Science + Creation

[Aiza]

To show that your beliefs have been "kept on track" you'd have to demonstrate that such a track exists in the first place, which I'm guessing that you wont/can't. Don't tell me you can "certainly demonstrate it", do so. I have an aversion to platitudes, you seem to think your statements mean something when they clearly don't. If the longevity and integrity of any given thing is a testament to it's being "on track" then my rocks are superior to your "rock". Since we were playing word games I figured I'd show you how it's done.

In Christianity, there is absolutely a "track", and it is the Marks of the Church, contained within the Nicene Creed and the oldest Tradition and Scripture held in common by all Christians. Age is not a "testament" its the connection to the Apostles, which should be obvious enough. Geez.

Your willful misunderstanding and equivocation with respect to the phrase 'on track' can only get you so far, Rhythm, and it certainly doesn't make a good argument. Anyone can be "on track":
"Proceeding as planned, as expected, or in a manner consistent with an established pattern"

What part of that do you not understand, Rhythm? Are you trying to deny that the Catholic Church has established beliefs? Reaally?

And I have no idea what forgery you are talking about. Like I said there is zero credible evidence or even real academic theories posited that assert Matthew 16::18 is a "forgery",and I am not doing your homework for you either.

[The Grand Nudger]

Less claiming, more demonstrating. Perhaps the Protestants are "on the right track" and you are hopelessly mistaken? Should I post the lmgtfy or are you willing to just back away from your claim about a lack of evidence regarding the passage in question?

No, wait..wait, "credible" or "academic" are being redifined in context aren't they, you mean there isn't any evidence you personally believe to be credible or academic...don't you? Word games, and bullshit. The Petrine theory is not only questioned (in detail) by those who do not believe, but also by those who do..you know..Protestants. Tell you what, find me evidence of the papacy from, lets say..the first 400 years of christianity?

[Angrboda]

What a load of horse swallop.

The Sunni's and Shia make the same ignorant noises about "tradition" and "tracks" and the only practical result is people blowing themselves and innocent children to bits, and flying planes into buildings. Or maybe Azrael would like to lecture us on the tradition of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Twelvers, and how they're on "the right track".

(And why do I suspect that Azrael, despite the female avatar, is likely a balding middle aged apologist?)


"Tradition is the illusion of permanance."
— Woody Allen

[Aiza]

Less claiming, more demonstrating. Perhaps the Protestants are "on the right track" and you are hopelessly mistaken? Should I post the lmgtfy or are you willing to just back away from your claim about a lack of evidence regarding the passage in question?

I didn't say "right track". I said on track--consistent with prior patterns. The whole basis of Protestantism, the entire meaning of Protestantism, was breaking off of the established church, and many of them break off from each other. That is what Protestantism is. And they break away from each other as well.



There is 100% a lack of evidence. For someone who complains about "less claiming and more demonstrating" you should start demonstrating yourself. And no, I can and have made google searches. Tell me exactly what evidence you find compelling enough to say its a "forgery".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popes
Gives a full list of Popes, which are attested to by Christian Fathers (and by their own writings) from the earliest days of Christianity. St. Linus is explicitly referred to as the heir to St. Peter by St. Iraneus in 180. We have writings from St. Anacletus, St. Clement, and St. Evaristus as Bishops of Rome.

The Sunni's and Shia make the same ignorant noises about "tradition" and "tracks" and the only practical result is people blowing themselves and innocent children to bits, and flying planes into buildings. Or maybe Azrael would like to lecture us on the tradition of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Twelvers, and how they're on "the right track".

(And why do I suspect that Azrael, despite the female avatar, is likely a balding middle aged apologist?)

I'm guessing you mean Aiza, Azrael is the traditional Angel of Death.

Flying planes into buildings (Really?) is by far a break with established traditions. Wtf?

And, ngl, "a balding middle aged apologist" is the weirdest attempt at ad hominem I think ever. I am in my 20s, certainly not balding (!!!!), and not an apologist either, really (maybe?). My avatar is St. Theresa of the Andes, a Carmelite Nun who I greatly admire and the writer of the quote in my avatar. I'm not called to a Carmelite Vocation as I am much more drawn to apostolic life, so I plan on joining the Dominicans instead (perhaps I will make my avatar St. Catherine of Sienna next).

[Angrboda]

I'm guessing

There. I fixed that for you.


Btw, you didn't clarify whether you are or are not female. Perhaps you're a balding twenty-something.

And it wasn't an attempt at ad hominem, just an expression of distrust. The real ad hominem was referring to you as Azrael in the first place. D'oh!

