Catholic ? You will have to settle for Monday Night Footbal

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed May 10, 2006 4:20 pm

G.W.Bush wrote:So are you suggesting that history cannot be interpreted or presented in a bias way?

Also, in an earlier post I acknowledged that there have been some poor decisions made by those in the Church, but I would argue that the good out weighs the bad. I surely do not assume that a man is righteous because of the garment and title he bares. But I do believe that the vast majority in the past and the present that serve God are doing so to help better mankind.

First paragraph: Yes, it can. But for you to assume that anything I read was filtered by bias is an unfair assertion and sounds too much like the pervasive "liberal media" argument that is thrown out by apologists anytime something negative is reported about "their team" (whatever team that happens to be at the time).

Second paragraph: Totally agree with the comment about individuals, and have never said or suggested otherwise. As to the Church's actions itself, I think it depends on who you ask in terms of whether the net has been positive or negative. That is where we could have an interesting deep dive conversation if you were interested.

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Wed May 10, 2006 4:21 pm

I'm not catholic , but i'll happily give up NFL on Sunday

you can throw fruit at me now

Hey I get to go fb free unitl sept 07

i'll make an exception for cat griz of course

catamaran · Post by **catamaran** » Wed May 10, 2006 4:43 pm

closest I could find to fruit

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed May 10, 2006 5:02 pm

And the timing on this is perfect ... I just read this:

http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2006/05 ... tml#013823

I am in agreement with most of the posters on that thread. If a person wants to work for a Catholic school, they have to play by the Catholic rules.

On a personal level, however, I choose not to put myself in that position.

grizzh8r · Post by **grizzh8r** » Wed May 10, 2006 5:41 pm

Wait, I'm confused. Isn't GW Bush a WASP?

Sorry couldn't resist. I know, I know

on me.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed May 10, 2006 5:46 pm

Yeah, GWB is going Kennedy on us. Very confusing.

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Wed May 10, 2006 7:39 pm

closest I could find to fruit

hey I reserve Sundays for my prissy butt time. I take the kids to the stables, for their lessons, and I ride dressage. Besides, as a former AT I think most NFL players are wussy, and I'd much rather watch college games, as college players play with their hearts.

catsrback76 · Post by **catsrback76** » Thu May 11, 2006 7:11 am

Bay Area Cat wrote:And the timing on this is perfect ... I just read this:

http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2006/05 ... tml#013823

I am in agreement with most of the posters on that thread. If a person wants to work for a Catholic school, they have to play by the Catholic rules.

On a personal level, however, I choose not to put myself in that position.

I agree. Integrity within the context of the Catholic faith, or any faith for that matter requires personal alignment with the tenets of that faith. The issue for Catholicism centers around who the Pope is. Is the Pope the Vicer of Christ? To answer that as a "yes" means we better listen up and do what he says regardless of whether we like it. To say "no", he is the leader of a movement of people, but a man who is not flawless in his pronouncements leaves open the possibility of a different interpretation of his edicts.
Catholics are now and have been working through who the Pope is. Historically he has been proposed to be the Vicer of Christ with non-fallable pronouncements and whose edicts are to be treated as scripture. Recently, many Catholics have refused that label and authority, and have treated him as a leader of the Church with proper respect to listen in on his sermons, but to not treat them as infallable, divine, authority.

I think the question is, "who is the Pope"? Each Catholic will decide for themselves and so respond.

On the broader topic of having a day of rest for the purpose of worship and re-creation there are legitimate points raised by the Pope's sermon. And no I am not a Catholic. From my vantage point I find that one of the glaring weaknesses in our current North American prosperity model for living, ( a name I give for the incessant need for more ), that as a culture we have lost our anchorings in the transcendent as we pursue THE MORE. We work like a dog all week and into the weekends, in order to get to the weekends and consume the spoils of our weeks labors. More toys for more boys/girls to do more playing to say we had a little more fun than pain through the week. I know I'm generalizing and you don't want a sermon, but the point is we are finding that our current worship altars, as a whole, sports (yes I realize I'm on a sports board : ) ), party and play have left is wanting.

Where is the time in our week when we settle, reflect, and lift our hearts to the greater realities of who we are and what we are all about? When does God get our ear? When do we give him more than a cursory "shout out"? When was the last time we simply let the reality of "Be still and know that I am God" sink in?

To that I think the Pope was sermonizing.

catamaran · Post by **catamaran** » Thu May 11, 2006 9:09 am

briannell wrote:
closest I could find to fruit

hey I reserve Sundays for my prissy butt time. I take the kids to the stables, for their lessons, and I ride dressage. Besides, as a former AT I think most NFL players are wussy, and I'd much rather watch college games, as college players play with their hearts.

I can agree with you that I would much rather watch Saturdays than Sundays

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Thu May 11, 2006 9:32 am

I can agree with you that I would much rather watch Saturdays than Sundays

at least you weren't agreeing that i have a prissy butt

I think that's a given

I need to do something to relieve anxiety, and I ain't big enough, to slam into those 300 pound linemen.

yeah, I admit to liking college game day, but you can keep NFL Sundays.

gtapp · Post by **gtapp** » Thu May 11, 2006 9:56 am

To all of you Catholic's:

Next time you are at church please say hi to the easter bunny for me.

anacondagriz · Post by **anacondagriz** » Thu May 11, 2006 12:25 pm

Damn BAC 1st you piss off all the religious folks over on Egriz now you are doing it here. You are going to give us atheists a bad name.

