Well said Mark and backed by a comment Flannery O'Connor wrote in a letter to William Sessions.
"One of the good things about Protestantism is that it always contains the seeds of its own reversal. It is open at both ends---at one end to Catholicism, at the other to unbelief."
As an illustration of this, you need look no further than Dr Dawkins. A colleague at work had a copy of his "the god delusion." The stuff on the Catholic church was pretty much identical with (in style and content) as Jack Chick tracts. I suspect that much of his "research" into the church was done by reading anticatholic, protestant sites.
Mark, nice posts today on this subject.
"I've learned that I can virtually never believe this claim of cool impartiality, and I've learned that atheists genuinely don't seem to recognize just how much anger they exude, nor how it colors their delusional "disinterested pursuit of the truth". They seem to genuinely believe that it is only the theists that is driven by irrational needs, hatreds and fears, never the atheist."
This summarizes my personal experiences. Locally, we have one in-your-face atheist who deems himself so rational and logical with "knowledge as his (the atheist) goal."
But because of his anger and seemingly whacked out obsession concerning those who hold a religous belief, his arguments quickly decay into illogical rants and expressions that are obviously devote of critical thought, knowledge of history and science, compassion and humanity. All of which exposes a very base prejudice.
I appreciate Adrienne's comments in the post below. I think we need to be careful in our discussions as painting atheist's as angry, so as not to fall into the same trap "hard" atheists do in painting those who accuse those with religious beliefs as being mentally ill, brainwashing their children, and against science and reason.
(People who hold these "hard" opinions remind me of the KKK and Aryan Nation types who proclaim the white race is superior. Hmmm...Mr. KKK man, you are hardly an example of someone who is superior.
So, for me, the "hard" atheist is hardly an example of rational and logical thought. "Soft" atheists should be ashamed of their "hard" brethren.
Merry Christmas to All!
Ok, as a monobrowed loser, where do I demand my apology.
I think what happens to some baptized Christians who become atheists (based on my personal experience) is you end up not with a stoic serenity, but in an argument with a God who's supposed to be non-existent. And since God really doesn't mind a good argument, that discussion can be quite irritating. God goes after His lost sheep.
I worry less about the angry ones. Many want to believe, deep down, and at the first sight of God, will say with Thomas, "My Lord and my God." It's the frozen, the ones who don't care, who are indifferent -- they puzzle and worry me.
I agree. Angry atheists *care*, and that's doorway in.
It's the folks who simply have no interest who I find to be astonishingly incurious and passive. Only the Holy Spirit can reach a heart that cold.
I knew a very sweet, caring and self-sacrificing person in Moscow who was a long-time Party member, who was a self-proclaimed 'non-believer' ( I never heard her use the term 'atheist' ), but who respected religous belief and believers and bore no rancor toward them.
She mentioned that atheist friends of hers had attended the kitchen sermons of the famous and beloved Orthodox priest, Fr. Alexander Men, and that their jaws dropped when they listened to him.
I watched this person taking care of her aged mother at home. Her mother was suffering from rather severe senile dementia, and I thought that Oksana (that was this person's name) definitely had saint-like qualities. Nor would she have committed her Mom to an institution if she could possibly have avoided it.
I don't see any of this as a vindication of atheism, but rather, as a vindication of the faith that the Holy Spirit is everywhere in the souls of men, if they will allow Him in.
I can't imagine the tolerant and genuinely friendly Oksana trying to convert anyone to non-belief, or getting angry or frustrated over someone else's faith.
Continued: Almost everyone of Oksana's generation in the SU was raised as an atheist as a matter of course. But the human soul is sturdier than many of us imagine, and there were and are many good people in Russia, both believers and non-believers.
I once had a conversation with an Orthodox priest, Fr. Grigoryev, at Georgetown. He told me that one could compare the US, where religion has always been openly practised, with Russia, where it had been almost illegal for decades, and conclude that there might be more genuine believers in Russia than in the US.
Faith is most often learned in adversity.
This reminds me of a discussion on Al Kimel's blog. He posted a quote from Cardinal Newman that said all roads either lead to Rome or to Atheism. The idea that over the long term only the church built on the rock can survive the storms. When the preasure of liberalism becomes too great you either find truth that cannot be fudged around the edges or you give in to the temptation to fudge.
I'm sure there is a big difference between an atheist who grows up in a culture that rejects belief in God and one that grows up in a culture that allows a person freedom to choose what he or she truly believes.
