Evidence for God from Science

jlay wrote:

It says nothing about if a cleansing may or may not come after death.

Whose side are you arguing????

Perhaps you misunderstood what I was saying. I was speaking of the TIMING of the cleansing (that it may very well be after death), not that there is a question as to its occurrance.

jlay wrote:The way I was reading it was from how you presented it, regarding a purgatorial cleansing. You quoted Rev. 21:27 as a verse to clarify the doctrine of purgatory. Then you say is says nothing about whether purgatory is or isn't. So, why should I be placed in such a position? That's an end around. Of course we know that is not true. since no liar will enter his presence, and we are all liars, then there must be a caveat for those written in the Lamb's book. The LBOL then becomes a matter of identity. Who we are, "in Christ." Are we liars? No. In fact Paul says, (that before we ever die) we are made to sit in heavenly places. (Eph 2:6) Can we claim to be without sin? No. If we do the truth is not in us. But are we sinners? Is that our identity in Christ? Who are we, in Christ? No condemnation for those who are IN CHRIST.

And purgatory absolutely denies condemnation for those who are in Christ, I've repeatedly stated that. The question is are we made to appear clean or do we actually have to be clean before entering heaven, not that there is still a question of condemnation, there isn't.

jlay wrote:

If there's any claim going for the RCC is that it has NOT changed, precisely because its historical claim is back to the apostolic age and guidance by the power of the Holy Spirit.

If you really want to have that discussion, then so be it. As we know it is fruitless. I am very aware of how the RCC deals with such criticisms. You said a mouthful when you say, "CLAIM." All Christian believers can claim such, as "In Christ" we are part of one body. Not because of some graph on a church hierarchy. Are you saying that all church decrees have always been, and have never been ammended or re-interpreted since the apostolic age? Well, they have, and other traditions have been added. In fact the apocryphal works were not canonized until the COT in 1546. Byb, this is a common ciritque of the RCC, and the RCC has made it a case to be very careful when "modifying" to say things such as, "as the church has always taught....". It's a have your cake and eat it too that's based in circular reasoning, and I don't suspect I'll be changing anyone's mind.

"Development of Doctrine," was, is and will continue to be an issue of the RCC. I don't even care to deny the continuity of the RCC, but certainly how things were interpreted have greatly changed and issues such as how the church accepted and later condemned slavery are an obvious example. FWIW, I have no problem with such development. In fact, it is the right way IMO. However, when one tries to have their cake and eat it too, problems arise. Saying its unchanging but changing. Here is an article from a RCC position that attempts to defend the DOD. http://www.catholic.com/tracts/can-dogma-develop Now, you may see no issue, but for me and many others, the circularity of it is overwhelming.

There is no circularity whatsoever. Dogma is developing, there is no question about that, unless you want to claim we know everything there is to know and have always known the fullness of God's revelation. And when I say the word 'claim' I am being deferential in not stating it emphatically since I know no one will accept it as but a claim (i.e. I'm trying to be respectful).

What I am saying is that any doctrine that was defined dogmatically by the church has NEVER changed and I challenge you to find otherwise. If it is not something that was defined dogmatically then the understanding of if is not complete to formulate a dogmatic pronouncement. There is nothing circular about that, it's simply being prudent with God's Word that was entrusted to her by virtue of her interpretive authority (happy? no 'claim'). But you're right, it is rather pointless and like I said, it will take us right back to authority, which you anticipated and already summarily dismissed.

As for accepting then later denying slavery, first what does that have to do with defined dogma? Second, even if your claim is true (and I am in no way saying that it is), whoever said some members, even leaders in the church don't make mistakes? You are under the mistaken assumption that EVERYTHING church leaders do or say must be under the infallibility umbrella. Well it isn't. So if you want to talk about the RCC changing, it must be in the prism of dogmatic pronouncements that have changed and I am telling you you will find NONE. Other than that, you're attacking a straw man.

jlay wrote:

This feeling of shame and sorrow, where is this happening, in heaven? Heaven is perfect J, no such feelings can exist or even enter there.

