think it does any harm. Don't think that traditional Catholicism is any worse than, say, traditional Protestantism, Buddhism, Shinto, Vajrayana Hinduism, or the like. Ritual is bizarre, but not inherantly damaging.

Now, "Fundyism" is damaging. Damaging in its apparent simplicity; its decepitive openness. Fundyism is the new persecutor of our age. The Catholic Church is a waning force. Fundamentalism is a growing power. A negative one. In this case, we ought to worry, I should think - were we not careful, I do believe that they'd gladly champion a new inquisition. They have no ritual or precedent to go by - they are un-Bible based and make their own rules. All forward momentum and no discretion.

Egoinos

January 20, 2003, 09:35 PM

I voted for fundamentalism.

On the entirely subjective grounds that I like Catholics. Well, I like them for some reasons: one is that they do not proselytise, or not as annoyingly as fundies, they can and have changed their minds about things (not often or quickly, but they do change sometimes), and they allow for diversity. There are Catholic gay theologians, there are Catholic feminist theologians. And the Liberation theology movement - of which feminist and gay theology are offshoots - came from Catholicism.

Fundamentalism, on the other hand, has produced a class of people who are taught to be sheep, taught not to question, taught to obey with unflinching obedience. At least Catholicism allows for some dissent.

Plus Catholics have (or had) a cracking sense of humour. I mean, look at St Lawrence. He was roasted on a spit for his faith - and they made him patron saint of rotissieurs(sp)!! Any religious body with that sort of sense of humour appeals to me :D

--Egoinos--

Gemma Therese

January 20, 2003, 09:55 PM

When St. Lawrence was burning, he showed no emotion. This infuriated his executioners, who finally asked him to say something. He turned to them and said, "Turn me over, I'm done on this side."

Gemma Therese

The Naked Mage

January 20, 2003, 10:49 PM

He turned to them and said, "Turn me over, I'm done on this side."

Ha ha! What a card!

Gemma Therese

January 21, 2003, 05:46 AM

Originally posted by The Naked Mage
Ha ha! What a card!

I'm sure you could manage humor as you were being burned alive.

Gemma Therese

hezekiah jones

January 21, 2003, 06:10 AM

The manner of his execution--burning on a red-hot gridiron--also gives rise to grave doubts. The narrations of Ambrose and Prudentius are founded rather on oral tradition than on written accounts. It is quite possible that between the year 258 and the end of the fourth century popular legends may have grown up about this highly venerated Roman deacon, and some of these legends have been preserved by these two authors. We have, in any case, no means of verifying from earlier sources the details derived from St. Ambrose and Prudentius, or of ascertaining to what extent such details are supported by earlier historical tradition. Fuller accounts of the martyrdom of St. Lawrence were composed, probably, early in the sixth century, and in these narratives a number of the martyrs of the Via Tiburtina and of the two Catacombs of St. Cyriaca in agro Verano and St. Hippolytius were connected in a romantic and wholly legendary fashion. The details given in these Acts concerning the martyrdom of St. Lawrence and his activity before his death cannot claim any credibility.
Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09089a.htm)

schu

January 21, 2003, 06:32 AM

I have to say it is a toss up.

On the fundie side, I've talked to people who claim to fully expect to taken directly to heaven without dying. For a grown man this has to be the height of the ridiculous.

But maybe not.

The Catholics try to stop the poorest of the world from using birth control. The leadership in this country and Canada have consistently covered up the abuse of children. It is ridiculous to give support to such an organization.

Not to mention people on this board who seem to think the bodies of old dead Catholics are supernaturally preserved and now think there is something divine in a crispy saint making a joke about his own demise as if this were real.

Being reality challenged is what makes the xians ridiculous, the more challenged, the more ridiculous.

Amos

January 21, 2003, 10:20 AM

Originally posted by schu
I have to say it is a toss up.

.

I suspect that everything in your life will remain a toss up.

Shake

January 21, 2003, 10:31 AM

Originally posted by sullster
Atheist in Foxhole,
The fundy shack church can't compare with a Gothic cathedral on an artistic or architectual level but I find the cathedral to be totally ridiculous.(Keeping in tune with this thread)

That cathedral was built with money which was stolen by priests from credulous European peasants and sometimes aristocrats. The catholic church's stranglehold on European culture, politics and finances are what the cathedrals represent, no matter how cool they are.

I am no fan of the irrational and ignorant fundamentalists, but their dumpy little churches at least show that they haven't sponged all the wealth of the society in order to build strange looking edifices to their delusion. Bingo! This is why I voted both. The gothic cathedrals are majestic and beautiful, but when you think about how they got there and all the money that's wasted on a physical structure instead of helping people, it's sickening.

Amos, why the attack on schu? Is nothing a toss up to you? The world is not black and white, my friend, it's gray (and many shades at that).

Amos

January 21, 2003, 10:46 AM

Originally posted by Shake

Amos, why the attack on schu? Is nothing a toss up to you? The world is not black and white, my friend, it's gray (and many shades at that).

That was not an attack but just a wake-up call.