The atheists I've known very rarely take a live and let live attitude. Once they find out you are a Christian they come out swinging, regardless of whether you are discussing religion with them or not. Christianity is the source of all wars, evil, prejudice, blah, blah, blah. It never seems to strike them that their unprovoked attacks might be a little on the prejudiced side.
I know some angry atheists who don't so much disbelieve in God as they really, really dislike Him.
Amen to what you say Judith M. My brother in Laws wife is an atheist - so she says - but whenever we are alone she cannot help but bring Faith into the conversation. She "But it's not logical." Me "that's right and if it were it would no longer be religion but science." In these discussions I challenge her to reconcile 'tooth & claw' evolution with the existence in the world of mercy. Last January she told me that if she ever became a Christian she would have to be Catholic because all the others she knows of are man made.
She's on the way wouldn't you say?
Mark,
I wasn't offended in the least, just a bit dismayed - and to be honest, a bit disappointed, as well.
You're entitled to your opinions, of course, but as someone who has followed your writings in various forums over the course of more than ten years, it appears that in the last few years you have moved to a much harder line with respect to your "separated brethren" than you have displayed in the past.
Also, from an etymological perspective the root word "protest" - as used in the term "Protestant," in its historical context - is more properly understood as meaning to *affirm* certain truths, rather than merely being *against* something ... although the latter sense naturally arose as a consequence, of course.
Again, no offense was taken on my part, and I sincerely hope that none is given by my remarks, either; I am far more interested in affirming that which we hold in common (which is considerable), rather than in contributing to any additional dissention between our respective Christian communions.
All the best to you and your readers,
R.C.
For the record, I am not angry with God (I'll use the uppercase so as not to upset Pavel here) anymore than I am angry with the Tooth Fairy, magic elves, or with Santa Claus for not existing. Nor do I argue with any of these entities, because I believe it would be quite pointless to argue with something I don't think exists!
As to "coming out swinging", I have met some other atheists who are like that, and I know how aggravating they can be with the whole "religion is the cause of all wars", "the world would be more peaceful without religion" blah blah blah. I don't like them either, and I've even debated with a few of them. Personally, while I do think that religion has been the cause of many bloody conflicts over the course of human history, if these hadn't been started due to religion, it would have been something else: ethnicity, culture, greed, race, something. Human beings usually don't have to look very hard to find reasons to distrust, hate, and even kill each other.
BUT, I have also experienced a fair number of Christians who have "come out swinging" at ME when I've publicly said I'm an atheist, and I'm by no means alone in that. One woman I worked with said, "That's AWFUL!" in a loud voice when I identified myself as such (and no, I wasn't "evangelizing". I was telling her why I wasn't interested in coming to her church). Then later on she kept telling me I really wasn't an atheist even though I thought I was, because I was too nice. Keep in mind that aggression and rudeness are traits certainly not limited to nonbelievers!
The only difference, Adrienne, is that most Christians will at least intellectually acknowledge themselves to be sinners, (or "doofuses" a la Mark) whereas most non-believers have a bizarrely positive view of their moral fibre, contrary to all the evidence.
It's the folks who simply have no interest who I find to be astonishingly incurious and passive. Only the Holy Spirit can reach a heart that cold.
I had a little insight into that just recently, Mark. Someone very dear to me was explaining that to her, the faith has just never been real. (She was baptised Catholic). I then thought of what Fr Michael Sweeney said in one of the Siena Institute tapes (probably the Call to Christian Happiness tape) where he says that according to St Thomas Aquinas, a thing has to be perceived as real before it can be desired. In other words, for some reason, some people just cannot perceive God to be real.
This has never been true for me. For whatever reason, God has always seemed real to me - even when I didn't want to have anything to do with Him! LOL!
And maybe that is why some atheists are angry (and many of them certainly are, to the point of being obnoxious) and others are not.
Which, to me, shows the importance of finding out what our charisms are and then using them.
Interesting. Atheist bashing is pretty par for the course here and on similar sites, and I know how pointless it is to try to refute it based on personal anecdote or anything else.
But I do feel moved to defend Protestantism, despite having rejected it myself. Protestantism looks at the raw materials of scripture and allows each person (to an extent) the chance to understand its message in their own way. Catholicism, on the other hand, imposes an understanding from the top down. Not just through appeals to greater intellectual understanding (which occurs in Protestantism a lot too) but by actually claiming special access to holy revelation through the Pope. Thus the Catholic Church can add in things with no basis in the Bible. There is no trust in individuals that maybe they could come to correct conclusions all by themselves.
