How does the Catholic Church get away with it?

Originally posted by Relentless

Originally posted by VIKINGANT
These issues are merely things that non Catholic (and even some Catholic) people have queried over time and I thought I might ask here for some further opinions and try to get some background on some rituals and traditions.

Okay - if that is really the reason you posted, and since no one has actually explained them, I'll give some background - which admittedly most Catholics have not bothered to educate themselves on.

Thank you Relentess. You are very much correct in saying that

Catholics have not bothered to educate themselves on.

I know many "hard core" Catholics and have asked them these questions and others and they either couldnt answer or the answeres differed extremely adding even more confusion or contributing to the hypocracy.
The biggest "seen" hypocracy is confession. Many of the Catholics I know do as they please, confess and all is well so they can go out and do it again.

It has been a while since I have visited this thread and I am now as there is something I have been stewing on for quite some time. Apart from the previously mentioned strange rituals the biggest 'how do they get away with it' to me in the alleged child abuse claims.

It has been said in another thread

there have been countless admissions of guilt by the Church

And this is from an apparent Catholic defender.

I know there are many other industries (music, teaching, police etc) who have had members involved in this practice but more often than not it is a member of the Catholic Church.

With admission of guilt and massive compensation payouts, it may not seem like they are ‘getting away with it’ but it is still going on so to me the punishment (if any) is not harsh enough. Commit a sin, go to confession and have the church pay out any claims and life is good again. If the priest is disrobed then he is free to enjoy carnal pleasures with worrying about his vows so it’s a win win for him.

Slightly off topic….what kind of person would give up his sex life only to hear the highlights of others anyway?

Originally posted by barmshadow84
The many different forms & I say "FORMS" of Christianity has their own system of keeping their members in line. For myself I'am a born again Southern Baptist, We have our own hang-ups.
However as a good friend of mine reminds me we are not to judge people. The important thing is that as Catholics they to have accepted Christ. [meaning they will go to heaven] so why torment over the little things

because worship is suppose to be pure...

worshiping icons IS against the second commandment

When speaking of Catholicism, we must keep in mind that there are two categories that may or may not have anything to do with each other. One is the Roman Catholic, the Christian who is worshipping Jesus Christ. Then we have the Church of Rome, the institution itself.

Although the Church itself may be guilty of changing things as it seems fit, the individual can be just as Christian as any Protestant.

Dark Elf is correct on her positoin.

We are indeed to judge individuals and individuals can judge us also. We are to judge Rightious judgement not our own personal judgement. If we do not have enough Wisdom to make judgements we will be subject to mixing olde wine with new, leven with unleven.

Also we as Christians have no say in who goes to heaven or hell. Not possible We do not save anyone nor condem anyone. We do however declare what the Word says and this often gives offense. But the notion of many Believers that they are saving someone or condeming someone is nonsense. That is not within our power and ability.

I dont observe dietary laws..of any kind for religious reasons. I am not, in this manner,under the bondage of the Olde Testament.

I also do not obsere holidays..Christmas, Easter, Birthdays etc etc. All days are the same to me and they are His days...not mine.

I do not pray for Mary and the Catholic Saints. I am not going to do this type of conduct.

Also dont believe in Purgatory. Not part of my instruction. This is nonsense to me.

I am of Baptist lineage here. Baptists have plenty of thier own problems too. The Church of Rome has no monopoly on problems. So too it is with Islam, or the Hebrews..Buddhists and others,none are above problems with thier beliefs.

The RCC is just a variation of phariseeism. They just happen to be Hellenic Pharisees...verses Judiac Pharisees. They just took a different path way back in olden times and out of Alexandria, Egypt. A variation of Gnostic Hellenic Pharisees. So how do you want your gnostic pharisees..hellenic or judiac?? Dont worry...there are lots of Baptist Pharisees too.