This statement is blatently self-defeating. If it is happening in heaven, and such things can't exist heaven, then you have a contradiciton.
Will we feel shame? I don't know. Since we won't have this body to drag around, I'm not sure how 'feelings' will play into at all. I do know that we have been (completed) justified through faith, we have (NOW) peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Rom. 5:1

Huh? Where is the contradiction J? If you concede that feelings of shame and sorrow are possible after death (irrespective of the associated physical manifestations), and if you further concede that those feelings cannot be taking place in heaven or hell, then necessarily you have conceded the existence of another place/time where/when these things are taking place, i.e. purgatory.

jlay wrote:In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace that he lavished on us. (Eph 1:7,8) So, we have to spend some time paying for our blemishes?

We certainly must account for them before Christ at the Bema Seat Judgment, with whatever that entails. And you haven't demonstrated that that will NOT entail suffering of some sort.

Here is a condensed look at the RCC's doctrine on Purgatory versus The Bible ; Note that , nowhere in the Bible does it say that further purification is required before one can get to Heaven . In fact, the Bible says that once youve accepted Christ as FULL payment of ALL sins..that you name is at that point written in Heaven (The Lambs Book of Life) : http://www.chick.com/reading/books/160/160_23.asp

And for those who are interested in reading about the subject from a Catholic point of view (complete with *gasp* scripture references), I refer you back to the link I posted before here.

Byblos wrote:And for those who are interested in reading about the subject from a Catholic point of view (complete with *gasp* scripture references), I refer you back to the link I posted before here.

Why would God demand WE be forced to 'suffer' for leftover sins in a 'Purgatory' when Christ himself came to purge us from all our sins on calvary which was a totally sufficient sacrifice as evidenced by his own last words on the cross of : 'Tetelestai' (meaning, it is finished...the sin debt has been paid in full) ? How does a free salvation gift from God equate to US having to pay a suffering price in 'Purtagory' unless Christs sacrifice was not totally sufficient ? Sorry, but, my Bible says I have crossed over from death unto eternal life (John 5:24) because Im trusting in Christs totally sufficient atonement , my name is written down on Heavens rouster , and therefore 'Purgatory' isnt needed and is in fact an affront to Christ . Its also a big money maker for the RCC which loved Ones of the dearly departed have contributed so Masses can be performed in order to spring the deceased Relative out of 'Purgatory' early. It keeps people glued to made -up traditions and rituals of an Institution ... something which Jesus himself vehemently denounced in Mark 7 and Matt. 15 . to the high religious Leaders of his day.

CallMeDave wrote:

Byblos wrote:And for those who are interested in reading about the subject from a Catholic point of view (complete with *gasp* scripture references), I refer you back to the link I posted before here.

Why would God demand WE be forced to 'suffer' for leftover sins in a 'Purgatory' when Christ himself came to purge us from all our sins on calvary which was a totally sufficient sacrifice as evidenced by his own last words on the cross of : 'Tetelestai' (meaning, it is finished...the sin debt has been paid in full) ?

Obviously our understanding of what 'it is finished' means are quite different but let me ask you this, why do Christians still suffer the temporal punishment of sin after becoming Christians? Shouldn't 'it is finished' as you understand it have eliminated the need for temporal punishment?

CallMeDave wrote:How does a free salvation gift from God equate to US having to pay a suffering price in 'Purtagory' unless Christs sacrifice was not totally sufficient ?

And that demonstrates our differing views on what Christ's sacrifice actually accomplished but again I ask you, why was not Christ's sacrifice sufficient to end all temporal suffering due to sin?

CallMeDave wrote:Sorry, but, my Bible says I have crossed over from death unto eternal life (John 5:24) because Im trusting in Christs totally sufficient atonement , my name is written down on Heavens rouster ,

Where have I disagreed with this?

CallMeDave wrote: and therefore 'Purgatory' isnt needed and is in fact an affront to Christ .

There's where the disagreement lies and the way you are stating my position as if purgatory and the Lamb's book of life are mutually exclusive. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact I have shown you where, in my view of the Bema Seat Judgment, it is equated with purgatory. Are you saying that the Bema Seat Judgment is unnecessary because of Christ's sufficient atonement?

CallMeDave wrote:Its also a big money maker for the RCC which loved Ones of the dearly departed have contributed so Masses can be performed in order to spring the deceased Relative out of 'Purgatory' early. It keeps people glued to made -up traditions and rituals of an Institution ... something which Jesus himself vehemently denounced in Mark 7 and Matt. 15 . to the high religious Leaders of his day.

This is a gross misrepresentation first, and utterly besides the point second.