And hey, maybe you're right. Maybe the Pope really does have a special holy hotline. But if you can't see the reasoning behind people wanting to actually look at fixed source material no longer within the hands of flawed humans and draw their own conclusions rather than simply trust the word of the monarch of a small country, then I think that shows the poverty of your outlook.
Protestantism is not like atheism - trust me, I've done both. It is not just about protesting about things, which seems to be the reasoning of your opening paragraph. It is about having a direct relationship with God based on one's own understanding, not someone else's.
Catholicism, on the other hand, imposes an understanding from the top down
So does Parenting come to think on it - okay a little irrelevant in this context I know.
Thus the Catholic Church can add in things with no basis in the Bible
Um and Protestantism has gone along with it and does its own version. Where in the Bible was it authorized to change the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday? Where is the Trinity mentioned. As I understand it most Protestantism takes a dim view of development of doctrine but I cannot think of a more major surge of Doctrine Development that that which occurred under the auspices of Luther and Calvin and Co.
As for that claim again that Catholicism, on the other hand, imposes an understanding from the top down I don't think Protestants have any idea on how all Catholic Dogma has emanated from grass roots Catholicism Both the Doctrine of The Immaculate Conception and The Assumption Of Mary into Heaven were both pushed from below by grass roots Catholics acting on the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Protestantism can only survive on a misguided and distorted impression of what constitutes Catholicism and Catholics are often totally dismayed by the false ideas held by Protestants of authentic Catholic belief.
Pax.
I don't believe in God because I read about God in a book, or was brought up to believe in God and have never gotten over my indoctrination, or was convinced by listening to a tape. I don't even say that I 'believe.' I perceive, and therefore I *know*. God is experiential, empirical, not only for me but for so many people that 'rationalists' would perhaps be astonished.
Belief in God doesn't happen in human beings because they're afraid of thunder. One can be an atheist and still be afraid of thunder. Belief arises from a perception of the transcendent.
I used to be an angry atheist . . . visited online forums to rail against God, attack the silly beliefs of those who actually could believe, etc. How I came back to the God I had rejected was nothing but a grace of a God who had never rejected me.
I got a really great email a while back. I wish I had saved it, as I am sure that I cannot reproduce it well enough, but here goes…
There was a science teacher who was a radical atheist. He insisted that there was no God, and no one could prove that He existed. A student disagreed with him and insisted that there was indeed a God. The teacher wanted to reduce the student to silence and asked, “If there is a God, then why does so much evil exist?”
The student replied, “Is there such a thing as cold? No, cold is the word that we use to describe the absence of heat. Is there such a thing as darkness? No, darkness does not exist. It is the word we use to describe the absence of light? Is there such a thing as evil? Evil is the word that we use to describe the absence of God.”
And the teacher was reduced to silence.
The student was Albert Einstein.
That should be "Why is there such a thing as evil?" instead of "Is there such a thing as evil?"
I hope the essence of the story still shines through despite my poor recounting of it.
"For the record I'm not angry with God anymore than I am at the Tooth Fairy, elves or Santa Clause for not existing"....reminds me of the bumper sticker (popular in these parts) which says "Mean People Suck". The driver goes on his merry way totally oblivious to the irony of that statement...how *mean* it really is.
If I belonged to many world religions, I'd be VPO (very personally offended) at God being compared to the tooth fairy but, as a Catholic, I'm gently asking: Do you really, logically think that the concept (never mind the Person) of God is on a par with the tooth fairy??? Has the tooth fairy influenced all recorded human history to date? Is the tooth fairy reflected in the order of nature as you look out your window? etc etc etc.
I have an idea, if you're a convinced atheist, then you won't be out anything to go read Thomas Aquinas on this subject. Then think about the comparison you made again.
Mark, you claim to be a former Evangelical. If you really had any inkling of what the Evangelical church was about, you would know that the esseence of Protestantism is about seeking Christ through the Bible without the "extra touches" of "tradition" that catholics and orthodox impose.
Sure, there are a lot of "evangelical" churches that have sold out to secular society (at least in their attempts to draq people) or to popular preaching (Rick Warren, Joel Osteen). So what? That doesn't mean that atheism is the logical extention of Protestantism, as you blitely suggest.
