Science + Creation

[Aiza]

"We have apostolic succession." Well who says that matters? "The pope does, whose authority is confirmed by apostolic succession."

All of the pillars of the Church are supported by the others.

Selling salvation to finance the pope's wild parties.

The Church never ever sold salvation. If you are talking about indulgences, indulgences only remove temporal sin that you may spend less time in Purgatory. They certainly don't "grant salvation". For a brief period they were sold as a fundraising measure to fund the building of the Basilica, though that practice was banned.

Burning people at the stake for daring to translate the bible into English.

This did not happen either, the earliest English Bible translation ever was by St. Bede the Venerable. William Tyndale's translation was unapproved by the Church and furthermore he was a heretic (denounced prayer to Saints, supported "Sola fide" and believer's baptism), which is why he was killed. It still wasn't right to condemn him to death, but I always need to nitpick sentences like these.
[qupte]All you have to do is let God stick out his fickle finger of fate, fuck you in the ass with a horrible and fatal disease, and kill you before your prime[/quote]
She isn't a Saint because she died. She is a Saint from the beautiful writings and letters she wrote while she was alive, and her dedication to the Church.

I don't know how I could compare the Catholic Church to the fascism of Nazi Germany, I mean sure, they both sanctioned the theft of Jewish property and the wholesale slaughter of Jews

What? Catholics have killed Jews in the past, but to say the Church sanctioned their slaughter wholesale? When? Where? Most of the quotes from Popes I know of explicitly condemn violence aimed toward Jewish folk.

---

quote='Rhythm' pid='298581' dateline='1339506708']
-"The early Church Fathers taught creationism—though there was debate over whether God created the world in six days, as Clement of Alexandria taught,[8] or in a single moment as held by Augustine,[9] and a literal interpretation of Genesis was normally taken for granted in the Middle Ages and later, until it was rejected in favour of uniformitarianism (entailing far greater timeframes) by a majority of geologists in the 19th century."[/quote]
So...basically the Church Fathers taught a variety of things, none of which ever became dogma, and creationism was taken for granted until new geological discoveries were made introducing new ideas which are also allowed and also none of which ever became dogma? You don't say.

I mean, seriously, nothing you said here contradicts me in any way, and the fact that different Church Fathers thought different things sort of solidifies that fact, doesn't it?

They never changed codified or swapped one tradition for another? So, elaborate on what those "variety of things" were then, if you please?

No, they never swapped one Tradition for another. Sacred Tradition is integral to the Faith and held in common by the universal church. Small-t traditions can and do vary from place to place and are sometimes swapped out.

Church councils firstly clarify and discuss matters of dogma. For example, when the pill came out, some people argued that it should be allowed for Catholics based on the fact that it was an extension of a humans hormonal cycle. The Pope stepped in and ruled otherwise, that it divorced sex from its procreative aspect like any other artificial birth control. New issues and new discoveries create new implications for dogma.

Sometimes it defines dogma, turning common theological beliefs and recognizing them as established parts of the Faith. For example, it is a required belief of all Catholics that the Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived without sin and was totally sinless throughout her whole life. This doctrine was not formally defined until relatively recently, but was always present in Tradition and the Church certainly never made a proclamation that the Blessed Virgin Mary was born with original sin, so its not at all a "change". This can also be done in response to a specific heresy: the rise of Arianism prompted the Church to formally define the Trinity.

Even more often they revise tradition. Such as Vatican II having more Holy Masses said in the language of the people. This is a small t tradition, as Latin wasn't actually an integral part of dogma: indeed, Eastern Catholics always preached in their own languages and earlier Christians did as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenical_...l_councils

For many more.

You don't have to choose between either, and no one asked you too, but I am giving you a factually accurate account of the rise of Rome (as it pertains to what would eventually become the religion you recognize) and establishment of the papacy, and I could be more detailed about it if you really wanted to dive in. You are offering me fairy tales as though there were some choice to be made between them and history, there isn't.

We are talking about Christianity here. To you I am sure it is all ~fairy tales~ but to Christians its literal Scripture.

Oh, excellent, then you are prepared to definitively show that the Petrine passage is a part of the original manuscript whilst simultaneously removing any doubt as to the entire books authorship and dating?

The "Petrine passage" is present in every single known manuscript of Matthew always in the same place as well. When a verse is added in later, we end up with some early books not having it in, and when its a larger passage you often see it move around as different people inserted it in different areas. So its not a forgery by any legitimate opinion.

As for "authoriship" and "dating" I am not sure what you are even on about. The Gospel of Matthew has an unknown author and is commonly dated to around 80-90 or so. None of this is at all relevant to "the Petrine passage" or your imaginary "rumblings".

You guys really love magic, you perform it weekly, and it is codified as an article of your faith. So why do you cringe away the moment someone asks you about the magic? Why does it become less magical in the asking?

Because magic, in the religious sense, refers to appeals to the metadivine realm. Monotheists don't really believe in any power higher than God, making "magic", as it is religiously defined, impossible (indeed, even attempts at "magic" are seen as sin and trying to subvert the laws of nature/God). The Saints have no power on their own.