In Jewish mysticism, he is commonly referred to as "Azriel," not "Azrael," and is sometimes identified as the embodiment of evil

I guess there's no accounting for taste. Thanks for more (pseudo)history, Azazel.

(ETA: Maybe St. Theresa is appropriate for you after all...)

[The Grand Nudger]

The catholic church has a habit on staying on some track, that you keep insisting exists but fail to demonstrate? I smell bullshit. Is ToEbNS consistent with prior patterns, because your church (to their credit) recently decided that they were okay with that. Just as one recent and high profile example. In actuality the church has a long history of changing it's mind, of deviating from established patterns and traditions. There is no track, you are at the whims of an elderly man in a dress.

(Hey, for bonus points, riddle me this- if we aren't referencing "the right track" then who gives a shit what imaginary track any church is on? What is the track even for what service does it provide, how is it useful or relevant in any way? Is it possible for a catholic to reference a track without the implication that said track is the right track whilst simultaneously avoiding heretical beliefs?)

I love that your evidence for the establishment of the papacy is a citation from the catholic encyclopedia edited to wikipedia. Real thorough work there. Unfortunately I'm not asking you about the history of myths regarding the papacy, but it's actual establishment in history. Thats an impressive list of saints early on though isn't it. It's almost as if the previously pagan folks toiling under roman catholic oppression needed something like their old demigods to cling to. While I do appreciate the amusement that such an exercise provides me with, I can't help but wonder why you feel that this in some way validates your belief. Catholics have pointed to a long list of characters (some in all likelihood mythical) and applied the primacy of the papacy to them from some point in the future extending into the past because they believe that an unbroken succession of characters who can be tied back to their imaginary christ is important to them. We do know for fact that this was not how the church operated, and we do know when the papacy was officially declared (and even though it is often assumed that this was merely the vindication of pre-existing tradition we have quite a few rumblings as to an upper limit for how far back any given "Pope" was likely to have been a "
Pope" in his own lifetime as opposed to the title being granted long after he was dead ala the continuity narrative I mentioned above. The primacy of Rome was a political manouver, and before the primacy of Rome itself was established (which then led to the primacy of the bishop of Rome) and recognized the office of the pope (or more aptly, the many popes) was unrecognizable from what you call a pope today. Once upon a time, The bishop of Rome was just another bishop in a vast see of bishops. In other words, Peter, whatever he was, was not a pope, except by the insistence -after the fact- of those sects of the catholic church which finally and ultimately established their dominance over the others, and that took some time.

Here you go, since you don't mind wiki (I like wiki too)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope#Early_...0.93325.29

(take notice of the much more exhaustive and varied sources, that's important, and if you're going to wiki...that's how it done.)

Speaking of Popes and Saints, let me just say that the papacy has gone decidely downhill since it's origins in myth. The earliest popes were powerful wizards, and all that the See can manage to field now is the Popenfuhrer?

[downbeatplumb]

I see the catholics have reintroduced the indulgences scam.
They must be short of money.

http://www.infowars.com/the-catholic-chu...dulgences/

[The Grand Nudger]

You know it occurred to me that there is a simpler way to explain precisely why this Pope business is garbage.

Proposing that there has always been a pope (always in this extent referring to christianity, of course)is directly analogous to proposing that the academic field of particle physics has existed ever since the first caveman rubbed two sticks together. That somehow, because some thing that would eventually become particle physics existed that particle physics itself existed since then. The same is also true of this Peter the Pope nonsense, if, of course, there was actually a Peter to begin with.....

[Epimethean]

The only solid rock of the church is the massive weight of its dogma. The pompous nature of Catholics in proclaiming themselves to be original makes them even better targets for Mithraic mockery.

[Aiza]

Is ToEbNS consistent with prior patterns, because your church (to their credit) recently decided that they were okay with that.

What? No, really, what?

In actuality the church has a long history of changing it's mind, of deviating from established patterns and traditions.

No it doesn't.

(Hey, for bonus points, riddle me this- if we aren't referencing "the right track" then who gives a shit what imaginary track any church is on? What is the track even for what service does it provide, how is it useful or relevant in any way? Is it possible for a catholic to reference a track without the implication that said track is the right track whilst simultaneously avoiding heretical beliefs?)

You sure are hung up on the word "track"! If you re-read the context in which the word "track" appears you can see why its important.

I love that your evidence for the establishment of the papacy is a citation from the catholic encyclopedia edited to wikipedia.

No, the Catholic Encyclopedia was only cited in some of the notes on numbering, and its a pretty good resource to boot. You can click on individual Popes to get more about them and what they wrote and who referenced them. Its not hidden.