Of course, if the catholic church paid more attention to the Bible and less to its own ego and lust for power, then Luther might not have had anything to complain about.
That's what pisses me off about you catholics. You think you're so damn superior that you don't even pay adequate attention to your own history. Where do you think all your intellectual and artistic fluffery would be without Christ? For that matter, who says that you have Christ now?
Paul Protestant,
I appreciate your anger with Catholics and the Catholic Church. There is much arrogance within the Church (as there is outside), but much more pointed within the Church, and that much more hurtful when it comes from those who are supposed to be representatives of Christ. Still, it is worth considering whether or not there is at least potential within the Church that doesn’t exist elsewhere – a potential that perhaps only you can make manifest within the Church. Not only that, but not everybody is smart enough or strong enough to live the Christian faith apart from all of the “extras.” Not everybody can even read, so how would they read the Bible for themselves?? The Church does not only, or even primarily, exist for the strong and the knowledgeable and the faith-filled, but especially for those who struggle. In Christian charity, we have to be considerate of those whose faith is weak, those for whom even the will to live is a daily struggle. If a holy card or two helps such a person, do you want to be the one to take it away?
~~A bruised reed He will not break. A smoldering wick He will not put out.
Sure, there are a lot of "evangelical" churches that have sold out to secular society (at least in their attempts to draq people) or to popular preaching (Rick Warren, Joel Osteen). So what?
Um pardon me P Paul but doesn't that same argument apply to this statement of yours? Of course, if the catholic church paid more attention to the Bible and less to its own ego and lust for power, then Luther might not have had anything to complain about.
P Paul have you not heard that the Catholic Church is a hospital for sinners with entry free to all who seek treatment? It seems to me that Luther's main agenda was to redefine sin - definitely not a good idea and Calvin produced a doctrine that changed Hope into despair. As I said further up this thread, all Catholic Dogma and Doctrine emanated from very ordinary grass roots people.
The appellation Catholic was applied to those early followers of Christ who did not bar entry to the Church to anyone. AND furthermore when those first Catholics met in worship, they did not have any scripture other than bits and pieces of the Old Testament. They met to celebrate the Eucharist to recollect the "oral" teachings of Christ and reflect on them and to organise looking after the poor in the community. Later St Paul's letters began to circulate followed later again by the Gospels and other letters approved by the early Church fathers in various Church Councils and to whom you P Paul should be exceedingly grateful since it was through their efforts that the New Testament made its way eventually into your particular hands.
Pax.
Paul Protestant:
Anybody ever tell you how much like Joe D'Hippolito you sound?
Care to share you email address with us?
Caroline, the question about holy cards and the other extras is whether they become substitutes for the principles and teachings in the Bible. You mention that many people can't read; far more people in the first century couldn't read yet they were able to comprehend the Gospel before catholics brought many of the "extras" into their church. The fact that people can't read doesn't excuse preachers and teachers from presenting the gospel responsibly and accurately.
Stephen, I've never said that the church should be limited to the "perfect." The church truly is a workshop for sinners. But too many of those sinners persist in the sin of arrogance because they believe that joining a church is the same as following Christ. It is most definitely not, whether that church is catholic, orthodox or Protestant. Anybody who believes that merely joining a congregation or adhering to a confessional creed equates to salvation probably believes that iron pyrite is real gold.
Salvation does not come from the Bible. Salvation does not come from any church. Salvation comes only from God through Christ, who died to redeem mankind from its own sin. How many church-going Christians really know that? How often does that message get buried in an avalanche of irelevant vanity?
Salvation comes only from God through Christ, who died to redeem mankind from its own sin. How many church-going Christians really know that?
Paul P. If you really opened your eyes the answer to that question you posed should be an enormous and enlightening shock.
Pax
I do think you're a bit harsh on the atheists. A good number of self-proclaimed atheists are actually agnostics, and really are rather cool and level-headed about the whole God thing. Much to the detriment of their soul, I'm sure, but don't be fooled by the loud angry minority into thinking it's a majority of atheists.
(I'm a die-hard orthodox Catholic, btw, not atheist myself).
Stephen, I suggest you open your own eyes. MIne are as round as flying saucers...
Dear Paul Protestant:
If people in your church don't know that "salvation comes only from God through Christ, who died to redeem mankind from its own sin", you really ought to be thinking hard about becoming a Catholic. Every practicing Catholic I know knows and believes that because it is constantly taught with both image and word at Mass every day.