I will however declare that I believe this visit to America by the Pope is a strange event to me. What happened to the Seperation of Church and State?? The carryings on remind me of how deeply and directly involved a government ,meaning our government, can become involved with a organization like the RCC. We have no buisness sponsoring such a event by the Pope with official decrees, ceremonies, pomp and circumstances. There is much more going on here than meets the public eye. To me this is the very lack of Seperation of Church and State.

I resent the concept often and ignorantly promoted and fostered by many on these boards that the Church at Rome by default ..represents all of Christianity and is allowed in ignorance to play through as if they are all of Christianity. Not so. Our government is obviously and heavily involved in such a deception.
Christians have always been a minority in this world and historically not liked by the world. This knowlege alone leaves out the RCC as an organization.This also leaves out many evangelists like Billy Graham. Billy Graham can go anywhere in the world and be well received. This is not a mark of the followers of Jesus. It is a mark but not a Christian mark.

Be very careful what one posts as representing Christian..it is often not so.

By the way..one more very important concept to note and understand.

If our government is hobknobing in this manner..with a organization which is well received in so many places in the world..what does this tell one about the nature of our government and its religious beliefs/practices??? Remember what I said...Christians will never be well received by the world and the world system.

Just some random thoughts for consideration, all is not as it seems on the surface or in the flesh.

Thanks,
Orangetom

[edit on 22-4-2008 by orangetom1999]

:shk: another anti-catholic thread. How original. NOT! :shk:

Originally posted by VIKINGANT
Why is it that the Catholic Church can “make up” its own rules and make the whole Christian world obey?

1- the Catholic church, just like any other church or religion, has the right to make it's own rules as it sees fit.

2 - 'The whole Christian world' does NOT obey them. Heck, most Catholics don't either.

3 - Catholics are free to leave the church anytime they want.

Please correct me if I am wrong on these

You are wrong. Dead wrong. Pick up a catechism and read sometime.

Originally posted by VIKINGANT
... an opportunity for catholics to clear up some perhaps misconceived ideas about the church

Do it yourself.

Stop reading Jack Chick tracts. Stop listening to non-Catholics say what the Catholic Church believes. Stop listening to idiot fundamentalist ministers who lie through their teeth about Catholics.

1 - Read the catechism.
2 - Use Google.
3 - Catholic Answers has a website.

And frankly - the OP was definately NOT written in a manner that would invite Catholics to even bother with. It wasn't asking questions .. it was 'accusing' and spiteful.





[edit on 4/22/2008 by FlyersFan]

Yes. I absolutely agree with Dark Elf. Thank you Dark Elf and Orangetom for putting things into perspective.

I am not in any way questioning individual Catholics but the ‘organisation’ and its views that are projected on the world.

There are a great many non Christians whose only understanding on Christianity is what is portrayed on TV News and movies. This also leads to a lot of misconceived ideas. A great example of this (which I thought hilarious at the time) is in the movie Raising Helen when Helen thought she had corrupted the Lutheran Pastor thinking he couldn’t ‘get involved’ with women.

As far as FlyersFan and others go, yes I could google my heart out or read any number of tomes written in positive context about the church but I could also find as many pieces of literature offering negative information as well. If you read the whole thread, you will have seen that I have discussed a number of these issues with practicing as well as recovering Catholics and had various responses which is why I am interested in what the good people here have to say.

The intention here, however, IS in fact for us to discuss and air own individual points of view and interpretations of some of the matters involved.

As I have said before, it may appear to have been posed in an aggressive manner and even though it was not my initial intention to come across aggressive, I make no apologies if that is how it did come across. Only because it seems to have captured peoples attention. If it came across as all airy fairy and apologetic the real Anti-Catholics would also have had a field day so I wasn’t going to win any which way.

I have just been reading other related threads and I noticed one
statement mentioned over and over and made me remeber that I had heard it before but here?....

Originally posted by FlyersFan

1 - Read the catechism.

My question is have you ever read it? Would you care at any stage to quote from it here or in any other thread to make your point instead of using it as an exlaimation point in your argument.

Reading the catechism does not answer all questions and it would be beneficial to all to point out a particular section that is relevent at the time.