Is not black and white needed to make grey and do the many shades of grey not prove this?

sullster

January 21, 2003, 05:04 PM

Originally posted by Jekyll
Not at all - no more weird than any other world religion. They all have that.

Now, "Fundyism" is damaging. Damaging in its apparent simplicity; its decepitive openness. Fundyism is the new persecutor of our age. The Catholic Church is a waning force. Fundamentalism is a growing power. A negative one. In this case, we ought to worry, I should think - were we not careful, I do believe that they'd gladly champion a new inquisition. They have no ritual or precedent to go by - they are un-Bible based and make their own rules. All forward momentum and no discretion.

I don't agree with your assessment of fundyism's threat. Yes, their followers are robotic pians in the rump and they seek political influence, but the architects of a new inquisition? Hardly.

The various protestant sects which are around the world could never achieve the state of terror which the catholic church promulgated during the "old" inquisition. The vast stolen wealth as its command, the strict hierarchial sytem and absolute control over what consituted "heresy" and thus who should be condemned, are things which even the most rabid fundys are nowhere near capable of. Some fundies even think that other fundies are heretics.

Your last point about the fundys being "un-Bible based" is utterly incorrect. The absolute literal interpretation of the bible is the very foundation of the Protestant movement and has been since Luther and Calvin. Protestant sects vary in their strictness of biblical absolutism, but they rely on the scriptures for their theology.

Remember that the threat of biblical absolutists such as the fundys is virtually checked by the fractious nature of the protestant movement. There is no Pope, no college of cardinals, no cenral command which enforces orthodoxy. Protestant clergy can be run out of town by their flock, for crying out loud.

You fear an inquisition, then look towards the Vatican.

Marduk

January 21, 2003, 05:40 PM

I voted Fundy simply because they have managed to produce the most vile group of assholes the world has ever known. And sometimes Catholicism has a bizarre sort of appeal. Maybe because it appears in so many spooky movies I like, The Prophecy, The Omen, Exorcist among others. And they are more willing at times to adapt to change, evolution, heliocentricity etc. or to admit when they screwed up, the Pope saying 'well excuse me" for the crusades etc. and throughout history they have some interesting characters, St. Francis comes to mind.

Amie

January 21, 2003, 08:22 PM

wow only 1 vote so far for Catholicism...you big bunch of closet Catholic lovers ;)

The Naked Mage

January 22, 2003, 04:29 AM

Originally posted by Gemma Therese:

I'm sure you could manage humor as you were being burned alive.

This has the makings of a new poll all over it!

"Do Christians Feel Pain?"

Amos

January 22, 2003, 09:46 AM

Originally posted by The Naked Mage
This has the makings of a new poll all over it!

"Do Christians Feel Pain?"

Pain is an illusion and therefore does not exist in heaven.

The Naked Mage

January 22, 2003, 12:57 PM

Pain is an illusion and therefore does not exist in heaven.

Uh, I'll take that as a "no", then.

Tip for Amos: We're talking about reality, not Candy Land.

And if that's the best Lawrence could do with the complete absence of pain, then he was giving all of his talents that did not pertain to stand-up comedy a real run for their money.

Amos

January 22, 2003, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by The Naked Mage
Uh, I'll take that as a "no", then.

Tip for Amos: We're talking about reality, not Candy Land.

.

You have this backwards Naked Mage. Pain is an illusion because it exists only in our conscious mind. That is the exact reason why there is no shame when under hypnosis or why females can have a painless childbirth while under hypnosis. The same is true for people who get 'zapped' by an evangelist and my hit a pew on their way down but feel no pain afterwards.

So it is more like you are living in candyland because there is no 'sweetness' in heaven either. That is to say, we are free from the judgement made by sense perception.

Mageth

January 22, 2003, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by sullster:

I am no fan of the irrational and ignorant fundamentalists, but their dumpy little churches at least show that they haven't sponged all the wealth of the society in order to build strange looking edifices to their delusion.

You don't live in the South. While many are "dumpy little churches", fundies have proven quite capable of building expensive (and usually rather ugly and strange-looking) edifices:

One example, Second Baptist Church, Houston:

http://www.second.org/virtualtour/tourfiles/qtvr/woodway/gifs/woodway.jpg

First and Second Baptist Churches are "megachurches" known in Houston for their competition to see which can build the biggest, most elaborate "campuses" with the most to offer the community (gyms, basketball courts, schools, etc.)

Then there's the Lakewood Church in Houston, a fundie, non-denominational charismatic megachurch which is converting the Summit (a sports arena) into the Lakewood International Center (http://www.lakewood-church.org/intl_center_information.htm)

This is in addition to their already massive facility. This is the only image of Lakewood Church I could find in a quick online search. Don't be frightened by the holy ghosts:

http://www.lakewood.cc/assets/images/welcome/welcome_graphic.jpg

atheist_in_foxhole

January 22, 2003, 03:30 PM

That's Joel Osteen. He's on the local fundy TV channel (yes, we even have them in liberal Seattle) about ten times a day talking about Jeebus.

From your link:

The Lakewood International Center will become the main campus of a global outreach where an estimated 100,000 people each week can participate in a multitude of services and opportunities.

