"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths." - 2 Timothy 4: 3-4
"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths." - 2 Timothy 4: 3-4
Even as an atheist, I admit the bible, as I'm sure is true for many/most religious texts, contains some great wisdom. It's that it's also loaded with contradictions and nonsense which can be exploited by the opportunistic and the ignorant that concerns me.
Brought up in the Church of Christ, this was a favorite preacher's assessment of...the Roman Catholic Church.
Now, an atheist, I see it as the description of religion in general. Mark Twain's "Letters From the Earth" should be required reading to earn a high school diploma in America. He gives the bible credit, when it deserves credit, and criticism when it needs to be criticized, which is the case in much greater proportion of the time.
That explains why, over 50 years ago, my late husband’s grandfather was aghast when we entered the Catholic Church after he’d been raised in the Church of Christ.
There is still a lot of anti-Catholic sentiment in a variety of Protestant and Evangelical cults. My father did not really see Catholics as true Christians... and CERTAINLY did not see Mormons as Christians.
Looking at the current Supreme Court (not to mention the 'judge' in Texas) and its actions there might well be a lot of anti-Catholic sentiment (morally and politically, not personally) in the general population.
It is ironic that it is always the Jews who are accused of having divided loyalties . . .
Just wait till the issue of which date Easter should be comes up. Or whether the host is the transubstantiated body of Christ. Or whether salvation is by faith or good works. We already KNOW of the wars fought over such things.
And the Catholic Church reciprocates those feelings, hence, among other things, the restriction on who can receive the Sacrament of Communion from a priest.
True, that. My wife is Catholic and has been denied communion in her home church for over 31 years. A year or two ago, her best friend introduced her to a young Catholic priest in Ft. Worth who assured her that restriction had been rescinded. It took a few months, but the Catholic church in the community where we now live does allow her to participate.
No, she just abided by the doctrine as she understood it. We live about 35 miles from the small town (founded by German Catholic immigrants in the 1800's) where everyone knows everyone else (and, presumably, everyone else's business). I always figured the reason the Catholic church has everyone queue to the front of the church for communion was, at least in part, to make sure that anyone on the "no-communion" list would be pulled aside. Even where we live now, the priest required her to sign some document before he would allow her to participate in the ritual.
Weird thing is, my baby sister (if a 65 y.o. woman can be called that) every bit as atheist as I, makes it a point to attend mass at as many Catholic cathedrals in Europe and the US as he can, especially at Xmas, to walk the aisle to get the "Holy Cookie" (in her phrasing), which she adds to her collection to commemorate the holiday and the location. She skips the wine. Not that she's a tee-totaler, far from it, but she prefers a bit better quality in her vino than the priest profers.
Thank you, Max, for your response. The last thing I care or want to know about someone when I meet them is their "religion." The one thing about evangelicalism that I deem as its most despicable characteristic is its mandate to shove itself down another person's throat, and if you don't immediately "convert," well then, you are going to Hell. (Which, by the way, does not exist.)
Rather interesting, though not Roman Catholic, I enjoy the liturgy and ritual of the high Episcopal church, though my favorite services are the simple ones in chapel. I do not even believe in god, but I believe in a church going community -- at least one that sees love, and grace, as its only weapons. Queen Elizabeth I invented inclusion, when she declared that she did not care what church goers believed, as long as they all worshipped together. You and your neighbor are a bit less alien, and suspect, when you have common practice.
That might depend on what form of Judaism they practise. As with any form of belief, there are varying practices from traditional to more (small l) liberal.
Good point. History unfortunately is replete with examples of that. Social systems are very slow to change; technology moves increasingly rapidly. We are losing our ability to control the advent of technology and in many ways already have. As technology continues to change our daily lives and casts us into uncharted waters, our defense is reactionary rather than proactive. But for us to rationally manage technological "progress", we need to be well-educated and rational. We (and I mean humans, not just Americans) are neither.
Mine was more simplistic than yours, but I felt yours carried the idea that we get swept away by new technologies. This I don't agree with. We have choices most of the time.
From the Chicago Tribune: When Illinois Gov. Adlai Stevenson was running for president in the 1950s, a supporter purportedly said to him: "Every thinking person in America will be voting for you." Stevenson replied, "I'm afraid that won't do — I need a majority."
Here's another Adlai S joke: He was in his Senate office and an aide walked in and said "Gale Sayers is here to see you sir." He looked up and asked "Who's she?"
"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths." - 2 Timothy 4: 3-4
Even as an atheist, I admit the bible, as I'm sure is true for many/most religious texts, contains some great wisdom. It's that it's also loaded with contradictions and nonsense which can be exploited by the opportunistic and the ignorant that concerns me.
Brought up in the Church of Christ, this was a favorite preacher's assessment of...the Roman Catholic Church.
Now, an atheist, I see it as the description of religion in general. Mark Twain's "Letters From the Earth" should be required reading to earn a high school diploma in America. He gives the bible credit, when it deserves credit, and criticism when it needs to be criticized, which is the case in much greater proportion of the time.