Originally posted by VIKINGANT
My question is have you ever read it?

Of course. Many times. And I continually reference back to it.
We have the adult version and the childrens versions in our reference
library.

Would you care at any stage to quote from it here ..

I'm TIRED of quoting and quoting from it only to see anti-Catholics just not bother reading it. YOU should get your own copy. All of you anti-Catholics should.

Listen ... You anti-Catholic people just bash the church in generalities and in old and very tired Jack Chickisms. It seems that you all are just very happy wallowing in your anti-catholicism and ignorant self-righteousness.

- 'calling anyone Father is forbidden' - ANSWERED a hundred times but you all still spew it out.

- 'they worship Mary' - ANSWERED a hundred times but you all still spew it out.

- 'deny that Christ rose from the dead' - ANSWERED a hundred times but you all still spew it out.

- 'they worship the pope' - ANSWERED a hundred times but you all still spew it out.

blah blah blah

Reading the catechism does not answer all questions

How would you know since you have never read it??? It answers a heck of a lot of them and if you people would just actually read it then you'd know what the church teaches and why. All this foolish 'why do they do this' and 'OMG look at what they do' crap would be answered.

Perhaps it's just laziness on the part of those that hate the Catholic church. They don't want to be bothered GOING TO THE SOURCE and reading why the Catholic Church does things the way it does. Gee .. if they actually did that, then they would have to find something else to mindlessly hate. Perhaps they are just too darn lazy.


Just look at the title of this thread - How does the Catholic Church get away with it? How can you even ask that when you haven't bothered to see what the church teaches or why? READ THE CATECHISM!


Unbelievable :shk:

so wait im confused, the catechism replaces the bible?

Originally posted by miriam0566
so wait im confused, the catechism replaces the bible?

:shk: Snarky.

People are asking why the Catholic Church believes and practices what it does. The answers to how the Catholic Church runs, and why, are found in the Catechism. Explainations come complete with bible quotes and reasons given by Church Fathers - church fathers from all the way back to the first few hundred years after Christ rose from the dead.

reply to post by miriam0566

so wait im confused, the catechism replaces the bible?

Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote the Summa Theologica in 1274
en.wikipedia.org...

It was intended as a manual for beginners as a compilation of all of the main theological teachings of that time. It summarizes the reasonings for almost all points of Christian theology in the West, which, before the Protestant Reformation, subsisted solely in the Roman Catholic Church. The Summa's topics follow a cycle: the existence of God, God's creation, Man, Man's purpose, Christ, the Sacraments, and back to God....
....Each part contains several questions, each of which revolves around a more specific subtopic; one such question is "Of Christ's Manner of Life." Each question contains several articles, which are phrased as interrogative statements dealing with specific issues, such as "Whether Christ should have led a life of poverty in this world?" The Summa has a standard format for handling each article.

A series of objections to the (yet to be stated) conclusion are given; one such objection, for example, is that "Christ should have embraced the most eligible form of life . . . which is a mean between riches and poverty."
A short counter statement, beginning with the phrase "sed contra" ("on the contrary"), is then given; this statement almost always references authoritative literature, such as the Bible or Aristotle. In this instance, Aquinas begins, "It is written [in Matthew 8:20]: 'The Son of Man hath not where to lay His head.' "
The actual argument is then made; this is generally a clarification of the issue. For example, Aquinas states that "it was fitting for Christ to lead a life of poverty in this world" for four distinct reasons, each of which is expounded in some detail.
Individual replies to the preceding objections are then given, if necessary. These replies range from one sentence to several paragraphs in length. Aquinas's reply to the above objection is that "those who wish to live virtuously need to avoid abundance of riches and beggary, . . . but voluntary poverty is not open to this danger: and such was the poverty chosen by Christ."