Even the latino children who I catechize in my largely spanish-speaking parish know that very well. They have had next to no formal catechesis and very few educational opportunities in general. And yet, when I ask them who Jesus is on the first day of class, they always respond that he is the son of God. When I ask what he did for us, they respond that he died for our sins. These kids (many of whom have trouble reading) don't need a book to tell them that because they have it all around them. These kids may not know all the ins and outs of theology, but their simple faith is a testament to Catholic tradition which is far from being buried in irrelevant vanities. And this comes from a culture which some of my protestant friends disparage as '90%' pagan.
Paul, I could write so much here. I used to share your misconceptions of Catholicism. I think that you would agree that there is sin, ignorance, and arrogance among both Catholics and Protestants. But really I just want to challenge you to learn the truth of what and how the Catholic Church teaches, and the truth about its history (read the earliest Church fathers if you want a testimony to the authority of the bishops as successors to the apostles!). And I especially want to challenge you to consider what role YOU could have in bringing the Catholic Church closer to what its founder, Jesus Christ, intended.
peace
dannyboy, the catholic church might teach what you say but how well do they teach it? For that matter, how well does "any" church claiming to be "Christian" teach it? What does it mean to teach Christ's role in salvation "well"? For one thing, it means not settling for the cliches that define most Christian "education." It means teaching what "faith" really means. It means teaching that faith is a pervasive, fundamental, near-unshakable sense of confidence in God's character and integrity. Who teaches that, dannyboy, huh? It means showing what such faith means in the workaday world of human problems, worries and relationships. It means teaching more than just sacraments and verses and theology. It means getting to where people actually live. Why do you think Evangelical churches have been growing, dannyboy? Because they do a better job teaching about faith than their mainline protestant, catholic and orthodox counterparts who have made themselves irrelevant to those who seek a real God.
Paul Protestant you come across as an extremely arrogant man. I know Evangelical Christians who would be ashamed to see that you claim to be one of their number.
To be anti Catholic as you claim, That's what pisses me off about you catholics. You think you're so damn superior your exact words Paul and yes I admit plucked out of context but they betray an immense amount of both envy and ignorance.
To be as anti Catholic as that requires one to be both a bigot and totally blind to history. Kyrie eleison on you Paul.
Paul Protestant sounds an awful lot like Joe D'Hippolito writing under another name. The same empty jeremiads. The same presumption that Christianity will die with him. Even similar vocabulary. Odd that he won't answer my question. I'll give him a couple more posts to actually interact with people's questions, then ban him. He might start by interacting with mine and giving us his email address.
Stephen, if arrogance consists in asking questions that nobody else wishes to confront, then so be it. I'd rather be "arrogant" in that fashion that a mindless robot, which so many Christians seem to be these days.
If you want "arrogance," read the second and third chapters of the Book of Revelation. They mostly describe churches in various states of disrepair because they were "arrogant" enough in some area to go off on their own without God's guidance. Was Christ "arrogant" in challenging them? And aren't all Christians supposed to represent Christ in some fashion? Christ wasn't the mushy grandpa that many Christians want to portray him as.
Mark, I'll give you my e-mail address if you promise not to send me any spam. Then again, why should it matter to you what my address is or who this "Joe D'Hippolito" is? If an honest interaction between people who disagree threatens your little world, I suggest you eliminate comment threads entirely.
Paul:
An "honest interaction" involves... honesty. If you are too dishonest to admit that you are D'Hippolito, why should anybody think you are honest about anything else?
So, Denny. Want to go on playing the Prophet of Truth?
Paul Protestant,
Thank you for your response. I guess one of the major distinctions between the Catholic Faith and the Protestant faiths is that the Catholic Faith recognizes the value of the entire body of Christ, whereas with the Protestant faiths, every individual is the final arbiter of truth and adherence to the Gospel.
When we become mature, we finally realize that ours is not the only point of view, and that other people have value too—their hopes and dreams, and spiritual goals and practices and preference. It’s like when St. Paul talked about the complementariness of the various members of the Body of Christ—the hand cannot say to the foot, “because you are not a hand, I have no need of you.” You may have various strengths in orthodoxy of belief, while others have strength in gentleness of demeanor, or in doing much good for the poor. Each has their own giftedness. Everybody can’t be just like you, and you can’t be just like everybody. And what a boring world it would be if everyone was exactly alike. People don’t have to spend their lives trying to engage God and neighbor in a battle of will. We can coexist within the Church. The decision has been made. Jesus Christ loves everyone regardless of sins and imperfections.