G.W.Bush · Post by **G.W.Bush** » Thu May 11, 2006 12:38 pm

anacondagriz wrote:Damn BAC 1st you piss off all the religious folks over on Egriz now you are doing it here. You are going to give us atheists a bad name.

Much worse than Stalin and Hitler did!

Post by **SonomaCat** » Thu May 11, 2006 12:52 pm

G.W.Bush wrote:
anacondagriz wrote:Damn BAC 1st you piss off all the religious folks over on Egriz now you are doing it here. You are going to give us atheists a bad name.
Much worse than Stalin and Hitler did!

Umm, yeah. Except that Hitler was a Christian.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm

To date ... nobody has started a war in the name of atheism. The number of wars fought in the name of religions is almost countless ... including our current little debacle with Islamic terrorism.

I'm reading a really interesting book right now that I am convinced (if I were King) would be required reading for everyone in the world. Not because I think it is necessarily the "right" or "only" answer, but merely because it provides insights that are necessary for anybody to be able to come to anything resembling an informed opinion about the role of religion in the world.

It is called "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason" by Sam Harris. It spends a little time discussing the role of religion as the genesis of armed conflicts, and is quite interesting.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Thu May 11, 2006 1:09 pm

anacondagriz wrote:Damn BAC 1st you piss off all the religious folks over on Egriz now you are doing it here. You are going to give us atheists a bad name.

Yep ... it is just further evidence to add to the pile to show that although religious folks can say whatever damning things they want about atheists (including the implied suggestions in this thread that atheists are non-charitable people with absolutely no basis for such a remark outside of personal prejudice), they will scream bloody hell if someone even make the slightest observation that any tenet of their religious faith is based on anything less than 100% proven evidence. There's just a wee double standard in our society on that front. We are all for intellectual pursuits and open debate ... except for the topics for which there is no proof and actually lend themselves to the most interesting philosophical discussions.

Hello Kitty · Post by **Hello Kitty** » Thu May 11, 2006 1:10 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:
G.W.Bush wrote:
anacondagriz wrote:Damn BAC 1st you piss off all the religious folks over on Egriz now you are doing it here. You are going to give us atheists a bad name.
Much worse than Stalin and Hitler did!
Umm, yeah. Except that Hitler was a Christian.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm

To date ... nobody has started a war in the name of atheism. The number of wars fought in the name of religions is almost countless ... including our current little debacle with Islamic terrorism.

I'm reading a really interesting book right now that I am convinced (if I were King) would be required reading for everyone in the world. Not because I think it is necessarily the "right" or "only" answer, but merely because it provides insights that are necessary for anybody to be able to come to anything resembling an informed opinion about the role of religion in the world.

It is called "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason" by Sam Harris. It spends a little time discussing the role of religion as the genesis of armed conflicts, and is quite interesting.

here.

info197176 · Post by **info197176** » Thu May 11, 2006 1:13 pm

This from a "Christian" that has FTG in his sig....

Hello Kitty · Post by **Hello Kitty** » Thu May 11, 2006 1:14 pm

info197176 wrote:This from a "Christian" that has FTG in his sig....

Forget it, I am out.

catsrback76 · Post by **catsrback76** » Thu May 11, 2006 1:41 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:
G.W.Bush wrote:
anacondagriz wrote:Damn BAC 1st you piss off all the religious folks over on Egriz now you are doing it here. You are going to give us atheists a bad name.
Much worse than Stalin and Hitler did!
Umm, yeah. Except that Hitler was a Christian.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm

To date ... nobody has started a war in the name of atheism. The number of wars fought in the name of religions is almost countless ... including our current little debacle with Islamic terrorism.

I'm reading a really interesting book right now that I am convinced (if I were King) would be required reading for everyone in the world. Not because I think it is necessarily the "right" or "only" answer, but merely because it provides insights that are necessary for anybody to be able to come to anything resembling an informed opinion about the role of religion in the world.

It is called "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason" by Sam Harris. It spends a little time discussing the role of religion as the genesis of armed conflicts, and is quite interesting.

BAC- you need to do your research on the historicity of Hitler. Hitler was no more Christian than you are. Hitler's "christian" label was a cover for his influence in a Lutheran nation. He lived Hume not Jesus. Stalin was the same. Though as a young adult he attended seminary, he repudiated faith and lived as a zealot for atheistic communism. Lenin empowered Stalin because of his aggressive compaign against "faith".

Your point that there has been "no war started" in the name of atheism is flat wrong. Taking the Russian Bolshevik revolution of 1917 as one case in point. 19-21 million deaths attributed to ONLY Stalin's reign, alone. The communist "war" against Christian believers in China currently is an ongoing genicide that few people protest much less report on.

Regarding the book that you would have become required reading, though I'm sure quite interesting would have no point to it. Atheism is not the run to reason but rather the escape from it. Atheism as a basic tenet is unsupportable. One can no more prove a-(grk negative) theos-(grk god) the positive nonexistence of God, than one can prove that there is no such thing as pink polka dotted rocks somewhere in the universe. You would have to be everywhere in the universe to quantify the nonexistence of what such a premise. Atheisms arrogance is that it assumes that omniescience and can't. Agnosticism is far more honest and humble way to approach the topic. A-(grk negative) gnosis -(grk knowledge)= agnostic lack of knowledge which is fair. And far reasonable for all to swallow than the arrogance of atheism.

Ponycat · Post by **Ponycat** » Thu May 11, 2006 1:53 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote: The number of wars fought in the name of religions is almost countless

You name those that have, I'll name those that haven't and see who's list is longer.

Not saying who would win I just think that statement though very common is greatly exaggerated.