This is part of a long explanation of this work, from Wikipedia.
It is in the form of a question and answer, covering topics, in a logical order.
It presents itself as a well argued rational discussion.
(This is one book I do not own, because it was at the Library, but I did read it)
I found that on the more tricky topics, it just says, the Canon says this about it.
The fact is that Aquinas ends up making sure that every word of this book is consistent with the Canons.
It is very convenient to be able to look up a question in a book like this, rather than to have to sort through all the Canons and figure out how to apply them to real like.
The point of dragging all this out is that I think the Catechism was built on this model and the first Catechism may have actually been an abridged version of it.
So, to answer the question. Yes, the Canons supersede the Bible.
The Catechism is based on the Canons, so it, in turn, is a higher authority than the Bible. (that is, according to the Catholic Church)


[edit on 11-7-2008 by jmdewey60]

reply to post by FlyersFan

Explainations come complete with bible quotes and reasons given by Church Fathers - church fathers from all the way back to the first few hundred years after Christ rose from the dead.

This is why something like the Summa Theologica was such an important piece of work.
It is no easy thing to do, dragging out all the different quotes, pertaining to specific topics.
I own the complete works of Eusebius, Tertullian, Origen, Justin, Augustine
Jerome, and Philo and a bunch of others.
It takes up a whole book case and having to go through all that, to find one point is a daunting task.
Thats why I think Aquinas must have had a room full of monks to write his book.
Even if you had all that digitized and had a search engine, it would be a pain in the ass.
So, the Catechism is a significant work and they have had time to refine it.
If you are a Catholic and want to know what to think, or a non-Catholic who wants to know what the church thinks, the Catechism is a good resource.

[edit on 11-7-2008 by jmdewey60]

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Explainations come complete with bible quotes and reasons given by Church Fathers - church fathers from all the way back to the first few hundred years after Christ rose from the dead.

looked over the catechism for a few hours, mostly just browsing. its funny though that not everything is backed up scripturally. the doctrine that conflicts with scripture either has no scriptural reference or it references some writing after the bible.

a few i saw just thumbing through, overall its a good book but too many falsities for me.

366 The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not "produced" by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.235

235 Cf. Pius XII, Humani Generis: DS 3896; Paul VI, CPG § 8; Lateran Council V (1513): DS 1440.

i notice it lacks scriptures, so i pulled up some.

prov 19:[16] He that keepeth the commandment keepeth his own soul; but he that despiseth his ways shall die.

ezek 18:[4] ... the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

[20] The soul that sinneth, it shall die. ....

1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called.50 The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.51

50 Cf. Council of Trent (1546): DS 1514; cf. Col 1:12-14.
51 Cf. CIC, can. 867; CCEO, cann. 681; 686,1.

mark 16:[16] He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

how can a baby believe?

john 17:[3] And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

how can a baby know god? its funny too because they mention that it didnt start until the 2nd century. the only possibility is when they say families were baptised, but still nothing saying that a baby must be baptized in the bible

2789 When we pray to "our" Father, we personally address the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. By doing so we do not divide the Godhead, since the Father is its "source and origin," but rather confess that the Son is eternally begotten by him and the Holy Spirit proceeds from him. We are not confusing the persons, for we confess that our communion is with the Father and his Son, Jesus Christ, in their one Holy Spirit. The Holy Trinity is consubstantial and indivisible. When we pray to the Father, we adore and glorify him together with the Son and the Holy Spirit.

completely unscriptural, doesnt have any references

253 The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the "consubstantial Trinity". The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: "The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God." In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), "Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature."

another that is completely unscriptural, only reference is the lateran council 12 centuries later.

Yeah .. brushing through a catechism at 100 mph will really lend itself to understanding the Catholic faith. READ IT.

Originally posted by miriam0566
not everything is backed up scripturally.

1 - The Catholic Church has scripture AND sacred tradition.
2 - The Catechism explains that and explains why.
3 - The BIBLE says that sacred tradition is just fine and even encourages it.
4 - Nothing in the Catholic Church goes against scripture. It may be extra-scriptural (tradition is outside of scripture) but it doesn't go AGAINST what the bible says.

Originally posted by miriam0566
how can a baby believe?

