So you’re saying we did complain about Catholic immigrants?
I already clarified that. Which part of this aren’t you getting? I even posted a wiki about a (well-known) political movement dedicated to it.
Yeah but according to the article they wouldn’t say anything when asked.
Members of the movement were required to say “I know nothing” whenever they were asked about its specifics by outsiders, providing the group with its colloquial name.
On the other hand, they were an organized political party that once won 52 House and 4 Senate seats and 21% of the presidential vote.
Doesn’t change the answer.
These people’s minds are anchored to the past (a mythical one probably). And they’re not Europeans. So, again, not related to the statement that European Protestantism doesn’t have this mindset of Catholics being outsiders or lesser Christians. I have no doubt the guys pictured think of most people as lesser human beings or as not humans at all.
Which was a way to avoid any possible admissions of of guilt that might lead to charges.
I don’t really understand what you’re saying- do you mean to say you think there weren’t any organized efforts to oppose Catholic immigration in the first 150 years or so of American history?
It is an entirely modern, secular view that simply noticing that someone is different from you implies that you have to silence them or wipe them out. I have not seen any Christians calling for holy war upon the Catholics or indeed vice versa - all the shitstirring in Current Year has come from followers of other religions, ancient and modern. As for the guys with the guns, I think the “by their fruits shall you know them” quote applies here.
It’s not that Catholics are “lesser Christians”. They simply aren’t Christians, as described earlier. The Christian reaction to this observation is not “All the Catholics must die!” but “I wish the Catholics were Christians”.
The reason is incredibly simple: ascribing spiritual authority to anyone other than God/Christ is essentially a denial of the divinity of Christ. This goes all the way back to “Thou shalt have no other gods except me”, and is reiterated in “No one can serve two masters.” Although in that case the object of the lesson is money*, the point is clear: there is only one God. There is no hierarchy of lesser gods, saints, and human functionaries below him. Either Jesus is the exclusive source of forgiveness and salvation - as he explicitly claimed - or the priest/Pope/Church is. Trying to reconcile those two competing beliefs will tie you in all kinds of philosophical knots … with no obvious benefit. You cannot serve both God and the Church.
I would argue that the Catholics who are Christians are those who simply ignore the claims of the Church and focus on biblical teachings. There are plenty of such people. There are also people who ignore pretty much all of it and just call themselves Catholics, associating themselves more with a “Catholic” subculture or political beliefs rather than Christianity (Irish sectarianism is a good example of this). The label “Catholic” is not really the important point; and again it comes back to “by their fruits …”.
*The rest of the quote is: “Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.”
I think you are retroactively redefining what it means to be a christian.
It’s a bit like someone from Qing China looking back at the languages, practices, customs, hairstyle, and clothing of people from the Tang and Han dynasty, and deciding those people from the past aren’t Chinese because they are different from Qing dynasty Chinese.
If you look at the history and development of Christianity, and how early Christians were persecuted, it’s easy to see how it made sense for the early church to give martyrs saint status to commemorate them.
Catholics based their belief in confessions in the Bible as well.
I’m pretty sure they could justify the Vatican sending out judgements using the Bible. I guess that’s the beauty of the Bible.
Anyway, I’m an atheist just interested in the development of all religions. I don’t really have skin in the game.
This guy is reaching. He seems to be claiming, for example, that the Church has somehow acquired the very limited power that Jesus granted to his apostles, in person, simply by, uh … I dunno, just being the Church. This sort of thing is clearly frowned upon when you look at the behaviour of the Apostles:
But Peter helped him up, saying, “Stand up; I, too, am just a man.”
and of course there was Herod Agrippa:
They shouted, “This is the voice of a god, not of a man.” Immediately, because Herod did not give praise to God, an angel of the Lord struck him down, and he was eaten by worms and died.
Slathering all this additional stuff on top of Christianity is pointless at best. I already pointed out why it’s illogical, unnecessary, and dangerous - in that it completely ruins the philosophical/spiritual underpinnings of Christianity, gives unwarranted power to people who may abuse it, and adds nothing of value. Of course a Catholic priest will attempt to justify it; to quote Mandy Rice-Davies, “Well he would, wouldn’t he?”. It’s self-serving sophistry.
No, it really isn’t. I don’t think atheists are in a position to intellectually understand this. Religions, by the nature, go right down into the core of your being - your soul, if you like. Your religious beliefs influence everything you do and say - this is encapsulated in:
Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
If these beliefs are evil or dysfunctional, then you will do evil; or you will be dysfunctional. And that’s equally true, of course, of made-up religions like critical race theory, Communism, or the divinity of doctors.
By bringing humans - priests or saints - into the personal relationship with God, the whole thing is corrupted. And you can see the result of that corruption in societies that take Catholicism seriously.
I actually think that of any religion… so…
I’m just saying the Bible can be used to justify just about anything, and you can look at them and say that’s morally wrong, and reinterpret it, like for example using the Mark of Cain to justify slavery, or using Leviticus to justify killing homosexuals, or the list goes on.
If someone is not actually abusing people with less power with one of these interpretations, I tend to give them a pass. Of course, I’m an atheist, what do I know.
Atheists can just abuse people and do mean things, because he can, no need to justify it with religion.
No there definitely was. I didn’t understand what tempogain was saying.
His disciples called him rabbi all over the New Testament.
Two entirely different issues here.
-
The OT is as much a history of the Jews (and surrounding cultures) as anything else. Although US Christian denominations of the fire-and-brimstone variety refer to it often, this is a bit of an aberration. It’s the religious text of the Jews (or part of it, anyway) and Jesus’s intent was to bring “a new covenant” with God.
-
You really can’t use the Bible to justify “just about anything”. The NT is a very short text (most of it is repetition) and the basic ideas in it are incredibly simple. I think people actually struggle with the simplicity, because it’s utterly unlike any other mainstream religion. “Is that it? There must be more to it than that. Where are the rules and the rituals?”. Its simplicity is its power. Adding rules and rituals breaks it.
Humans are tribal, and we really just want to do mean things to those other people that in our mind are barely human shaped things. It’s even written into our laws.
We do not need religion to justify evil, we just do them.
With respect, that is not a direct quote from scripture. And it is the words of the students, not Christ.
Rabbi is simply a term of respect for a spiritual teacher.
My students called me Laoshi… that does not make me a teacher.
I think it is slightly incorrect, and mildly covetous, to claim that Yeshua’s denomination was Jewish, when he was a messenger from The Infinite Itself.
Heaven goes way beyond mere telomeres.
Was his DNA partially Jewish? Probably. That’s cool.
But He transcended all mortal boundaries, and yet remained in the flesh.
Som people just bang the same drum day after day after day.
Really? A catholic mass and Protestant service are drastically different in my experience.