Byblos wrote:

CallMeDave wrote:

Byblos wrote:And for those who are interested in reading about the subject from a Catholic point of view (complete with *gasp* scripture references), I refer you back to the link I posted before here.

Why would God demand WE be forced to 'suffer' for leftover sins in a 'Purgatory' when Christ himself came to purge us from all our sins on calvary which was a totally sufficient sacrifice as evidenced by his own last words on the cross of : 'Tetelestai' (meaning, it is finished...the sin debt has been paid in full) ?

Obviously our understanding of what 'it is finished' means are quite different but let me ask you this, why do Christians still suffer the temporal punishment of sin after becoming Christians? Shouldn't 'it is finished' as you understand it have eliminated the need for temporal punishment?

CallMeDave wrote:How does a free salvation gift from God equate to US having to pay a suffering price in 'Purtagory' unless Christs sacrifice was not totally sufficient ?

And that demonstrates our differing views on what Christ's sacrifice actually accomplished but again I ask you, why was not Christ's sacrifice sufficient to end all temporal suffering due to sin?

CallMeDave wrote:Sorry, but, my Bible says I have crossed over from death unto eternal life (John 5:24) because Im trusting in Christs totally sufficient atonement , my name is written down on Heavens rouster ,

Where have I disagreed with this?

CallMeDave wrote: and therefore 'Purgatory' isnt needed and is in fact an affront to Christ .

There's where the disagreement lies and the way you are stating my position as if purgatory and the Lamb's book of life are mutually exclusive. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact I have shown you where, in my view of the Bema Seat Judgment, it is equated with purgatory. Are you saying that the Bema Seat Judgment is unnecessary because of Christ's sufficient atonement?

CallMeDave wrote:Its also a big money maker for the RCC which loved Ones of the dearly departed have contributed so Masses can be performed in order to spring the deceased Relative out of 'Purgatory' early. It keeps people glued to made -up traditions and rituals of an Institution ... something which Jesus himself vehemently denounced in Mark 7 and Matt. 15 . to the high religious Leaders of his day.

This is a gross misrepresentation first, and utterly besides the point second.

Answers in order -----

1. There are CONSEQUENCES that often follow our Sinful action , but the actual payment of that sin has been payed for by Christ IF the person is a genuine Christian. When Jesus said 'it is finished' on the cross , he meant the requirement for Gods complete forgiveness and redemption has been met, and that his (Jesus') atoning sacrifice was completed on our behalf. If you have to trust in Purgatory to really finished it , then youre not trusting fully in what Christ did on Calvary. In fact, RCC doctrine teaches that Christ only 'opened a door' when he suffered and thru a plethera of personal Catholic 'good works' , deeds, and personal sufferring ...it gets totally completed. Thus, the affront to Christ.

2. If Christs sacrifice was enough, then there is 'therefore no condemnation left for us' , per scripture, and no further sacrificing left of ANY kind. How come the RCC wants their Followers to keep on personally atoning and even relying on dead catholics deposited good works to be applied toward a living Catholics eternal salvation (The Communion of Saints Teaching found in CCC1476-77) ? Thus, a huge affront to Christ.

3. Youre not trusting in the FINISHED sacrifice of Christ if you are relying on personally suffering for your sins and trying to work them off via purgatory , penance, gaining indulgences, etc...

4. You are relying on the personal suffering in a fanciful Purgatory to finished the job which Christ said he completed on Calvary. He didnt open any door for you to finish the job....He IS the door which you must enter thru.

5. The Judgement Seat of Christ is for rewards based on how a genuine Christian used his time, talents, and treasures to honor and respresent God after he was saved. The Persons sins were already dealt with by Christs substitionary atonement ...that why its called a SUBSTITIONARY death for us. At the Judgement Seat of Christ, ALL genuine Christians are saved and go to Heaven....but its their works performed after salvation that are reviewed and rewarded for faithful service , and works that have no merit are burned up and not considered.

The RCC has confused whats necessary for salvation with what is called sanctification by Gods Holy Spirit active in our lives AFTER we are saved. And, the RCC has placed many additional measures and requirements which is alledgedly supposed to help in a persons eventual eternal salvation -- trouble is, if a person makes it to heaven it is because of NO personal merit of anyone but Christ himself.