The Lakewood International Center, with an 18,000 seat Sports and Concert Arena, will provide a world-class venue for entertainment, personal enrichment and family growth.

...

And that's only the beginning, The Lakewood International Center will be a gathering place for thousands from all around the world� boldly encompassing community outreaches that will touch millions of people in their relationships, education, careers, health, and finances.

This is starting to sound a lot like Landover Baptist!

On edit: Wow...this is my 666th post. I guess I'm the anti-Christ!

http://www.workjoke.com/satan.gif

Mwahahahah!!

Amos

January 22, 2003, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by atheist_in_foxhole

On edit: Wow...this is my 666th post. I guess I'm the anti-Christ!

http://www.workjoke.com/satan.gif

Mwahahahah!!

Did you know that 666 is the sign of Christ and not the anti-christ?

Looks like protestant theology is wrong here too.

The distinction made here is that the 666 is the "number of man" and "the number of that certain man" is not given but takes some ingenuity to figure out.

Mageth

January 22, 2003, 04:10 PM

That's Joel Osteen.

Yup, that's Joel, son of the late John, and his wife. A bit of trivia: Joel's sister was severely injured by a mail bomb a few years back when she was opening letters for her dad.

I actually went to Lakewood Church once in the '80s during my religious pre-life with my first wife. We were casually dressed, and visitors of course. My wife wanted to sit up front, but when we went to sit down, an usher told us we couldn't sit in the first couple of rows - the first couple of rows were "special" rows reserved for enthusiastic, well-dressed regulars who would look good performing for the TV cameras. If it weren't for my wife, who wanted to stay, I'd have walked out right then. Their gift shop was, umm, quite extensive, and located at the back of the sanctuary. The whole thing came across as a big money-making operation - I would imagine the Osteens are doing quite well for themselves, thank you very much. I never went back there, and never will.

Here's a few Baptist or independent megachurches in Houston, Texas and their estimated membership:

Houston - Lakewood Church (NONDENOM) - 15000
Houston - New Light Christian Center (NONDENOM) - 14000
Houston - Second Baptist Church (SBC) - 9000
Houston - Brentwood Baptist (SBC) - 8000
Houston - First Baptist Church (SBC) - 6000
Houston - The Church Without Walls (Brookhollow Baptist Church) - 4800
Houston - Pleasant Grove Mission Baptist - 4000
Houston - St. Agnes Baptist Church (SBC) - 3150
Houston - Sagemont Baptist Church (SBC) - 3026

I left off several in Houston that are 2000+. Needless to say, religion, particulary "charismatainment" (TM) religion, is big business in Houston, and there's a lot of competition for membership (no matter what they say, increases in a church's membership usually equate to losses in another church's membership - perhaps the new church just put in a new gym).

sullster

January 22, 2003, 05:02 PM

Mageth,
Thanks for showing the picture of the second baptist church in Houston. That is one bland and ugly structure.
The fundies can make large edifices to their delusions too, but I must say that I doubt any tourists will be visiting that monstrosity a few centuries from now.

schu

January 22, 2003, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by Amos
I suspect that everything in your life will remain a toss up.

Well, if religion were edible I suspect it would be.

Egoinos

January 23, 2003, 03:12 AM

That church looks like a mosque!

The Naked Mage

January 23, 2003, 06:05 AM

Originally posted by Amos:

You have this backwards Naked Mage. Pain is an illusion because it exists only in our conscious mind.

Heaven does not exist ANYwhere, least of all our conscious minds, unless we have been partaking a great many controlled substances.

I'd like to add that it takes a rare (at least, that's what the entire human race is hoping :D) man to argue that the mind is more reasonable when it's not in use.

The same is true for people who get 'zapped' by an evangelist and my hit a pew on their way down but feel no pain afterwards.

Of course there's no pain; they absorb the entire impact with their brains.

So it is more like you are living in candyland because there is no 'sweetness' in heaven either. That is to say, we are free from the judgement made by sense perception.

Let me break it down for you.

Another tip for Amos: The reasons for comparing your conception of an afterlife to a ridiculous fairytale setting did not include sense perceptions. Feel free to substitute "Never-Never Land", "The Magic Kingdom", or "Smack Town" for "Candy Land" if it still bothers you.

Amos

January 23, 2003, 11:10 AM

Originally posted by The Naked Mage
Heaven does not exist ANYwhere, least of all our conscious minds, unless we have been partaking a great many controlled substances.

Where did I say it does?

I'd like to add that it takes a rare (at least, that's what the entire human race is hoping :D) man to argue that the mind is more reasonable when it's not in use.

Did I say it was? Even in heaven reason must prevail.

Of course there's no pain; they absorb the entire impact with their brains.

Neat trick, lets all learn to do that.

sullster

January 23, 2003, 05:28 PM

It just hit me that the beastly baptist church in the picture has gyms and basketball courts. What a great concept!

How about everyone exercising on treadmills and weight machines while a baptist minister yaps on about jeebus? That seems pretty ridiculous but I just know you are going to tell me that is just what goes on.