Scripture states that whole families were baptized. Babies are part of families. Therefore - babies can be baptized. When a child reaches the age of maturity (around 14 -just like in the Jewish religion) they are 'confirmed' in the faith. They state the baptism promises and are annointed with blessed holy oil. THAT’S IN THE CATECHISM.

As far as your 'one God in Three Persons' not being scriptural.... yes it is.

“In the beginning was The Word (Jesus) and The Word was with God and The Word was God … “

“Let US make man in OUR image”

“Go baptize in the name of the Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit”

www.catholic.com...
www.catholic.com...

Etc etc

If you decide that you don’t believe interpretations .. fine. But make sure that if you accuse the Catholic Church’s theology of something then you actually get it right and not accuse it of something that isn’t there.

BTW .. The BIBLE itself says that not all truths are held within it. Nor are all of Christ’s teachings. ‘All the books in the world are not enough to hold the teachings of Jesus’.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Yeah .. brushing through a catechism at 100 mph will really lend itself to understanding the Catholic faith.

READ IT.

ive read the bible for close to 18 years, shouldnt that be enough?

1 - The Catholic Church has scripture AND sacred tradition.

rev 22:[18] For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

3 - The BIBLE says that sacred tradition is just fine and even encourages it.

sacred tradition is different from apostate teaching

4 - Nothing in the Catholic Church goes against scripture. It may be extra-scriptural (tradition is outside of scripture) but it doesn't go AGAINST what the bible says.

except when there isnt scripture to back it up, or unless its talking about an immortal soul, but other than that it doesnt conflict... sort of.

Scripture states that whole families were baptized. Babies are part of families. Therefore - babies can be baptized. When a child reaches the age of maturity (around 14 -just like in the Jewish religion) they are 'confirmed' in the faith. They state the baptism promises and are annointed with blessed holy oil. THAT’S IN THE CATECHISM.

i know it is, but it also says that its unknown whether babies were baptized in those families, and it also admits that the earliest known infant baptisms were in the second century. does that sound in harmony with the bible examples were those getting baptized knew what they were getting into?

As far as your 'one God in Three Persons' not being scriptural.... yes it is.

“In the beginning was The Word (Jesus) and The Word was with God and The Word was God … “

“Let US make man in OUR image”

“Go baptize in the name of the Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit”

lovely scriptures, but not actually prove anything about the trinity. ive gone over these scriptures exhaustively in another thread

www.belowtopsecret.com...

If you decide that you don’t believe interpretations .. fine. But make sure that if you accuse the Catholic Church’s theology of something then you actually get it right and not accuse it of something that isn’t there.

but i showed quite clearly that certain things are "there"

BTW .. The BIBLE itself says that not all truths are held within it. Nor are all of Christ’s teachings. ‘All the books in the world are not enough to hold the teachings of Jesus’.

true, but that doesnt give us free license to add things either

reply to post by VIKINGANT


Well VikinGant,

Let me answer your questions in the most complete and sincere way:

First at all I don't see where is the mater that the Catholic church must get away, all these three costumes are perfectly Christians, and it is hilarious to try to use them to discredite any faith or denomination.

- The not eat of meat the Good Friday, and also the other 40 previous days is a simbol of spiritual preparation for the Sacrifice of Christ in the Cross. This ritual is followed not only by Catholics but by Orthodoxs, Armenians, Coptics, as well as all the other Christian denominations of the eastern rites. In other words this a tradition in all the most ancient part of the chritianity so it is so probably that came from the ancient Christian communities. Abstinence to eat meat means personal sacrifice as penitence to show spiritualy and sincere repent of sins.

This is supported in the way Jesus prepare himself for his ministry: he went 40 days to the desert and didnt eat anything on all that time: chk pls Matthew 4, Mark 1, and Luke 4.


- The so called Cult to images is frankly part of the protestant rethoric since the XVI century, and is totally false. The images or statues are not idols in the Catholic church, no body believes that they are "Gods", they are just there only to create an athmosphere of pray, to remember the people who were the important personages of the Christian faith.

