Skip to comments.What Are We To Make of the Anti-Catholics.
Posted on 01/08/2011 4:15:03 PM PST by Natural Law
What are we to make of the anti-Catholics?
What are we to make of the anti-Catholics? How can we explain the assault on the Church by those who profess in their words the same mission of the Church, the Salvation of mankind, but through their deeds deny it? Are the fabrications, falsehoods, and lies about the supporting beliefs of the Church, about the lives of its saints and clergy, about the verifiable facts of history justified because of doctrinal disagreements? Does any of this matter in the face of the greater assault on Christ and his flock? It defies rational thinking.
In the face of a Muslim onslaught that is bombing Christmas Masses, executing Christians for a nonexistent heresy and apostasy, and a jihad against Christians of all stripes on a massive scale we get shrill unwarranted criticism of how Catholics peaceably worship the One true God. Is smells and bells really a greater sin than sawing off heads in the name of the prophet?
In the face of a secular socialist assault that is killing babies at a pace that outpaces the crimes of Hitler, Stalin and Mao combined there are degrading insults and accusations over the difference between worship and veneration. Corrections and explanations are ignored and the apologists are pilloried. For what purpose?
In the face of the threat of Communist China that suppresses worship of all kinds and enforces forced abortions we get feeble ad naseum criticism of the Real Presence in spite of the acceptance by Catholics, both Eastern and Latin Rite, Lutherans, Anglicans, and Methodists. All the while the anti-Catholics continue the charade of Christian unity, minus those damned Catholics of course.
So in the face of the advance of worldwide evil some would have us believe that it is the Catholic Church should be destroyed when the destruction of the Church would serve to provide aid and comfort to that evil. Why? Qui Bono, for whom the benefit?
That the Church is and has always been a target of evil cannot be denied. Neither can it be denied that the Church has never been harmed or compromised by that evil. Satan can only work in this world through the actions of his willing accomplices. Those accomplices have long ago recognized that the greatest harm can be done from within the Church and history has produced numerous examples of sinners wearing the collars of priests. Regardless of the contentions of the anti-Catholics that does not negate the good that the Church has done not diminish the saints who have served God through her. Nor does it excuse those who blame one of the victims of the evil doers, the Church itself.
Perhaps those who irrationally assault the Church daily, those who spend inordinate hours researching the internet looking for dirt, those who accept any lie or indiscretion on nothing more than its bias against the Church are consciously or unconsciously in league with evil. Lex Parsimoniae, the principle which generally recommends accepting the answer that requires the fewest assumptions, when the potential answers are equal in all other respects. Is there a simpler answer?
How in the name of all that is reasonable can anyone who rejects the literal historicity of the first eleven chapters of Genesis because "that isn't how the world really works" turn right around and claim that two thousand years ago a boy was born contrary to those very same laws of nature and not see his hypocrisy? It's as big as a billboard!
What is inexplicable is the insistence by some that God did not and could not have created the science and math by which He governs the universe because primitive tribes were unable to imagine or comprehend it. Some may accept the "abracadabra" process because they believe it more flattering of God, but to those who have invested their lives in the study of science God's magnificent schematic is even more breathtaking. Knowing how God created does not diminish His accomplishments. Not understanding the math and science does not diminish those who accept that He did.
I am sorry you opted not to read what I wrote but rather to simply hit the button and regurgitate the same talking points of all evolutionists and science worshipers. I am also sorry you persist in your ignorant belief that Genesis is the product of the primitive imagination of primitive people rather than (along with the rest of the Torah) written in its entirety by G-d and dictated to Moses letter-for-letter.
Though you will not read these words either, I will go to the trouble to type them on the off-chance that someone else will read them:
The whole point is that the laws of science are not eternal or self-existent--they were brought into existence from absolute nothingness by omnipotence in an act of ex-nihilation. No one dispute that G-d did not create the laws of science. What they do dispute is that the laws of science are eternal and governed the ex-nihilation event itself.
People who believe that children can be born without the participation of a human male at conception have no business invoking the "laws of science."
I notice the "laws of science" disappear whenever Genesis 1-11 is not the subject being discussed.
By the way, is “abracadabra” anything like “hocus pocus?”
No. One opens a door, the other is a trick.
