Roman Catholic church only true churc...

Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

There are 596119 comments on the CBC News story from Jul 10, 2007, titled Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican. In it, CBC News reports that:

The VaticanA issued a document Tuesday restatingA its belief that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church of Jesus Christ.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at CBC News.

USA Born

Claremont, CA

#548896 Jul 13, 2014
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you ever heard a preacher of religion say that the devil is leading her/him???
Not a chance!
Yet preachers of religion often say that the "world" is full of evil. And that means that they believe others are evil and they are NOT evil.
Circular reasoning at best.

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#548897 Jul 13, 2014
atemcowboy wrote:
Cisco Kid wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, the words of Jesus appointing St.Peter to "lead my sheep, feed my sheep" are very plain.
So why don't you comprehend their significance?
ME; why don't you? when Jesus is talking about the "sheep", he is talking about primarily, the House of Israel.
therefore He is talking about peter being the Apostle to the jews, and He made it plain that Paul was the apostle to the gentiles(Born Again),
WHICH ELIMINATES THE catholics, who have only the apostle judas to be their leader.lol
the apostle who only cared and cares for money for his coffers
Preston

Peace

Your use rendering of the verses in John 21..."lead my sheep, feed my sheep", is more appropriately "feed my sheep, shepherd my sheep, feed my sheep" But this has nothing to do with the Jews, since there is no difference between Jew or Greek in Christ(Galatians 3:28)

Your reasoning is circular here in that you incorrectly state that Jesus was talking to Peter about the house of Israel with respect to "feeding the sheep, leading the sheep", and then conclude, "therefore he is talking to Peter about the Jews."

In a more figurative sense Peter is standing in for all leaders within Christianity, to which Jesus tells them to feed my sheep, shepherd my sheep, feed my sheep....

Peace

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#548898 Jul 13, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
My problem is that you argue using absolutes to carefully guard your ignorance - the very hallmark of arrogance.
The study of religion is not "being religious."
Yanomami men do not have sex with their deceased mothers. If Shelby wrote that, she wasn't thinking.
You are correct ... the study of religion does not mean that the person studying was religious.

In that sentence I was referring to the concept that people of the Yanomami were not simply spiritual as you indicated ... but rather they were deeply religious, otherwise known as superstitious.

You previously stated that from your opinion Shelby was one of the best. Now you claim that Shelby was wrong.

I wasn't there to do the study and neither were you.

I suggest that you are far too cocky to be anything but a braggart pseudo anthropologist with no credentials whatsoever.

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#548899 Jul 13, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Most recent studies about the sciences show trends of the opposite - scientists and social scientists are much less likely to be religious by comparison to the general public of America.
Here are some links to academic surveys on the matter:
http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~ehe/doc/Ecklund_S...
(the above doesn't include "anthropologists" as a group - I don't know if they include us in sociology or psychology or not at all).
Same people, newer study. Again, they don't include anth. Not sure why. Shockingly, the psychologists come out at 50% full on atheist, followed by...mechanical engineering! Just the data:
http://factn.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/T...
A repeated finding is that "leading scientists" reject religion. That's what this paper is about (and no, in no way am I a "leading scientist" hahaha):
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file...
So I can't find exact numbers on anthropologists. Maybe you can?
Hidingfromyou

Peace

In studies, data is easily skewed toward what is supposed(philosophically speaking).

One of the main problems with "scientists rejects religion", is that of where the almighty dollar flows from.

Funding for universities comes mainly from government grants, which if you are aware or not, are trying to marginalize religion within the ranks of its adherents.

Thus there is no toleration of religion on campus, and religious people.

Such intolerance is nothing new.

When society becomes more tolerant, you may see more scientists that do not reject religion.

Something for you to think about....

Peace

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#548900 Jul 13, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Please do "study" how many anthropologists are religious - I'm interested in what you find out.
This morning I studied the subject and found that one was raised Jewish, one was raised Catholic, one was raised Agnostic, and I then realized that I couldn’t know whether or not later in life if they kept up their religious practices, or changed their beliefs … so I studied no more on that issue.

However, if you conversed with other anthropologists, you would be the one to know, and you seem to believe that most of them are Atheists.

I suggest that you are a fraud.