It is important to recall that during many epochs in the past not all the common people had good education so this was a very effective way to teach religion, since even there were peasants or other poor that didnt know how to write or read.

This is part of the fog curtains that Martin Luther created to discredit the church. Could you imagine that if this would be truth that means that he personally was an idolatric for more than half of his life since he was an Agustine Priest before he abjured of his faith.

Besides this even God himself supported the use of images, chk this:

From the Book of Exodus, Old Testament

The Ark

25:10 Make an ark of acacia wood, 2 and a half cubits long, 1 and a half cubits wide, and 1 and a half cubits high.
25:11 Cover it with a layer of pure gold on the inside and outside, and make a gold rim all around its top.
25:12 Cast four gold rings for [the ark], and place them on its four corners, two rings on one side, and two on the other side.
25:13 Make two carrying poles of acacia wood and cover them with a layer of gold.
25:14 Place the poles in the rings on the sides of the ark, so that the ark can be carried with them.
25:15 The poles must remain in the ark's rings and not be removed.
25:16 It is in this ark that you will place the testimony that I will give you.
25:17 Make a golden cover for the ark, 2 and a half cubits long and 1 and half cubits wide.
25:18 Make two golden cherubs, hammering them out from the two ends of the cover.
25:19 One cherub shall be on the end, and one on the other. Make the cherubs from [the same piece of gold] as the cover itself, on its two ends.
25:20 The cherubs shall spread their wings upward so that their wings shield the cover. The cherubs shall face one another, but their faces shall [also be inclined downward] toward the cover.
25:21 Place the cover on top of the ark [after] you place into the ark the testimony that I will give you.
25:22 I will commune with you there, speaking to you from above the ark-cover, from between the two cherubs that are on the Ark of Testimony. [In this manner] I will give you instructions for the Israelites.

So is God Idolatric????!!!! when he was given clear instructions to Moses to make two Querubins for the Arc????!!!! That is absurdity, he was just requesting two poweful images to force the respect of the people.

- No body can buy its salvation in the Catholic church, that is complete aburdity, the personal salvation is the result of an entire life of faith, hope, love, repent of sins and good actions. However the Church offer special intentions of pray for the soul of one person for the families, and that is rarely, only in exceptional epochs like in a Saint year, that is every 25 years in the Liturgic calendar. Those intentions are not sold, just offered for any one that wants to apply it for any relative already death.

Now let me explain what is the religious base of those special intentions of the church for the souls that are in the Purgatory: the famous passage of the Gospel that says as follows:

Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ. (Matthew 16:17-20)

So the indulgences are perfectly consistent with the authority given by JesusChrist in person to Simon Peter and through him to all his succesors.

I hope this answer your questions about this three costumes that are part of Catholicism but as I clarified of many other christian denominations, and not only of the east rites, even the Episcopalians follow them.

Thanks for your atention,

The Angel of lightness



[edit on 7/13/2008 by The angel of light]

Originally posted by The angel of light
- The so called Cult to images is frankly part of the protestant rethoric since the XVI century, and is totally false. The images or statues are not idols in the Catholic church, no body believes that they are "Gods", they are just there only to create an athmosphere of pray, to remember the people who were the important personages of the Christian faith.

come to sevilla during semana santa and you will see that is flase false false.

It is important to recall that during many epochs in the past not all the common people had good education so this was a very effective way to teach religion, since even there were peasants or other poor that didnt know how to write or read.

yes the church is familiar with changing its faith so that more people are inclined to join

Besides this even God himself supported the use of images, chk this:

the ark of covenant was only seen by the high priest and only once a year. other than that, it was hidden in the most holy compartment. god was said to reside above it between the 2 cherubs, not in it. so no, its not an idol

reply to post by miriam0566

Dear miriamo566:
Let me check your arguments to show you that there is nothing new on them and actually you are giving to me the entire reason.

come to sevilla during semana santa and you will see that is flase false false.