So, the answer is this : Stop trusting in additional suffering after you die since Jesus himself warned people not to die IN their sins and to get them all dealt with from his sacrifical death, and to stop applying a whole plethera of your own as well as dead catholics deposited good works, deeds, etc.. thinking it will help toward eternal life (which none of it will) . Im afraid that the RCC has become extremely apostate over the centuries ...to the point where it nullifies essential Bible Doctrine including the very (finished) work of Christ himself. Just trust in Christ ALONE (something which the RCC Canon declares as 'blasphemous and deserving of anathema / eternal damnation') . Which are you going to go with --- trusting fully in what Christ has done, or, trying to add to it your own personal efforts which then nullifies Christs COMPLETED work. ? Your answer and future demonstrated actions determines your eternal destiny so please be very very careful. Its either Christ in full, or, the way of the RCC. Regards.

CallMeDave wrote:
Answers in order -----

1. There are CONSEQUENCES that often follow our Sinful action , but the actual payment of that sin has been payed for by Christ IF the person is a genuine Christian. When Jesus said 'it is finished' on the cross , he meant the requirement for Gods complete forgiveness and redemption has been met, and that his (Jesus') atoning sacrifice was completed on our behalf. If you have to trust in Purgatory to really finished it , then youre not trusting fully in what Christ did on Calvary. In fact, RCC doctrine teaches that Christ only 'opened a door' when he suffered and thru a plethera of personal Catholic 'good works' , deeds, and personal sufferring ...it gets totally completed. Thus, the affront to Christ.

I'm sorry but I'm confused, on the one hand you say Christ's sacrifice paid for our sins, past, present, and future, and on the other you say there are STILL consequences to our sinful actions. Well which is it, are there consequences that we must still pay for or are they truly forgiven, past, present, and future? If you say there are consequences that we must pay (which I agree with) then either Christ's sacrifice was not enough or you have a misunderstanding of what his sacrifice actually accomplished. But even at that, let's put that aside for a moment, for we do agree that our sinful actions have consequences. The question I have for you is why would you think it is biblical that our sins have consequences here and not a final consequence en route to heaven? What is the difference?

CallMeDave wrote:2. If Christs sacrifice was enough, then there is 'therefore no condemnation left for us' , per scripture, and no further sacrificing left of ANY kind. How come the RCC wants their Followers to keep on personally atoning and even relying on dead catholics deposited good works to be applied toward a living Catholics eternal salvation (The Communion of Saints Teaching found in CCC1476-77) ? Thus, a huge affront to Christ.

It's not an affront to anything because it does NOT deny Christ's work. It merely states that one must account for the good deeds as well as the bad. Look at 1 Cor 3:13-15 says again:

13 their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. 14 If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. 15 If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames.

Note verse 13 talks about testing with fire. Also note verse 14 talks about good works that survive the test for which the builder will receive a just reward. Let's now look at verse 15, not only does it contradict what you are saying that bad deeds are burnt and forgotten about, it specifically says 2 other things, 1) that the builder will suffer a loss (even though he is saved), and 2) how is he saved? As though escaping through fire (i.e. by the hair on his chinny-chin-chin). What do loss and escaping through fire imply? You guessed it, shame and suffering.

CallMeDave wrote:3. Youre not trusting in the FINISHED sacrifice of Christ if you are relying on personally suffering for your sins and trying to work them off via purgatory , penance, gaining indulgences, etc...

4. You are relying on the personal suffering in a fanciful Purgatory to finished the job which Christ said he completed on Calvary. He didnt open any door for you to finish the job....He IS the door which you must enter thru.

I think you need to go back and look up corporate redemption and what being in a covenantal relationship means.

CallMeDave wrote:5. The Judgement Seat of Christ is for rewards based on how a genuine Christian used his time, talents, and treasures to honor and respresent God after he was saved. The Persons sins were already dealt with by Christs substitionary atonement ...that why its called a SUBSTITIONARY death for us. At the Judgement Seat of Christ, ALL genuine Christians are saved and go to Heaven....but its their works performed after salvation that are reviewed and rewarded for faithful service , and works that have no merit are burned up and not considered.

Unfortunately (for you) 1 Cor 3:15 disagrees with you as shown above.