If only the catholics had put gyms and basketball courts in their cathedrals, they might have escaped the Reformation.

So much for the old line about religion being "The weak man's crutch". With gyms at churches, we will have to call religion."The strong man's crutch".

How about an exercise video? "Sweating to the Hymms" "The Falwell Work Out", "Iron Jesus", "Ten Days to a body like Jesus".

It can't get any more ridiculous. Can it?

Mageth

January 23, 2003, 06:02 PM

From SBC-Houston's web page:

The Family Life Center is a state of the art, fully equipped fitness center and its Sports department provides sports leagues and activities for everyone in our church family throughout the year. The FLC offers many benefits to its members including:

� Three racquetball courts and three full basketball courts for league play and pick-up games
� A variety of power pacing classes and group fitness opportunities
� The latest Cybex weight machines and freeweights
� Supervised child-care while parents workout (two hour limit)
� Summer sports camps for students
� Co-ed gender-specific intramural sports for adults

Any one who is a member of Second Baptist Church or one of its Bible Study classes can join the FLC. For more information and hours of operation please visit the Family Life Center online.

Damn. I wonder if they charge for membership to the FLC? (I'd bet they do). And if they do, whether they pay taxes on the income? (I'd bet they don't).

Amos

January 23, 2003, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by sullster

It can't get any more ridiculous. Can it?

They are social clubs and that is how they attract and entertain the kids so they can do a good number on them afterwards.

Catholics have learned to walk upright and do not need to resort to such tactics.

Mad Kally

January 23, 2003, 07:29 PM

Guess what I think is the most ridiculous? Charismania
http://www.provalue.net/non-profit/nlcf/floor2.jpeg

I've had Catholic friends who never even brought up religion.

Amos

January 23, 2003, 07:36 PM

Originally posted by Mad Kally
I've had Catholic friends who never even brought up religion.

Most of them never do and they are the good Catholics. The problem for them is that they are easy targets for the wolves in sheep clothing, who are the leaders of your "charismania" and at one time were called witches.

sullster

January 24, 2003, 06:04 PM

Originally posted by Amos
Most of them never do and they are the good Catholics. The problem for them is that they are easy targets for the wolves in sheep clothing, who are the leaders of your "charismania" and at one time were called witches.

Hold it there Amos. Your catholic church doesn't need be exalted here.

You have to understand that most of the posters on this forum live in the USA. A country in which protestants are in the majority and has a long history of anti-catholicism. The Ku Klux Klan didn't only hate blacks and Jews, they hated catholics too.

What I am getting at is that the reason American catholics usually don't ram their stuff in your ear is partially explained by their being members of a disparaged minority religion. The bible thumping prods can strut around because deep down they know that America is a "Protestant Nation". Catholics in the USA naturally feel they have to have a low profile.

When devout US catholics get somewhere where they feel safe, they kick butt. It is more subtle than the fundys but it is there. Catholicism didn't survive all these centures by being meek and mild. This is a USA thing going here.

By the way Amos. There have been charismatic Catholic meetings going around here in Massachusetts. Falling on the floor and such. Yes, catholics, not witches.

atheist_in_foxhole

January 24, 2003, 06:40 PM

Aren't the charismatics the ones who hold those mass "exorcisms" where everyone screams for Jesus and vomits in a trash can?

Amos

January 24, 2003, 07:57 PM

Originally posted by sullster
Hold it there Amos. Your catholic church doesn't need be exalted here.

You have to understand that most of the posters on this forum live in the USA. A country in which protestants are in the majority and has a long history of anti-catholicism. The Ku Klux Klan didn't only hate blacks and Jews, they hated catholics too

What I am getting at is that the reason American catholics usually don't ram their stuff in your ear is partially explained by their being members of a disparaged minority religion. The bible thumping prods can strut around because deep down they know that America is a "Protestant Nation". Catholics in the USA naturally feel they have to have a low profile.

Hello sullster, that warrants a reply because you are wrong here.

My objection is that if it wasn't for the protestants most Catholics
would be gentle as sheep and the shepherd himself could go to sleep because the "lost sheep" must be found by God and by God alone. How else can you expect those parishes that filled those large Cathedrals 5 or 6 times a day to be taken care of by one pastor and a couple of priests? Where I come from it was much the same and I can assure you that indeed the pasture was soo big that the sheep could not get lost because with no protestants around there was peace in the valley.

Ever noticed how fundy churches need many pastors, decons, youth preachers and 'what not' to keep some sense of order and peace within the pack? Surely you have, and might even remember from before you got fed-up with it.

Catholicism didn't survive all these centures by being meek and mild. This is a USA thing going here.

Truth is subtle indeed and they don't have to get excited to get their message across. In fact, peace and quit is needed because that is the proper environment for renewal, as we shall see.