Let me leave Jacob Bronowski, one of the most recognized philosphers of Science of the XX century to respond your comment. Dr Bronowski, Polish born but American too, was a Mathematician and Biologist. He explains in the chapter The music of the spheres, of his famous book The Ascent of the Man, why Chritianism (the Traditional one and not the Protestant) was precisely the origin of Rainacense and therefore the direct antecesor of the industrial revolution and why that never happend in the Muslim countries:

From the Ascent of Man, Jacob Bronowski
Thinking about these forms of pattern, exhausting in practice the possibilities of the symmetries of
space (at least in two dimensions), was the great achievement of Arab mathematics. And it has a wonderful finality, a thousand years old. The king, the naked women, the eunuchs and the blind musicians made a marvelous formal pattern in which the exploration of what exists was perfect, but which, alas, was not looking for any change. There is nothing new in mathematics, because there is nothing new in human thought, until the ascent of man moved forward to a different dynamic.
Christianity began to surge back in northern Spain about 1000 AD from footholds like the village of Santillana in a coastal strip which the Moors never conquered. It is a religion of the earth there, expressed in the simple images of the village - the ox, the ass, the Lamb of God. The animal images would be unthinkable in Moslem worship. And not only the animal form is allowed; the Son of God is a child, His mother is a woman and is the object of personal worship. When the Virgin is carried in
procession, we are in a different universe of vision: not of abstract patterns, but of abounding and irrepressible life.
When Christianity came to win back Spain, the excitement of the struggle was on the frontier. Here Moors and Christians, and Jews too, mingled and made an extraordinary culture of different faiths. In 1085 the centre of this mixed culture was fixed for a time in the city of Toledo. Toledo was the
intellectual port of entry into Christian Europe of all the classics that the Arabs had brought together from Greece, from the Middle East, from Asia.
We think of Italy as the birthplace of the Renaissance. But the conception was in Spain in the twelfth century, and it is symbolized and expressed by the famous school of translators at Toledo, where the ancient texts were turned from Greek (which Europe had forgotten) through Arabic and Hebrew into Latin. In Toledo, amid other intellectual advances, an early set of astronomical tables was drawn up, as an encyclopedia of star positions. It is characteristic of the city and the time that the tables are
Christian, but the numerals are Arabic, and are by now recognizably modern.

miriam0565
yes the church is familiar with changing its faith so that more people are inclined to join

Well it is logical than when there are no solid elements to discredit a person or an institution the most desperate action is to try to insult it systematically. By the way, Mohatmas Ghandi, champion of the Peace makers, said once:" Any insult, any injury says more about the person that causes it than about who receive it".

Your comment recalled me that when S.S. John Paul II visited USA the first time in 1980, in his visit to the white house he had the opportunity to talk with many relevant Americans and one of them was Henry Kissinger. Mr Kissinger, former State Secretary asked him this question: Since I am not a believer I cannot analize your visit from the religious point of view but fromt the poltical one, Why Holyness you decided to touch so polemic topics in this visit like divorce, abort, natality control, femenism? it would not better to avoid them? The Pope responded: "That is precisely the moral authority of the Church, the people knows very well that we are not politicians, so we don't tell the people the things that they want to listen, but the ones that are true, based in the traditional Christian Theology, so we never change it doesn't matter what epoch or circumstances we have. That is the reason for which the people believe in us."

the ark of covenant was only seen by the high priest and only once a year. other than that, it was hidden in the most holy compartment. god was said to reside above it between the 2 cherubs, not in it. so no, its not an idol

Congratulations, you have learnt the lesson I taught very well, it is even for me so difficutl to find a better argument to refute Luther's worst error and most dubious accusations against the Roman Church. Of course thats the same thing the Catholic, Episcopalian, Armenian, Orthodox and Coptic churches said about images, God does not live on them, they only be part of the ornate of the altar of God.

Thanks for your comments,

Your friend,

The Angel of lightness




[edit on 7/13/2008 by The angel of light]