CallMeDave wrote:The RCC has confused whats necessary for salvation with what is called sanctification by Gods Holy Spirit active in our lives AFTER we are saved. And, the RCC has placed many additional measures and requirements which is alledgedly supposed to help in a persons eventual eternal salvation -- trouble is, if a person makes it to heaven it is because of NO personal merit of anyone but Christ himself.

So, the answer is this : Stop trusting in additional suffering after you die since Jesus himself warned people not to die IN their sins and to get them all dealt with from his sacrifical death, and to stop applying a whole plethera of your own as well as dead catholics deposited good works, deeds, etc.. thinking it will help toward eternal life (which none of it will) . Im afraid that the RCC has become extremely apostate over the centuries ...to the point where it nullifies essential Bible Doctrine including the very (finished) work of Christ himself. Just trust in Christ ALONE (something which the RCC Canon declares as 'blasphemous and deserving of anathema / eternal damnation') . Which are you going to go with --- trusting fully in what Christ has done, or, trying to add to it your own personal efforts which then nullifies Christs COMPLETED work. ? Your answer and future demonstrated actions determines your eternal destiny so please be very very careful. Its either Christ in full, or, the way of the RCC. Regards.

Thanks for the sermon but I'll stick with the Church that Christ himself established. It's the only way I can be sure I am following his entire counsel and not the tradition of men.

I'm sorry but I'm confused, on the one hand you say Christ's sacrifice paid for our sins, past, present, and future, and on the other you say there are STILL consequences to our sinful actions.

You don't understand the difference between consequences for sin and payment for sin? Or the difference between here and heaven? As long as we are on this earth we drag around a corpse. Once we die, we will be free.

Regarding 1 Cor. 3:13-15. I'm trying to understand how you relate this to the issue being discussed. Testing of fire, where? When? Rewards, where and when? Saved? From what?

Unfortunately (for you) 1 Cor 3:15 disagrees with you as shown above.

Please show your exegtical method for relating this verse to the heavenly judgement seat.

Thanks for the sermon but I'll stick with the Church that Christ himself established.

That's good to hear. Cause it aint in Rome. Or in any building made by hands.

jlay wrote:

I'm sorry but I'm confused, on the one hand you say Christ's sacrifice paid for our sins, past, present, and future, and on the other you say there are STILL consequences to our sinful actions.

You don't understand the difference between consequences for sin and payment for sin? Or the difference between here and heaven? As long as we are on this earth we drag around a corpse. Once we die, we will be free.

Not sure why you're making a distinction between consequence and payment but that's the question I'm asking, why are we bound to have consequences for our sins in the flesh, but no consequence for our sins after we die. Why is that.

jlay wrote:Regarding 1 Cor. 3:13-15. I'm trying to understand how you relate this to the issue being discussed. Testing of fire, where? When? Rewards, where and when? Saved? From what?

Like I said before, 1 Cor 3:13-15 is used in support of both the Bema Seat Judgment as well as Purgatory so clearly we are talking about after death. Testing of fire is of course symbolic for having one's deeds judged. Rewards are for good deeds. As to where, well of course in purgatory or at the Bema Seat Judgment, take your pick. Saved from what? You tell me but does it make a difference? It says the person is still saved. The point from all of that was to show that bad deeds are certainly not forgotten as they do carry consequences.

jlay wrote:

Unfortunately (for you) 1 Cor 3:15 disagrees with you as shown above.

Please show your exegtical method for relating this verse to the heavenly judgement seat.

Rewards or lack thereof.

jlay wrote:

Thanks for the sermon but I'll stick with the Church that Christ himself established.

That's good to hear. Cause it aint in Rome. Or in any building made by hands.

For what it's worth, I'm not even Roman Catholic. My church is the Maronite Eastern Church of Antioch that was established by Peter himself. So you see I have independent verification of apostolic lineage.

Like I said before, 1 Cor 3:13-15 is used in support of both the Bema Seat Judgment as well as Purgatory so clearly we are talking about after death.

As clear as mud. One poor method isn't support for another. Let's take the text, and examine. Let's suppose for discussion that this refers to rewards after death.

13 each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work.14 If any man’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward.

First, what will be revealed by fire? EACH man's work. So fire tests work, period. Not sin. What is the fire testing for? Quality. If the work is genuine it well stand. If not it will be burned up. See Eph. 2:10.

15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

So how do you equate work and the quality of it to sin, and being purified from it?

why are we bound to have consequences for our sins in the flesh, but no consequence for our sins after we die. Why is that.