The allegory of Hansel and Grethel would serve me best to tell you why. In Catholicism we are sinners and are encouraged to go out into the world where we must find our destiny. We do this freely and go out into the 'jungle of life' on our own. As we go further West (and away from Eden) we place "milestones of faith" on our way in, and these are the Sacraments that must leads us back out in case we get lost. If and when we get slapped around by the pitfalls and rapids of life we can go to confession to renew our courage so we can go further West where sooner or later we will carve a clearing and there we will spin a cocoon from where we emerge in 'victory' and with 'wings of an eagle.' Do you now see why there must be peace inside the church and at a distance in Catholicism at large? Can you see how by nature is it a very peaceful religion?

The problem we have in America is that while we are carving a clearing for us in this jungle we find that 'well meaning people' have invaded this territory who themselves can't find their way out because they placed "deeds of rightousness" on their way into the jungle and are now lost because evil had usurped their glorious deeds. Because they are forever lost they now hunt in packs for the carcass of spiritually hungry Catholics that are seeking rest in their clearing that was carved with their own hands but with the aid of the mother Church.

Many of these suffereing souls will succumb to their tactics because these wolves have Lucifer on their side and are therefore cunning and crafty (hence their sheeps clothing).

Yes, this is the reason why Luther complained that Catholics took the "hatching boxes" away from the church and I just showed you why they do not belong in the church.

So now in America we have crowned these wolves king of the jungle and therefore have built our cathedrals in the shape of warplane Carriers so we can snatch away the rest of the word (as if our jungle is not viable anymore).

By the way Amos. There have been charismatic Catholic meetings going around here in Massachusetts. Falling on the floor and such. Yes, catholics, not witches.

Yes I am fully aware of that but they are different -- until they allow outsiders to penetrate their inner circle.

Amos

January 24, 2003, 07:59 PM

Originally posted by atheist_in_foxhole
Aren't the charismatics the ones who hold those mass "exorcisms" where everyone screams for Jesus and vomits in a trash can?

You means like in the movies? or are you thinking of protestant "healing rallies."

Sabine Grant

January 24, 2003, 08:37 PM

Originally posted by Amos
You means like in the movies? or are you thinking of protestant "healing rallies."
Hi Amos... I was just thinking of the Exorcist as I read Atheist in a foxhole 's post. It is amazing how Hollywood can condition people to believe such silly things!

From what I understand the Catholic Church has a very strict investigation of any claimed case of demonic posession and does not get involved unless there is evidence ( to them) of demonic interference. In Italy, the monks ( Capuccini Order) are in fact the ones trained to conduct exorcisms. It appears it all stays " hush hush".....

Amos

January 24, 2003, 09:34 PM

Originally posted by Sabine Grant
Hi Amos... I was just thinking of the Exorcist as I read Atheist in a foxhole 's post. It is amazing how Hollywood can condition people to believe such silly things!

From what I understand the Catholic Church has a very strict investigation of any claimed case of demonic posession and does not get involved unless there is evidence ( to them) of demonic interference. In Italy, the monks ( Capuccini Order) are in fact the ones trained to conduct exorcisms. It appears it all stays " hush hush".....

Exorcism is really easy if you have the insight to do it. All that is required is call the demon by 'name' because the truth is the enemy here and therefore the truth will set you free.

I don't know much about it really but had a lot of fun trying. :) But then, I am no Capuchin either.

Amos

January 24, 2003, 09:40 PM

Sullster, one more thing while I have your attention.

Luther actually complained that Catholics took the hatching boxes out of the churches. Catholics told him that we don't want self-righteous yellow-bellied chickens that would squack alot but could never soar into the heavens.

Mad Kally

January 24, 2003, 09:54 PM

Originally posted by atheist_in_foxhole
Aren't the charismatics the ones who hold those mass "exorcisms" where everyone screams for Jesus and vomits in a trash can?

Yes and it's not staged. Those people seriously believe that shit. I was raised as one, I should know. People came to my house all the time to exorcize demons and lay hands on me. It didn't work.
They speak in glossolalia too. Just like in a psych. hospital. Freaky eh?

Amos

January 24, 2003, 11:12 PM

Originally posted by Mad Kally
They speak in glossolalia too. Just like in a psych. hospital. Freaky eh?

They probable were not Capuchins and drove 'em in deeper. Poor Kally now you're lost forever. In any case, you are lucky that you did not end up in a psych hospital becasue many of them do.

Sabine Grant

January 25, 2003, 06:48 AM

Originally posted by Mad Kally
Yes and it's not staged. Those people seriously believe that shit. I was raised as one, I should know. People came to my house all the time to exorcize demons and lay hands on me. It didn't work.
They speak in glossolalia too. Just like in a psych. hospital. Freaky eh?

Hi Kally....reminds me of a passage in the Gospels where the disciples attempted to exorcise a man in his house. They probably went in and proceeded the same way you describe. Christ corrected them indicating that they needed to fast and pray. Seems to me that the message was that they had to " take care of their own demons" first. This is not to argue that demons exist and the validity of exorcism, this is to point that again the focus should be one oneself before it is directed to others.

There are some christians who resent the trend of demonization. As soon as a person thinks differently, they must be posessed! Fortunatly, that thinking applies mostly to charismatic denominations and the more conservative denominations do not give in to demonization.