From the wikipedia:
"Abracadabra is an incantation used as a magic word in conjuring tricks that historically was believed to have healing powers when inscribed on an amulet. Abracadabra origin is thought to be from the Aramaic language. Abra=אברה which is "to create" and cadabra=כדברא which is "as I say", ultimately when merging the two words abracadabra means in Aramaic is create as I say thus used oftentimes in magic tricks."
“Do you realize how offensive these words are?”
Yes, I do know. I’ve had them hurled at me on many occasions by backwoods Biblethumping snake-handling goobers from decades gone to the present. BTW I don’t hate Protestants, I pity them, especially the ones who believe that the term “protestant” means “protest against Rome” when it originally meant to _proclaim_ the belief of Sola Scriptura that the Bible is the only source of Christian belief.
I’ve been told that to cross oneself is to “curse oneself”, that asking intercession of the saints is “praying to dead sinners” and that when the last Apostle died there were no more sacraments. I have to teach these goobers how to pronounce the words “apostolic succession” in order to describe the authority of the Holy Father. I’ve heard the Pope called the devil and “Beast 666”. And then they top it all off by insisting that Jesus our Lord had siblings by Mary his Mother.
Oh - I forgot to add to my original title that Catholics are a bunch of drunks, too. And we have funny sounding non-Anglo-Saxon names. And our national allegiance is to be questioned.
So yes, I do know how offensive these words are.
“Romish” remains my favorite. It’s spoken with a hiss, through clenched teeth.
OBTW, if you want some REAL anti-Catholic rhetoric, check out the Doctrine & Covenants of the Mormon Latter-day Saints.
“Whore of Babylon”, anyone?
I hear "hocus pocus" accomplishes a neat magic trick as well.
The problem is that everyone (including yourself) subscribes to an "abracadabra" theory of ex-nihilation. The argument is on what followed . . . whether or not the formation of the universe followed natural processes, or if natural processes did not assume their current form until after the formation was complete.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
I didn't know Obama posted here.
Are you kidding!!!???
If Obama turned out to be a fundamentalist Protestant Christian it would be the best news this country has had in years! I WISH he would show up at the liberal Foundry Baptist Church in D.C. with his Bible crazyglued to his hand a la Bill Clinton.
Compared to Muslims, Biblethumpers are a pleasure! HUGE!
Unlike the former, they don’t go around killing people who disagree with them. They just call them names, instead.
Are there laws of science at all in your view? Is it an integral part of your opinion that those who differ from it do so through moral fault?
I got it that you were being sarcastic. They are ugly ways to describe fellow Christians and sad that they are even used at all.
Most protestants I know would never be so rude or ugly to me in person, but I am sure that they often wonder albeit privately how it is I could believe such nonsense.
This is not only not a natural change but a change irrelevant to the subject of the natural sciences. Science can deal with a gold annulus but cannot say whether it is merely a ring or a wedding ring. Science can describe sexual intercourse but cannot determine whether it is sacred or profane, virtuous or vicious.
I was making the very plain and obvious observation that you and most Catholics hold the same view of rural American chr*stians that Obama and the liberals do.
You don't know what I do or don't subscribe to.
The argument is on what followed . . . whether or not the formation of the universe followed natural processes, or if natural processes did not assume their current form until after the formation was complete."
Are you implying that anything created by God is unnatural or that anything natural was not created by God?
Of course there are laws of science. But they are created and, by the very nature of things, non-eternal. At a certain point only G-d existed. Then somehow by his omnipotent power he brought into existence physical reality and all its laws. But these laws did not pre-exist their creation nor did they (nor could they) govern the process of their own creation. They only functioned--indeed, only existed--after their supernatural creation from nothing. Just how in anyone's twisted thinking is my denial of the eternal pre-existence of the laws of science a "denial" of the laws of science?
As to the moral thing, I most certainly regard hypocrisy as a moral failure. And I regard people who believe in the magic tricks of the "new testament" and of the middle ages while denying as absolutely impossible the events of the Torah as absolutely despicable in its hypocrisy and probably based on class snobbery ("the virgin birth is for intellectuals, Genesis is for white trash").
I agree that saying God is author of the Big Bang contradicts a lot of central Christian doctrines.
Like man being made in God’s image; the Fall; the introduction of death into the world; etc.
For example, if you say God took dust, made man in His image, and breathed the breath of life in him; that is a big contrast to: God made a big bang, over billions of years microbes became fish became mammals became apes became people.
We are hardly made in God’s image if we evolved from apes. As a matter of fact it is a shockingly gross insult of God to say so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.