If you are able to find fault with Catholics or people of any faith, I am not surprised. But as to how that disproves the Catholic Faith, I just don’t see it. If that’s enough for you, though, then so be it. There is good that people of various beliefs do too. And if people do good in secret, as we are instructed to, how would you even know? My point being that we shouldn’t be too presumptuous in deciding that others are not as holy as we are, even if it seems that way superficially.
>> the question about holy cards and the other extras is whether they become substitutes for the principles and teachings in the Bible.
Oops... it didn't print half of what I wrote... here's the other half (not that you need it. ha ha)
>> the question about holy cards and the other extras is whether they become substitutes for the principles and teachings in the Bible.
I guess it just wasn't meant to be. Have I reached the limit of words??
Caroline, please try again. I'll get back to the gist of your post in a moment.
Mark, I've stated my terms. Promise me that you won't send span and I'll give you my e-mail address. Otherwise, shut up.
Paul:
I don't spam. I do, however, dislike people who have no manners.
Bye, Paul. Or should I say, Joe?
“(not from you, fortunately)”
Thank you for your kind words. Hope I don’t screw it up now 
My feeling about the Church is, not that I’m superior because I’m Catholic (hardly), but that the Church can be unifying where human efforts fail. There are other reasons why I’m Catholic too, but basically, I feel that the Catholic Faith offers what I wasn’t able to find elsewhere. Not that I’ve found all Catholics to be living out their faith as perhaps it ought to be, but the potential within the Catholic Church is there. The problem of complacency is a big one in my opinion too. Even a priest, in his homily, said as much. Why does that happen, or what to do about it—those are big questions. If you were Catholic, you could become a priest and/or missionary. I guess you could be a missionary or a minister as a Protestant too, but in my opinion, the possibilities are greater within the Church.
The thing about “all Christians must ask such questions periodically..” well… perhaps you could say that all young and healthy Christians should be willing to challenge themselves, but we have to remember that Christianity extends even to those who are very old and can hardly remember what day it is, and to people who are retarded, etc. I think that is one of the reasons for the looseness in imposing strict spiritual demands on the whole body of Christ. There are religious communities that have more of a laser-like focus on particular aspects of Christianity, so the rigorous Christian life is available for those who are suited to it.
I thought you had been banned. Well, in case you do get banned for real, we can continue this discussion through email, if you like.
Suburbanb@aol.com
Sorry, Mark--
Where you claim that "At the end of the day, Protestantism, as its name implies, is a protest, a reaction against something before it."
No, it's not. I believe you're being misled by focussing simply on the term used to describe us. Protestantism is not "a protest"; it is a variety of Christianity, just as Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism are varieties of Christianity. We haven't been "protesting" against anything since we managed to separate from Rome half a millennium ago.
By misunderstanding this central point, you mischaracterize our whole approach. We don't go to worship every Sunday trying to find new ways to "protest" against Rome. We spend our worship services worshipping God. For goodness' sake, we're the vast majority of Christians in this country--we have better things to do at church than worry about what the Roman Catholics are doing at their services.
Since your church no longer controls our faith, we are no longer "protesting" against what it does. We've got our ways of doing things now, and we do them. The term is simply a historical holdover and an honorable part of our heritage. We still *disagree* with you on certain things, of course, but it's not what our churches are about.
And, "at the end of the day," of course, we're all Christians and part of Christ's church. And our disputes must be tempered by the reminder that we can work together to advance our religion.
But if you can't see the reasoning behind people wanting to actually look at fixed source material no longer within the hands of flawed humans and draw their own conclusions rather than simply trust the word of the monarch of a small country, then I think that shows the poverty of your outlook.
Perhaps it is a poverty on my part, but I truly cannot see the logic of that position. It seems you are jumping out of the flawed human frying pan into the flawed human fire. Why should the word of a Joe Schmo from Skenokee Wisconsin who happens to skim through a few passages have more credibility than a person vested with authority in unbroken succession from St. Peter (Thou art Peter, ...upon this rock... keys to the kingdom...etc.)? How is letting any old flawed human come to his own conclusions somehow better? Should any old flawed human be allowed to come to his own conclusions about performing brain surgery? About the best way to build a public building or fly an airplane?
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that now that the fixed source material is out of the hands of flawed humans, it is better off in the hands of ... flawed humans?
10 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