What an awful thing to do to barge into a child's home and put you thru that! There is a lot of ignorance involved with that kind of method. If you are in touch with present american christian theologians, they never teach on " how to cast demons". I never read anything remotly related to demonization for example from RC Sproul or Oswald Chambers. They seem to focus on building the character of a believer rather than chase demons.

So it seems to be contained within some charismatic movements. I have tried to understand the whys of their focus on demonization. I have come up with that explaination ( as a christian myself) : the concept of God in basic christian theology is revealed thru three personas as one, each describing how God manifests Himself to believers. What is known as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Charismatic movements place the emphasis on the Holy Spirit neglicting the character of the Father and the Son ( Christ). The balance that is meant for the believer to examine the character of God thru those three representations of God is then in jeopardy. Indeed charismatic movements focus on spiritual gifts for example instead of focusing on the message of Christ when it comes to build their own character. So you have some charismatic folks who spend their time "fixing others" rather than fixing themselves.

The reality is that any christian should be able to entrust God by prayer to deal with the spiritual torment of anyone else's. It is the purpose of what is known as intercessory prayer. Though it starts with the willingness for this " prayer warrior" to examine himself first . The old theme of the Gospels where the believer is to work on himself first is the key to any interaction a christian pertains to have with others.

sullster

January 25, 2003, 12:32 PM

Amos, you are good at bending reality to your vision of catholicism.

History speaks otherwise. Catholic priests were bloody and brutal during the Spanish conquest of South America and Central America. Meek and mild, my butt.

French raiders would kidnap English colonists in the New England colonies and force them to convert to Catholicism.

Everywhere catholicism went, it subverted and destroyed local cultures and religions. Protestantism did this too. After all the prods learned from the masters.

I stand by my analysis of American catholicism and reject your sweet peaceful vision of the bloody roman religion. Domini, domini, ad nauseum.

Amos

January 25, 2003, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by sullster
Amos, you are good at bending reality to your vision of catholicism.

History speaks otherwise.

.

Hi sullster, have you ever thought that Amos can do this because he 's got TRUTH in his side? How else could anybody do this, wouldn't you agree?

When you look at history you just look at the surface. Yeah, much like evolutionist who just see that things have changed but don't have a clue why things have changed.

And by the way (on your way out, lol), let me tell you that if the Church could have muzzled their appetite for Catholic souls they may have looked like turkeys for the rest of their lives but at least it would have saved their lives. Instead, they refused to repent and wanted to die instead while repenting at the foot of the cross. Therefore, the treatment they received was granted upon their own wish.

Gemma Therese

January 25, 2003, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by Amos

When you look at history you just look at the surface. Yeah, much like evolutionist who just see that things have changed but don't have a clue why things have changed.

I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times.

We all live in history. We make judgements in the moment based on what we see and how we evaluate with the limitations of our faith and understanding.

Gemma Therese

sullster

January 25, 2003, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by Amos
Hi sullster, have you ever thought that Amos can do this because he 's got TRUTH in his side? How else could anybody do this, wouldn't you agree?

When you look at history you just look at the surface. Yeah, much like evolutionist who just see that things have changed but don't have a clue why things have changed.

And by the way (on your way out, lol), let me tell you that if the Church could have muzzled their appetite for Catholic souls they may have looked like turkeys for the rest of their lives but at least it would have saved their lives. Instead, they refused to repent and wanted to die instead while repenting at the foot of the cross. Therefore, the treatment they received was granted upon their own wish.

Amos, don't refer to yourself in the third person, it is very weird. Also, people with TRUTH on their side, have caused the most destruction and murder throughout time.

Of course, Amos, when you look at history you see below the surface to what is really going on, oh wise man. Below the surface of my point about the catholic conquest of South America ,would include the smashing of "Pagan" children's heads against stones by priests after they had baptised them.

Your point about evolution is ignorant. The science of evolution has defined mehanisms which account for the changes of forms of living creatures. Catholicism has discovered nothing and knows nothing about the natural world.

Your last paragraph is incomprehensible except for calling catholics, "turkeys". It is not a term of description which I would use but if it works for you, that is great.

sullster

January 25, 2003, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by Gemma Therese
I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times.

We all live in history. We make judgements in the moment based on what we see and how we evaluate with the limitations of our faith and understanding.

Gemma Therese

On its face value, what you say here is adequate. Yet, knowing you are a soldier of catholicism, it puts your statements in a different light.

If you were to look at the catholic priests who accompanied the Spanish conquerors of South America during the 15th and 16th centuries, would you say that their destruction of the native population's culture and religion was based on their limitations of faith and understanding?

If you say "yes", then you must admit the priests of that time were individuals who made the decision to kill and destroy a culture based on immediate circumstances. Even though they were priests of the dominant religion of Europe, they showed little moral restraint and behaved like ruthless conquerers.

History fightens me, because it shows religion as an endless means of death and destruction . Maybe those priests were victims of limitations, but their victims were still dead.

ybnormal

January 25, 2003, 02:25 PM

Again and again, folks wonder how and why I put xians, if not believers all in the same barrel... similarity is as similarity does... another little thingy that those like GT, seebs and the Rad all do, all the time, is divert a discussion from xian specifics to human generalities, while hypocritically whining that folks like myself are generalizing and stereotyping them. What a pathetic mess...

