"Cult of Mary"

Quote: FrGamble

It is confusing isn't it how people can take the written word to make it mean different things. I'm glad you cleared it up, you are the author of the post after all so you would know best what it says.

Let me give you a quick rule of thumb: If you think I've said either something positive about religion, or something that justifies religion, then there is a 100.1% chance that you're wrong.

Quote:

You all call it revisionist because it doesn't say what you want it to say,

I call it revisionist because no one ever admits it says what it really says if it works against their interests. Because it can be interpreted to mean whatever the people in power want it to mean. because you can justify slavery, war, plunder, mass murder and everything else you want with a Bible in your hand.

Quote:

Why don't we trust the authors and the ones that have diligently studied the Scriptures and prayerfully poured over them instead of you making up some revisionist theory about what it really says.

I don't care what it says because 1) it's merely another expression of altruist morality and 2) It's all myth. Now, many myths are founded in reality, but it's hard to say what kernel of truth hides inside the myth. In the case of the Bible most of it deals with a tiny nation of small importance to the world at the time it was written. I'm far more interested in reliable histories of the nations and empires that shaped the foundations of our current civilization. This means Babylon, Egypt, Greece, Macedonia, Persia, Rome, Byzantium, among others.

Quote: FrGamble

Why don't we trust the authors and the ones that have diligently studied the Scriptures and prayerfully poured over them .

Because when you do that, trust the
scholars who prayerfully poured
over them, we end up with 3000 different
brands of the religion. They all think
they're right and will scream each other
down in arguments to prove it. The
Catholics are the worst of them because
they added so much to it that wasn't
there, just because they wanted to and
it looked logical.

Nope, remember it is only after people stopped trusting the scholars who for over a millennium had poured over the Scriptures that things splintered into 3000 denominations and store front churches. When people started behaving like you and claiming to be experts over the Bible when it was painfully obvious they had an axe to grind and did not know much at all about the Scriptures that things started to fall apart.

Quote: Evenbob

No no no, you never proved me wrong on
one thing.

Just trying to remember recently I've proved you wrong about your interpretation of Luke 12, the Church's stance on interpreting the Bible, the law of 1408, and the history of Tyndale. That's just a few pages I could go back further.

Quote:

You just gave the answer from
the Approved Book on Rewriting the History
of the Catholic Church and proclaimed me
wrong. The book is a constant work in progress,
they have a spin unit in the Vatican that never
sleeps. Fools a lot of people, but I'm not one
of them.

You and ace want an example of circular logic here it is. When you ask for an answer and it is given you say it is Catholic spin, when further explained or shown that you are wrong; you claim this is an answer from some approved book of Catholic answers; if asked why you think that it is because Catholics just make stuff up to suit them; its their Catholic spin again. Do you see who is really spinning around and around?

As I've done plenty of times, just admit you are wrong on some things. As Face mentioned earlier in regards to me, I think people will respect you more for doing so, I know I will.

Quote: FrGamble

Nope, remember it is only after people stopped trusting the scholars.

With good reason! Power hungry hypocrites
who's only goal was advancing the Church
at any cost. Absolute power corrupts absolutely
was never better illustrated than by the Church
for most of it's awful history. Even today, with
the pedophile scandals, the hubris and arrogance
the Church oozes is mind boggling.

Quote: FrGamble

When you ask for an answer and it is given you say it is Catholic spin,

Which is exactly what it is. That you don't see that
isn't my problem. The Church's history speaks for
itself, loud and clear. Look at the last 30 years of
scandal and denial and sweeping under the rug.
Then look at the last 1000 years. Your god doesn't
have a broom big enough, or a rug thick enough.

And around and around we go. The Church's history over the last 30 years has not been only about scandal. Are we forgetting about Mother Teresa, John Paul II, and Pope Francis? I wonder if we compared the history of the Church in the last 30 years to the history of the country we both love and are part of, what would we think?

Quote: FrGamble

Nope, remember it is only after people stopped trusting the scholars who for over a millennium had poured over the Scriptures that things splintered into 3000 denominations and store front churches.

This would mean over a millennium passed between the writing of the New Testament and the 4th or 5th century AD when the newly legalized Christian church had already splintered into Nestorians, Arians, Monophysites and Niceans.

Since a millennium is 1,000 years and yet only 500 years had passed between the events referenced, we're forced to consult Aristotle. Contradictions cannot exist, see? If you find one, you ought to check your premises, very likely one of them is wrong.

We have two premises: 1) At most 500 years passed between the writing of the New Testament and the 5th Century AD. 2) Only after over 1,000 years of trusting in scholars did the church splinter. Which one is wrong?

I want to add I've been more acerbic on this topic than usual, because lately I've been reading some Christian thoughts on transgender people. Most read like a manual on how to push a transgender person, but particularly a transgender woman, into a depression so deep they'll commit suicide. All in the name of Christian "love."

There might be another premise that is wrong. Did the Church really splinter with the heresies of Arianism and the like? While these were important theological debates and discussions I think it would be wrong to say that they splintered the Church. Where are the Churches of Arianism, Nestorianism, or Monophysim today? Actually I've heard it argued that Islam is really a version of Arianism, which I disagree with.