Let's make sure we're using the terms the same. Define consequence.
If I were answering using my definition I would say read Romans 8
Specifically,
But if Christ is in you, then even though your body is subject to death because of sin, the Spirit gives life because of righteousness. 11 And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of his Spirit who lives in you.
The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship.

For what it's worth, I'm not even Roman Catholic. My church is the Maronite Eastern Church of Antioch that was established by Peter himself. So you see I have independent verification of apostolic lineage.

Well ,.......

jlay wrote:

Like I said before, 1 Cor 3:13-15 is used in support of both the Bema Seat Judgment as well as Purgatory so clearly we are talking about after death.

As clear as mud. One poor method isn't support for another. Let's take the text, and examine. Let's suppose for discussion that this refers to rewards after death.

13 each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work.14 If any man’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward.

First, what will be revealed by fire? EACH man's work. So fire tests work, period. Not sin. What is the fire testing for? Quality. If the work is genuine it well stand. If not it will be burned up. See Eph. 2:10.

15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

So how do you equate work and the quality of it to sin, and being purified from it?

Seriously? No the question is what it is exactly that you would equate bad work with other than sin.

jlay wrote:

why are we bound to have consequences for our sins in the flesh, but no consequence for our sins after we die. Why is that.

Let's make sure we're using the terms the same. Define consequence.
If I were answering using my definition I would say read Romans 8
Specifically,
But if Christ is in you, then even though your body is subject to death because of sin, the Spirit gives life because of righteousness. 11 And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of his Spirit who lives in you.
The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship.

And? ...

jlay wrote:

For what it's worth, I'm not even Roman Catholic. My church is the Maronite Eastern Church of Antioch that was established by Peter himself. So you see I have independent verification of apostolic lineage.

Well ,.......

Well I think so, it's the only thing that counts.

In any case, I think we've taken this as far as it can go without delving into more rabbit trails so peace.

CallMeDave wrote: Its also a big money maker for the RCC which loved Ones of the dearly departed have contributed so Masses can be performed in order to spring the deceased Relative out of 'Purgatory' early. It keeps people glued to made -up traditions and rituals of an Institution ... something which Jesus himself vehemently denounced in Mark 7 and Matt. 15 . to the high religious Leaders of his day.

Jesus also said it was a right and just thing to pray for the dead. Why would he suggest we pray for the dead if they're in heaven, no if's and's or buts? Why would they need our prayers, and why would he suggest wasting our time with it, since indeed that's what it would be if that was the case?

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote: Catholic-bashing is fun and gives one a sense of superiority...I know because I've done it.

I'm curious, why would it give a sense of superiority? Strictly speaking -- I'm just curious as to the mentality that exists. Some of my own family members engage in Catholic-bashing right in front of me. It's so hurtful.

StMonicaGuideMe wrote:

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote: Catholic-bashing is fun and gives one a sense of superiority...I know because I've done it.

I'm curious, why would it give a sense of superiority? Strictly speaking -- I'm just curious as to the mentality that exists. Some of my own family members engage in Catholic-bashing right in front of me. It's so hurtful.

StMon, I think you missed FL's purpose in posting that. Go back and re-read his post (all of it).

Byblos wrote:StMon, I think you missed FL's purpose in posting that. Go back and re-read his post (all of it).

Yes, as Byblos said, you should go back and read all of my original post on Catholic-bashing.

StMonicaGuideMe wrote:I'm curious, why would [Catholic bashing] give a sense of superiority? Strictly speaking -- I'm just curious as to the mentality that exists. Some of my own family members engage in Catholic-bashing right in front of me. It's so hurtful.

I think Catholic-bashing is part of the Protestant mindset. That, and human pride plus liberal doses of self-righteousness make the Biggest and Best of anything a great target. So, the USA is easier to bash than New Zealand, Toyota is easier to bash than Saab, Coca-Cola easier to bash than RC Cola...and so on.

FL

PS...Jesus is easier to bash than Buddha!

I think Catholic-bashing is part of the Protestant mindset. That, and human pride plus liberal doses of self-righteousness make the Biggest and Best of anything a great target. So, the USA is easier to bash than New Zealand, Toyota is easier to bash than Saab, Coca-Cola easier to bash than RC Cola...and so on.

God easier to bash than no God.