I texted a good friend of mine, former Catholic, BOUNCY

[CC27]

slightlv (472 posts)


I texted a good friend of mine, former Catholic,

this morning prior to 8 am, believe it or not, this question... and she was actually up for it. I don't usually do things like this that early... but her answer was pretty darned interesting... especially given the times we currently live in.

Has anyone else been seeing what I call the "warring" religious commercials on TV? These don't ask for money? These ask you to come back to God (to their Church and/or version of God). Mostly, it's the Catholic Church and the latest Franklin (?) Graham doing them. Graham can go straight to hell, for all I care. He's done way too much harm with his relationship with Trump and Dominionism to EVER be taken seriously.

But it's the Catholic Church commercials that particularly had me going lately. You see, I remember the phrase... Peter, upon You will I build My Church.... being in the bible, spoken by Christ.

But Catholics didn't build their Church OR end up compiling their Bible on Peter. They used Paul. Paul was restrictive. Combative. Fascist. Controlling. Anti-woman. Peter was the exact opposite. Peter was progressive. He was nurturing. He believe clerics should marry. I look at the Franciscans who taught me at St. Mary's University in San Antonio, and I see some of what I expect Peter's teachings would have been.

Okay, some of this I've probably got all wrong, and I admit it. I'm not Catholic. I'm not Paulist. Hell, I'm not a Christian any longer, and when I was, my family was long ago Evangelical. So.... I'm about as far from Catholic as you can get. For the last 30 years, I've been Wiccan/Craft. For the last 20 years, I've just given up and called myself "Witch." As a woman, I've reclaimed that moniker as mine. And I've done it with pride.

But the whole Catholic Church saying they're Christ's church when they've NOT done the ONE thing Christ said they SHOULD have done just blows my mind for the pure hypocrisy.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218325038

This never happened.

[Kc25]

Maybe I am missing something... what was the question and the answer?

[dandi]

Where have all the good Bouncy writers gone?

I so miss all the cops and bushes of the GWB days. 

[enslaved1]

Maybe I am missing something... what was the question and the answer?

Agreed.  Is the one about the commercials?  If so, what was the answer?  Is someone testing a DU bot, maybe?  One that generates random religious arguments?  If so, it needs some more debugging. 

[USA4ME]

First of all, Paul was an Apostle and the things he said and wrote were inspired of God. So if you have a problem with what he wrote, take it up with God, He’s the one who told Paul what to say and write.

Second, I agree you’re a witch, but probably not the kind you’re talking about.

.

[SVPete]

But Catholics didn't build their Church OR end up compiling their Bible on Peter. They used Paul. Paul was restrictive. Combative. Fascist. Controlling. Anti-woman. Peter was the exact opposite. Peter was progressive. He was nurturing. He believe clerics should marry. I look at the Franciscans who taught me at St. Mary's University in San Antonio, and I see some of what I expect Peter's teachings would have been.

Somebody's not very familiar with church history or the Bible. The discussions and council concerned with the canon were several centuries before Rome became a dominant bishopric. So, "Catholics didn't ... compil(e) their Bible on Peter," is anachronistic. As to "using" Paul, the Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Only Luke had extensively accompanied Paul (Mark bailed part way into Paul's first missionary outreach), and Luke states that he had found and spoken with eyewitnesses of Jesus' ministry. Luke also wrote the book of Acts.

As to the epistles, quite a few of the letters were written by Paul. But two were written by Peter, three by John, and one apiece by James and Jude. Revelation (Apocalypse) was written by John. So, Paul certainly was a significant writer, but not the only significant writer. Paul was "restrictive"? No more so than Jesus, Who affirmed the validity of the Law of Moses. "Combative"? ??? "Fascist"? Besides being anachronistic, that's just absurd. "Controlling"? Well, leaders lead, but how "controlling" was it for Paul to entrust positions of regional leadership to Timothy and Titus? "Anti-woman"? How "anti-woman" was it for Paul, in one of his letters, to refer to a woman as an apostle?

[67 Rover]

First of all, Paul was an Apostle and the things he said and wrote were inspired of God. So if you have a problem with what he wrote, take it up with God, He’s the one who told Paul what to say and write.

Give it up. Explaining the Christian religion to a DUmmie is like explaining differential equations to a mutt.

[FlaGator]

The Catholics consider Peter the first bishop of Rome and use this belief to qualify the "rock on which I will build my Church"

[Aristotelian]

But Catholics didn't build their Church OR end up compiling their Bible on Peter. They used Paul. Paul was restrictive. Combative. Fascist. Controlling. Anti-woman. Peter was the exact opposite. Peter was progressive. He was nurturing. He believe clerics should marry.

There isn't enough time between now and the Lord's second coming to detail how many errors are in this short passage.

I look at the Franciscans who taught me at St. Mary's University in San Antonio, and I see some of what I expect Peter's teachings would have been.

Notice the standard DUmmy approach to religion (and indeed the typical theological liberal approach to it too) - 'what I expect Peter's teachings would have been'. There is no reference at all that what his teachings were - no attempt to open the two books of the Bible which he wrote, just an assumption that he was a 'goody' and therefore in agreement with the lunatic drivel which sloshes around in the liberal mind.

"For the time past is sufficient to have fulfilled the will of the Gentiles, for them who have walked in riotousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and unlawful worshipping of idols." (1 Peter 4:3)

"But the day of the Lord shall come as a thief, in which the heavens shall pass away with great violence, and the elements shall be melted with heat, and the earth and the works which are in it, shall be burnt up." (2 Peter 3:10)

And one which is certainly applicable to the DUmmies.
"Wherefore laying away all malice, and all guile, and dissimulations, and envies, and all detractions, As newborn babes, desire the rational milk without guile, that thereby you may grow unto salvation:" (1 Peter 1:1-2)