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#548901 Jul 13, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a given. In fact, I know one who passes out the wafer during communion at a protestant church.
However, the study of religion does not make one religious. So I'm hoping you're not moving the goal posts here by claiming that 1) studying religion makes you 2) in the religion. That's like saying if I studied Nazi Germany I'd be a Nazi.
To answer your questions:
Theology isn't science. It cannot produce efficacious new knowledge or technology. By using the word "anthropology" they're attempting to legitimize their religion and normalize it for all of humanity. What they are doing is very clearly not anthropology - anth analyzes religious systems, it doesn't create "systems of knowing" within them. That's antithetical to my discipline.
It's outrageous for 2 reasons:
First, it's deliberately misleading to portray scientific disciplines as drawing their knowledge from religious sources. Science does not support any particular religion - it in fact seeks to remove subjective biases from research.
Second, it misrepresents the discipline. An anthropology of Christianity is an exploration of how Christians understand the world around them, how they imbue activities, rituals and symbols with meaning. It is not a reconstruction of anthropology using the religion of Christianity.
Last, you are welcome to disbelieve and double check my claims. If you can demonstrate that you are correct using data, I'll apologize and adjust my claims.
More blather!

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#548902 Jul 13, 2014
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
You are correct ... the study of religion does not mean that the person studying was religious.
In that sentence I was referring to the concept that people of the Yanomami were not simply spiritual as you indicated ... but rather they were deeply religious, otherwise known as superstitious.
You previously stated that from your opinion Shelby was one of the best. Now you claim that Shelby was wrong.
I wasn't there to do the study and neither were you.
I suggest that you are far too cocky to be anything but a braggart pseudo anthropologist with no credentials whatsoever.
I haven't read Shelby. You claim to be quoting her. If Shelby said that the Yanomami were having sex with their dead mothers, she's worse than stupid - that's what you said. Hence, I critized Shelby.

Also, I didn't say Shelby "was one of the best." That's you misinterpreting what I'm writing...yet again. I said, and I quote, "they don't make texts like that anymore."

Shelby didn't study the Yanomami. So if she made the claim that Yanomami have sex with their mothers - the claim you made - she's an idiot. If that was your claim and not hers, then the idiot is just you, not her.

There's only a handful of people who studied the Yanomami in anthropology - Chagnon, Good, Lizot and Sponsel. I happen to be on good terms with one of them - and it's not one of the idiots.

Yes, I am correct. You're seriously insecure June. Anyone can see it in your weak, self-defensive attacks. You need to grow up and accept when you're wrong.

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#548903 Jul 13, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
So I can't find exact numbers on anthropologists. Maybe you can?
Just as every religion preacher on this forum believes that he/she is a theologian, you believe that because you study anthropology, you are an accredited anthropologist.

BWAGGHHH!

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#548904 Jul 13, 2014
marge wrote:
"Theology isn't science. It cannot produce efficacious new knowledge or technology."
If you were a serious student in 'person', you would acknowledge JESUS changes persons for the better.
Is that why for centuries Christians killed each other as heretics while preaching that Jesus supported the killings???

Idiocy.

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#548905 Jul 13, 2014
Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed.
Thank you!

And now will you agree that you are also an idiot??? I am fond of such agreeable company.

:)

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#548906 Jul 13, 2014
RoSesz wrote:
<quoted text>
The Jews most certainly had a homeland conquered by Rome ..invaded by others ,,defended by Jews during the centuries,.
They fought for personalized territory but they never had a STATE until 1948.

That is why they were so anxious to HAVE an earthly STATE that they could use for their military base to in turn fight with others that they labeled as terrorists, while they refer to their selves as "justified" and "HOLY."

Many Jews such as Einstein knew from the study of human nature that they would become very aggressive against others if they had the military power with which move "mountains."

You don't care how many Palestinians they kill, because you believe that the bible SAYS that the Jews must go back to their "homeland" before Jesus will come to save YOU.

You are a letch ... lustful for your imaginary "heaven."
Michael

Hamilton, Canada

#548907 Jul 13, 2014
hojo wrote:
<quoted text>
How many times have I told you that it doesn't matter "one iota" to me whether they post to me or not.......I know, "without a doubt" (as Catholic Christians) that they all agree with me anyway ---so what is your problem Michael.......You "continue" to have this anti-Catholic ( fettish) that seems to have your "entire life" in aheap of turmoil, insecurity and unrest .......It seem to bother you to (no end) that NO ONE on this forum will agree with your God-less, Jesus-less, l( empty agnostic lifestyle)....but then, that has been " your own rebellious choice"!!!!......The one favor that you and "every other" Catholic Basher" can do is to "quit attacking Jesus Christ and His One True Apostolic Catholic Church and go live your " empty, shallow agnostic life" in the secluded confines of your own bitterness against God , Jesus and His Catholic Church.......
...If you believe god gave everyone free will, and we should use it, why are you constantly telling protestants, and me that we are wrong, when we are just using our free will?