Here, Amos starts by taking sullster's specific catholic atrocities down a we're-all-similar generalizing slide with his "much like evolutionists" explanation, which GT's follow-up pushes all the way down to the We all live... We make judgements... we see... we evaluate... end game that we-are-all-the-same.

Then they'll all turn right around to claim their belief system and its believers are supreme in answer to the next question about goodness, then revert to we-are-all-the-same about human evil, then revert back to supremacy... then revert to sameness... then revert...

Whoa... I'm getting dizzy.

Sabine Grant

January 25, 2003, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by ybnormal
Again and again, folks wonder how and why I put xians, if not believers all in the same barrel... similarity is as similarity does...
.

You mean to justify that comment by claiming that it is because of theists that you place "us" all in the same barrel? Surely there is a better way to respond than giving in to your own stereotyping and prejudicial thinking.
Sorry but IMO there is no justification to stereotyping and placing "xians if not believers ALL in the same barrel". There is no justification in prejudice or untolerance. There is a personal choice to want to judge and evaluate an entire group. There is a personal choice to ignore the individuality of each member of the group. There is a lot of insecurity behind stereotyping.

You have the alternative to value people separatly. You have the alternative to not pertain to know their character and indulge in demeaning comments. You have the alternative to recognize the existence of minorities rather than drowning them in the midst of your personal judgement.

IMO those alternatives are more productive than your self justifying blanket statement.

ybnormal

January 25, 2003, 06:01 PM

Thanks, GT... but thru all your words of advice to this nonxian, you don't deny the atrocities, you don't deny your diversions, you don't deny your flip-flop argument justifying your belief system and you don't deny being stereotypical.

With that in mind, I'll disregard your advice as to what is "more productive."

Amos

January 25, 2003, 06:21 PM

Originally posted by sullster
Your point about evolution is ignorant. The science of evolution has defined mehanisms which account for the changes of forms of living creatures. Catholicism has discovered nothing and knows nothing about the natural world.

But to give account of what happens is not good enough. We can all see that things change and to call it "mutations" does not explain why these mutations occur. Catholics hold that creation is guided by intelligence and intellignce is the designer of the essence of existence after which corporeal bodies change in the image of God. This comes from Gen.1, 2 and 3 and simply means that the conscious mind modifies the image of reality that is retained in our soul and after this image our offspring is procreated.

Sabine Grant

January 25, 2003, 10:29 PM

Originally posted by ybnormal
Thanks, GT... but thru all your words of advice to this nonxian, you don't deny the atrocities, you don't deny your diversions, you don't deny your flip-flop argument justifying your belief system and you don't deny being stereotypical.

With that in mind, I'll disregard your advice as to what is "more productive."
You probably need to read in various threads what we all express on specific topics before you can make any assertions of what goes on in people's minds.

As far as I am concerned I have expressed clearly in various threads that I do not deny the atrocities of christianity, I reject any form of stereotyping and I believe I have been faithful to my conviction as well as I do not feel I need to justify my personal belief to anyone. My faith is my personal choice and path of life. Your choice is your choice and your personal path of life. I need not to ask you to justify your course of freethinking. I may ask you why you became an atheist for the sake of curiosity and because I like to know people on an individual level. Justification... certainly not.

sullster

January 26, 2003, 10:26 AM

Originally posted by Amos
But to give account of what happens is not good enough. We can all see that things change and to call it "mutations" does not explain why these mutations occur. Catholics hold that creation is guided by intelligence and intellignce is the designer of the essence of existence after which corporeal bodies change in the image of God. This comes from Gen.1, 2 and 3 and simply means that the conscious mind modifies the image of reality that is retained in our soul and after this image our offspring is procreated.

Amos, you are wrong and a discussion of the machanics of evolution are better done in the evolution/creation area.

Science knows what causes mutations of genes. Go to the evolution site and ask one of those very smart posters over there.

Oh yeah, did not your very own Pope JP2, recently accept evolution for the most part?

Amos, you are starting to act like a fundy with all this evolution trashing.

sullster

January 26, 2003, 10:31 AM

Ybnormal,
Thanks for seeing the points I was trying to convey to Amos and GT, which they simply ignore. You expressed it well.

I like to think that in spite of ignoring and obscuring our arguments against the bloody world of religion, theists might just go back and think about some of our points. Yet, then I dream a bit here.

Amos

January 26, 2003, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by sullster
Oh yeah, did not your very own Pope JP2, recently accept evolution for the most part?

I am telling you that creation is the effective cause of evolution and that the evolution theorist look at the aftermath of evolution and then claim that it does it all by itself. It is with this same sort of ignorance that some determinisst claim that electrical impulses are the primary cause of our actions. Absurd.

The Intelligent Design argument explains the intricate details of evolution, or evolution by any other name.

Sabine Grant

January 26, 2003, 01:50 PM

Sabine Grant

January 26, 2003, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by Amos
I am telling you that creation is the effective cause of evolution and that the evolution theorist look at the aftermath of evolution and then claim that it does it all by itself. It is with this same sort of ignorance that some determinisst claim that electrical impulses are the primary cause of our actions. Absurd.