Why is belief in a supernatural cosmic entity with absolutely zero evidence not regarded as psychotic? I’m serious. “God” is a preposterous idea.
I believe it was either Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins who said that forcing religion on children was child abuse.
That explains why, over 50 years ago, my late husband’s grandfather was aghast when we entered the Catholic Church after he’d been raised in the Church of Christ.
There is still a lot of anti-Catholic sentiment in a variety of Protestant and Evangelical cults. My father did not really see Catholics as true Christians... and CERTAINLY did not see Mormons as Christians.
Looking at the current Supreme Court (not to mention the 'judge' in Texas) and its actions there might well be a lot of anti-Catholic sentiment (morally and politically, not personally) in the general population.
It is ironic that it is always the Jews who are accused of having divided loyalties . . .
There's nothing more ludicrous than a standard Christian throwing shade at Mormons for their bizarre beliefs.
Just wait till the issue of which date Easter should be comes up. Or whether the host is the transubstantiated body of Christ. Or whether salvation is by faith or good works. We already KNOW of the wars fought over such things.
And the Catholic Church reciprocates those feelings, hence, among other things, the restriction on who can receive the Sacrament of Communion from a priest.
True, that. My wife is Catholic and has been denied communion in her home church for over 31 years. A year or two ago, her best friend introduced her to a young Catholic priest in Ft. Worth who assured her that restriction had been rescinded. It took a few months, but the Catholic church in the community where we now live does allow her to participate.
Limbo a dealbreaker for sure. We kids in catholic school were like What? Nope
No, she just abided by the doctrine as she understood it. We live about 35 miles from the small town (founded by German Catholic immigrants in the 1800's) where everyone knows everyone else (and, presumably, everyone else's business). I always figured the reason the Catholic church has everyone queue to the front of the church for communion was, at least in part, to make sure that anyone on the "no-communion" list would be pulled aside. Even where we live now, the priest required her to sign some document before he would allow her to participate in the ritual.
Weird thing is, my baby sister (if a 65 y.o. woman can be called that) every bit as atheist as I, makes it a point to attend mass at as many Catholic cathedrals in Europe and the US as he can, especially at Xmas, to walk the aisle to get the "Holy Cookie" (in her phrasing), which she adds to her collection to commemorate the holiday and the location. She skips the wine. Not that she's a tee-totaler, far from it, but she prefers a bit better quality in her vino than the priest profers.
Thank you, Max, for your response. The last thing I care or want to know about someone when I meet them is their "religion." The one thing about evangelicalism that I deem as its most despicable characteristic is its mandate to shove itself down another person's throat, and if you don't immediately "convert," well then, you are going to Hell. (Which, by the way, does not exist.)
Glen
Rather interesting, though not Roman Catholic, I enjoy the liturgy and ritual of the high Episcopal church, though my favorite services are the simple ones in chapel. I do not even believe in god, but I believe in a church going community -- at least one that sees love, and grace, as its only weapons. Queen Elizabeth I invented inclusion, when she declared that she did not care what church goers believed, as long as they all worshipped together. You and your neighbor are a bit less alien, and suspect, when you have common practice.
Many of us Jews see Jesus as an outstanding rabbi (teacher) whose story was hijacked by a man named Paul.
If Jesus suddenly appeared on earth today, he would feel much more at home in a synagogue than in an evangelical super-mega church.
Or an AA meeting. Or a voter registration drive. Or a farmer's market. Almost anywhere except a church.
But would the synagogue welcome Him? A jobless hippie is a dress?
I think they would.
That might depend on what form of Judaism they practise. As with any form of belief, there are varying practices from traditional to more (small l) liberal.
It's funny how the MAGA Christians accuse everyone else of doing this with the MSM.
The Fox Dominion case sort of is the slam dunk of proving that truly Fox is literally willing to lie in order to keep its viewers' ears tickled.
It's amazing how people don't change. Over a thousand years ago, people knew their deal. We just need the wisdom to heed the warnings.
We don't change and we aren't that different from one another. That's why 'it' (whatever that is) CAN happen here.
Good point. History unfortunately is replete with examples of that. Social systems are very slow to change; technology moves increasingly rapidly. We are losing our ability to control the advent of technology and in many ways already have. As technology continues to change our daily lives and casts us into uncharted waters, our defense is reactionary rather than proactive. But for us to rationally manage technological "progress", we need to be well-educated and rational. We (and I mean humans, not just Americans) are neither.
We might not control technology, but that doesn't mean technology controls us.
Well, I agree my comment was simplistic, since I was looking at it from one side only. To look at it comprehensively, one would need to write a book.
Mine was more simplistic than yours, but I felt yours carried the idea that we get swept away by new technologies. This I don't agree with. We have choices most of the time.
I wish you were not right about that.
From the Chicago Tribune: When Illinois Gov. Adlai Stevenson was running for president in the 1950s, a supporter purportedly said to him: "Every thinking person in America will be voting for you." Stevenson replied, "I'm afraid that won't do — I need a majority."
Here's another Adlai S joke: He was in his Senate office and an aide walked in and said "Gale Sayers is here to see you sir." He looked up and asked "Who's she?"
Ain't that the truth