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#548908 Jul 13, 2014
RoSesz wrote:
It was and IS THEIR COUNTRY..historically AND LEGALLY and most importantly designated,by God to Abraham .
It will be,where Jesus,returns and reigns, in the,Future ...
If god designated the land to Abraham ... why did he then do away with the Jews Olam Haba (abode of eternal bliss)... to construct a Christian heaven for Protestants ONLY.

You are a blathering idiot.

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#548910 Jul 13, 2014
Michael wrote:
<quoted text>
...If you believe god gave everyone free will, and we should use it, why are you constantly telling protestants, and me that we are wrong, when we are just using our free will?
Hahahahahahahaha

Hojo prefers ONLY his own "free will."
Chess

Columbus, OH

#548911 Jul 13, 2014
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you!
And now will you agree that you are also an idiot??? I am fond of such agreeable company.
:)
You're projecting.
USA Born

Claremont, CA

#548912 Jul 13, 2014
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that why for centuries Christians killed each other as heretics while preaching that Jesus supported the killings???
Idiocy.
Men did these things, not God or Christ. All through scripture we can read how God tried to get mankind to acknowledge Him and allow Him to be their God. Many times asking us to turn back to Him. We are all sinners, all fall short of the Glory of God. Some worse than others but, scripture says there are none good. This world does have an end.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#548913 Jul 13, 2014
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
Just as every religion preacher on this forum believes that he/she is a theologian, you believe that because you study anthropology, you are an accredited anthropologist.
BWAGGHHH!
Are you 14?

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#548914 Jul 13, 2014
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
More blather!
Incapable of thought?

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#548915 Jul 13, 2014
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
This morning I studied the subject and found that one was raised Jewish, one was raised Catholic, one was raised Agnostic, and I then realized that I couldn’t know whether or not later in life if they kept up their religious practices, or changed their beliefs … so I studied no more on that issue.
1. So...you're incapable of study
2. You gave up after 4 individual anecdotes

and...3. you're incapable of your claims. Ok, no worries.
However, if you conversed with other anthropologists, you would be the one to know, and you seem to believe that most of them are Atheists.
Yes. Almost all the anthropologists I know are atheists. Given that it's my field, I know quite a few.
I suggest that you are a fraud.
Who cares?

Thus far in our discussions, you've been entirely unable:

1. to produce any data whatsoever
2. make a fallacy free argument
3. support any claims you make
4. be honest in the claims you make

You're basically full of projection. The only question I have at this moment is: Why? Why are you such a coward?

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#548916 Jul 13, 2014
Robert F wrote:
Hidingfromyou
Peace
Cheers.
In studies, data is easily skewed toward what is supposed(philosophically speaking).
That's true, if you're talking in a Kuhnian sense - but again, in a Kuhnian sense, for only so long.

Thomas Kuhn, for the Junes of you who don't know science history.
One of the main problems with "scientists rejects religion", is that of where the almighty dollar flows from.
Funding for universities comes mainly from government grants, which if you are aware or not, are trying to marginalize religion within the ranks of its adherents.
That's false. Gov'ts have no set agenda over research budgets in academia and no ability to adjust them.

Research grants are decided upon by scientists who are called upon to adjudicate between grant proposals.
Thus there is no toleration of religion on campus, and religious people.
Such intolerance is nothing new.
You're premise is unsound. Your conclusion may be correct, but only because religion is ridiculous, illogical and unsupported by evidence. Of course academics reject it. We're trained to be critical.
When society becomes more tolerant, you may see more scientists that do not reject religion.
Something for you to think about....
Peace
When society becomes more tolerant, we'll have biology textbooks unafraid of having evolution in them - right now anthropologists are the primary teachers of evolution, and that's just silly.

When society becomes more tolerant, we'll have atheist politicians who don't cater to the whims of religious voters who seek immoral suppression of rights and freedoms.

Don't force your religious claims on me. Your views are your own.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Pope Benedict XVI Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News United House of Prayer for All People: Bishop's... (Apr '08) 1 hr Mr Atl 9,529
News James Inhofe to Pope Francis: Shut up with your... Tue 2all 42
News Milwaukee Art Museum's embrace of condom portra... Jun 29 The Anti- Islamist 1
News Pope's Leaked Encyclical on Climate Change Has ... Jun 26 Buybull Mullahs 6
News Global warming deniers unimpressed with pope's ... Jun 26 Earthling-1 118
News Pope urges revolution to save Earth, fix 'perve... Jun 25 Sterkfontein Swar... 30
News Delamaide: Pope joins bank critics Jun 23 Eleanor 1
More from around the web