Also Saints are not demigods, the Classical-era Popes certainly not, most of them don't even have any patronages or feast days.

we do know when the papacy was officially declared (and even though it is often assumed that this was merely the vindication of pre-existing tradition we have quite a few rumblings as to an upper limit for how far back any given "Pope" was likely to have been a "Pope" in his own lifetime as opposed to the title being granted long after he was dead ala the continuity narrative I mentioned above.

Just like those "rumblings" about Matthew 16:19, eh??

Anyway, the bishop of Rome are the successors to St. Peter, there's no doubt they were given primacy, though the Eastern Churches try to say he was a "first among equals". Your link doesn't even deny this: unless by all the scare quotes around "Pope" you mean the literal word "Pope" in which case, sure? The word "Pope" was not around back then. You still have a successor to St. Peter in Rome who we still recognize today, soo...?

Speaking of Popes and Saints, let me just say that the papacy has gone decidely downhill since it's origins in myth. The earliest popes were powerful wizards, and all that the See can manage to field now is the Popenfuhrer?

What? No really, what?

Just realized this is the second time in this post I've needed to just ask you "what?" I promise I am not picking on you....just...huh? I greatly respect our early Popes, but wizards they were not.

Btw, you didn't clarify whether you are or are not female. Perhaps you're a balding twenty-something.

I said I wasn't balding. And yes, if you read my intro post I am "female" (or a woman, rather) though I find it creepy that you seem so interested in knowing that you need "clarification".

And it wasn't an attempt at ad hominem, just an expression of distrust. The real ad hominem was referring to you as Azrael in the first place. D'oh!

Reaalllly? lol, wow.

Also you don't know how Sainthood works. Or anything about St. Teresa of the Andes. For shame.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonization

You don't need to live a flashy life to be a Saint. You should read her letters some time, they are absolutely beautiful, and the fact that her life was cut off at 19 should never be held against her. The fact that she was so holy in spite of having a life so fraught with illness is, if anything, her strength.

6 Reasons to become a Carmelite Sister, by St. Teresa of the Andes (at age 15)

---

1. Because the life of prayer and union with God is what I love most of all; because I find it the most perfect; because it is a life of heaven, in a certain way, since a Carmelite is concerned only with being united to God and contemplating Him always and singing His praises. That thirst for prayer continually grows in me; my recollection is always continuous now, because whatever I do , I do with my Jesus and offer it to Him with love. When, for any reason whatever I am unable to make my prayer, I suffer at not being able to be with my God.

2. The solitude of Carmel helps recollection. That isolation from creatures helps Carmelites exchange with God alone and, as a result, to attain greater union with Him, because this is the heart of perfection. I believe that solitude won't tire me, as I'm always searching for it. I often become troubled when dealing with creature, because I'm with God when I'm alone.

3. The poverty of a Carmelite is very great. She can possess nothing, which means that her whole capacity for possessing things is filled by God alone. By being poor, she is made even more like to her Divine Spouse who had nowhere to lay His head. A Cermelite must possess God alone.

4. The penance to which she submits herself and the austerity of her life are a greater means of having her body made submissive to the soul in order to become more like her Divine Spouse who became a vicitm for our sins. She does penance for her own sins and for those of the world. And in this way she shows her love for God who has filled her with so many favors.

5. Her sacrifice is perpetual, without mitigation, from the time her religious life begins until she dies as a victim according to the example of Jesus Christ. And she does all this in silence with no one aware of it. Yet how many are there who think of this life as useless. Nevertheless, she's like the Lamb of God. She removes the sins from the world. She sacrifices herself to bring back to the sheepfold those sheep who have gone astray. But just as Christ did not know the world, neither does she know it. This abnegation enchants me completely. There is no room for self-love. She doesn't even see the fruit of her prayer. In heaven alone with she know this.

6. The goal she proposes to herself is very great: to pray and sanctify herself for sinner and priests. To sanctify herself so that the divine sap may be communicated through the union that exists between the faithful and all the members of the Church. She immolates herself on the cross, and her blood falls on sinners, pleading for mercy and repentance, for on the cross she is intimately united to Jesus Christ. Her blood, then, is mixed with His Divine Blood.

All these consideration that I make, Father, are the ones that induce me to prefer Carmel, since I believe that in that life, I will attain holiness. I have chosen the Carmelite life because I see that, in choosing it, I will find the cross; and I would travel, I believe, through the whole world with God's grace in search of it and to possess it, because on the cross is Jesus Christ.

---

A picture of her cell in the convent.

I see the catholics have reintroduced the indulgences scam.
They must be short of money.

The Church banned the sale of indulgences. Indulgences themselves are fine, and always have been, no "reintroduction" needed and the Church gains no income from them.