The Intelligent Design argument explains the intricate details of evolution, or evolution by any other name.
I must agree with Amos on his comments regarding the interaction between Creation and Evolution. Makes sense to me.

atheist_in_foxhole

January 26, 2003, 02:26 PM

It makes no sense at all. Look at how bloody and horrific nature is. Look at how vulnerable and weak we (and other animals) are when we're born. Not to mention all of the "design" flaws found throughout nature.

Did your god really create all of that?!

Amos

January 26, 2003, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by Sabine Grant
I must agree with Amos on his comments regarding the interaction between Creation and Evolution. Makes sense to me.

Except that there is no interaction between evolution and creation (but I know what you mean). Creation just means that essence precedes existence and that everything is formed after a certain image. In Christendom we call this image God.

Your idea of interaction suggests "natural selection" but since nature has no consciousness it cannot select. Nature is dumb and life is intelligent (evolutionists argue just the opposite here, lol). Compettion (chaos) exists only in the species who compete for survival while God is always at rest. Here we can go back again to "truth is at rest" while the "gates of hell are always the cause of turmoil" (see the Secular Support section of this BB).

We can also say that God is the leading edge of evolution . . . which is equal to creation. This removes the anthropomorhic idea of God against which they argue, as they must, or they would be 'believers.' Trying to tell them this is like banging their heads against rocks and so they are as impoverished is any human ever was.

Amos

January 26, 2003, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by atheist_in_foxhole
It makes no sense at all. Look at how bloody and horrific nature is. Look at how vulnerable and weak we (and other animals) are when we're born. Not to mention all of the "design" flaws found throughout nature.

Did your god really create all of that?!

Once again you forget that we look with our eyes but look with our mind and you just told us that your earth is crammed with hell while for others it is crammed with heaven.

Much more tragic is that many of us never mature and 'get' strong and must resort to violence to 'feel' strong.

sullster

January 26, 2003, 05:14 PM

Originally posted by Amos
Once again you forget that we look with our eyes but look with our mind and just told us that for you earth is crammed with hell while for others it is crammed with heaven.

Much more tragic is that many of us never mature and 'get' strong and must resort to violence to 'feel' strong.

Amos, I like you, but you are on another planet.

Amos

January 26, 2003, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by sullster
Amos, I like you, but you are on another planet.

Hello sullster, we could be the best of buddies since we have lots to talk about. I should maybe add that in real life I am different from my propositions and here I am just trying to bring concepts across for your perusal.

sullster

January 29, 2003, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by Amos
Hello sullster, we could be the best of buddies since we have lots to talk about. I should maybe add that in real life I am different from my propositions and here I am just trying to bring concepts across for your perusal.

You know Amos, I do admire your consistency and your loyalty to your perspective. We don't agree, but so what. The point of writing in this ephemeral forum is to indeed, as you phrased it:"Bring concepts across you perusal".

This is what makes writing our stuff interesting, confusing and actually enjoyable. We are fortunate to have such an outlet.

Sincerely, Sullster

Amos

January 29, 2003, 07:27 PM

Thanks sullster, I am having a good time and enjoy being here.

Soon I'll be gone to help built my son a house and I will enjoy that too. Life is like a song we sing. Would you agree?

Sabine Grant

January 30, 2003, 08:33 PM

I agree Amos... even as we may have no talent singing we can still sing it.;)

The Naked Mage

February 1, 2003, 06:45 AM

Perhaps instead of asking which is crazier, Roman Catholicism or Fundyism, the poll should have asked who you hate more, Amos or Radorth.

Jozak

July 22, 2004, 05:14 PM

Not to mention people on this board who seem to think the bodies of old dead Catholics are supernaturally preserved and now think there is something divine in a crispy saint making a joke about his own demise as if this were real.

Because some of them ACTUALLY ARE! Take a look at just this one page:

http://members.aol.com/ccmail/incorruptbodies.html

Jozak

July 22, 2004, 05:23 PM

I voted funy becasue I am Catholic :)

At any rate, I find Catholics, on the whole, to be a lot more tolerant of people present day, and can actually have a real discussion with them, not having to worry about them pulling some bible verse in a political debate, like those Protestant heretics. King James Version bible......humph. :banghead:

Boomeister

July 22, 2004, 06:33 PM

Being from the south, fundyism scares the bejesus out of me. Being in San Antonio, I'm around a lot of Catholics. They're good people. Most don't go to church nor really believe in catholism. They surely know how to party. The fundies (my family and others I've come across) really are wacky and some are psychotic. Catholicisms history is scary, but now they've mellowed out. The fundies seem to be getting stronger...they claim that more people turning to religion are turning to fundyism. I guess it provides a false sense of security. I'd rather be deserted on an island with a Catholic any ol' time. When I hear my mother or brother talk (they're fundies), I wonder where their brain cells went. They really come up with off the wall stuff, they're obsessed with it. They can be scary, but mostly they're just ridiculous.

Boomeister