This is a response to a FB note posted by PapistWitness, aka Brett. I almost left it as a comment, but it seemed fitting for a blog post. It's past 4 AM now, so I may repost this as a vlog, or on Tumblr. I still have yet to respond to his letter to "Plugged-In" (more on that later), and I'm hoping this is clear enough for most of my audience to get. This is neither an extensive or comprehensive treatise, so it will have to do for now though.
Well, I could say I agree with you and I agree with you. The obvious pagan elements of Catholicism, particularly the title of Mary as "Queen of Heaven," a name which is used in the Bible itself to refer to the Ashtoreth idols, which I don't need to tell you were seriously condemned by God and his saints, or rather his "Christians" (i.e. little anointed ones). However, I think it has less to do with my Christianity and more with the fact I'm a Jew-loving Gentile, who, while obviously distinct from a Jew both in descent and practice, also don't vehemently oppose such practices such as 8th day male infant circumcision as vehemently as most liberal Christians seem to. As you probably know, even though I don't stress over orthopraxy (being Kosher, et al.), I don't see it as negatively as most Atheists and Christians do, and would actually prefer it at times if my mom didn't complain about my beard looking like pubic hair so much, albeit, that's just one of many obstacles. I think it's strict anti-pagan attitude, however, has also rubbed off on me. I would also agree Protestants tend to be hypocrites by calling veneration of the saints "idol worship," while there are plenty you can find that subscribe to Joel Osteen and his "prosperity gospel," as well as some atheists who have the idea that God is some middleman or "Invisible Sky Daddy" comparable to Santa Claus, who seem to have also fallen for the "prosperity gospel" message, at least if they're not a Dawkins or Shermer fan who thinks Dawkins somehow "challenges you to think," or thinks any miracle claim or claim to doctrine is a "non-answer," or, to put it less charismatically than Dawkins, thinks of God as a petty immoral sick fuck (but isn't man also? Sounds Freudian huh? ;) ).
I would also agree that the RCC seems completely alien to what it once was before the 2nd Vatican, which is one of the things that keeps me from converting among the many other problems that I have. While I haven't been able to read him, you and I are def. not alone in this, as while reading Alister McGrath's "Heresy" I noticed in a footnote that Dietrich von Hildebrand also has a problem, and was referenced as writing "Trojan Horse in the City of God: The Catholic Crisis Explained" (1993). It also distresses me that people like Kenneth Miller treat evo as some "demiurge" that created us without God, or so he implies, as well as implying that because we have free will, evolution must be true, otherwise we wouldn't have free will. This flys in the face of both Christian Orthodoxy (which posits free will as an attribute of the soul) and Darwinian Orthodoxy (which posits that b/c evo is true, free will is a delusion. Sure, you make choices, but no free will according to Darwin and Will Provine.) Not to mention Karl Giberson, who thinks we should acknowledge evo so as to "let God off the hook" from the problem of evil. Again, demiurge anyone?
Due to this and many other things, such as the Hellenistic nature of many Protestants, YEC, Ray Comforts watered down and rote evangelism makes me wonder something: Has the death knell rung for Christianity, or is it just dying to people's non-recognition or fall into heresy?
Anyways, sorry for the long ramble, but it was a bit of a stream of consciousness.
No comments:
Post a Comment