Last edited Mon Oct 1, 2018, 12:07 PM - Edit history (1)

It is important to recall that our modern university system grew out the schools for the Scholastics, or medieval Catholic Theologians. So Patriarchy, based on Roman Law and Christian Theological tradition, was formed through the sheer amount of labor (over centuries) reflected in New Advent. The dangerous part, to me, is that this circular reasoning has so thoroughly shaped much of our current culture to the point that its absurdity and irrationality now appear to many to be 'natural' or simply 'belief'.

Burying the fundamentals of the patriarchy in language that will not be understood by everyone is a key to its success. Through the appearance of understanding, it seeks to confuse seekers. Secular academia does somewhat the same, but without the same motives in many cases. Complex ideas often defy simple explanation. However, the motivation must also be considered.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

So at least for the past several centuries there’s been an alternative to basing culture on mythology.

I don't know what your issue is. The link you posted is to a scholarly theological encyclopedia. This is not a site that would be used by the average lay Catholic nor in the normal course of worship.

While you have an absolute right to your own beliefs, I am puzzled by your constant attacks on the sincerely held beliefs of a considerable portion of the American population of all political stripes. It's frankly offensive.

You are offended by my post showing people where the Catholic Encyclopedia can be found. I am offended by the evil actions of the Roman Catholic Church throughout its history. The Crusades. The systematic exploitation and genocide of indigenous peoples throughout the world. The sexual victimization of children by priests of that church that is still ongoing and is being detailed as investigations take place. I could go on and on with lists of evils done by that organization. They are frankly offensive to me and to many others.

You have come to a place that is called the Religion Group. Here, we discuss religion. The group welcomes believers and non-believers alike, who are all free to post here about any aspect of religion. It is not the "Religious" group. The information at the link I posted represents the beliefs and doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. It is a public document that can be accessed by anyone.

Not everyone is aware of it, so I have linked to it and described it from my own point of view. That is certainly within the subject matter that is discussed in this Group on Democratic Underground.

There is no reason for you to be puzzled. I have a viewpoint on religion and on organized religion in specific. I often post in this group. Some people agree with me and some do not. We have discussions on these topics. That is to be expected.

I do have an absolute right to my beliefs. I do not have a right to impose them on anyone else. However, I can open a discussion here on any viewpoint or topic having to do with religion. You're more than welcome to contribute to any discussion here, but you can also expect receive replies to your comments.

Finally, that work is widely consulted by Catholics. It's also available in print, in a 15-volume set. It's rather expensive in that format, however, but can be obtained as a Kindle eBook, for much, much less. That it is available free on the internet is a big plus. Here's a link to the hardbound set of volumes:

https://www.amazon.com/New-Catholic-Encyclopedia-2nd-Set/dp/0787640042/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&qid=1538409739&sr=8-8&keywords=catholic+encyclopedia

The promotion of sincerely held disbelief should be no more offensive than the promotion of sincerely held belief. Believing otherwise is exactly how privilege is manifested.

If people are free to express their beliefs, and I’m pretty sure they should be, then others should be just as free to refute them.

sincere or not, they can be challenged and questioned.

Would you not question the beliefs of millions of fellow Americans who support Trump and the Republicans?

Would you not even attack some of those beliefs?

If somebody is big enough to tell me that I'm going to be eternally tortured for disagreeing with them, they're big enough to handle it when they're told to go take a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut. Or at least they should be. Taking issue with such antisocial behavior isn't the part which gives offense, frankly.

to this particular SC nomination, the magazine of the Jesuit religious order in the United States has publicly withdrawn its endorsement of Judge Brett Kavanaugh as Supreme Court justice following testimony before the Senate.

This in order to keep their masses towing the line, or those who do not subscribe to any religion, from researching all the connections to them, considering the chaos that surrounds us today...just change Roman Catholic, in your OP, to Trump and CO.

I have lots of questions....for now, I will continue reading the conversation...

so that's not really on topic in this thread. I wasn't aware of a Jesuit magazine withdrawing support for Kavanaugh. That would be an interesting new thread, probably in GD.

confirmation test in ninth grade - United Church of Christ - oh, I tried after I got married, but life taught me to believe in myself through many ups and downs....

I did bookmark your op - maybe someday - I thank you for your reply...

It basically means some priest or monk at some time assumed some position to be "natural" and declared it to be what god wants, and everything else is unnatural/satanic/etc.

How it goes horribly awry: only a male and a female can "naturally" reproduce. So therefore, that's why the RCC is opposed to anything other than sex between a man and a woman in marriage. Never mind that homosexuality occurs in nature, and is certainly a natural sexual orientation in humans. Never mind that intersex individuals are real and might be male, female, both, or neither. Never mind that some people don't want children, or can't have them, or have no interest in marriage. Never mind any of that - the RCC's ancient minds decided THIS IS THE WAY and while you may "academically" question it, it's only a farce because the church has already decided they cannot be wrong, so you can go through the motions and pretend you're super intellectually rigorous, but end up at - lo and behold - the church's perfect position! Wow, what are the odds?

If it reads, "Be fruitful and multiply," as it does, the Church expands that to the extreme position and prohibits contraception. If Jebus is recorded as saying, "Don't get a divorce," the Church makes that illegal, regardless of the circumstances.

Literalism. Some folks say that isn't important, but much of Catholic doctrine is, and has always been, based on very literal interpretations of scripture.

Between picking literal nits and engaging in tortured logical processes, that Encyclopedia is full of nonsense that has been developed over 1800 years of unmarried old men fretting over details.

It's all an enormous mess, is what it is.

All because they can't admit they might have gotten something wrong. The religion has built itself upon a foundation of always being right about everything.

If you're wrong about one thing, you might be wrong in everything. So, preserving the minutiae of dogma and doctrine is important. After 1800 years, the smallest things are deeply-embedded truths.

It takes a surgical process to remove such things. The Reformation excised itself from some things, but kept a shit-load of other nonsense, and that's now entrenched in much of Protestantism.

The mess changes a bit in composition, but it continues to befoul humanity, if you ask me.

I found this site to be boring. After doing searches for comic books, cartoons, Batman, and the Beatles, I came up empty. Even a search for music only came up with a few hits. Don't these guys ever talk about anything interesting?

The first and most urgent condition which the Church imposes in regard to her music is that it be in conformity with the place, time, and purpose of Divine worship; that it be sacred and not profane, in other words that it be church, and not theatrical, music. Theatrical music is just as much out of place in church, as the performance of a secular drama, the exposition of a battle scene, or even a statue representing a pagan deity. The performance of such music directs the attention not to the altar but to the organ loft. Musicians themselves have frequently failed to recognize clearly the difference between concert and church music. Mozart used parts of his religious compositions in secular cantatas and extracts from his operas for church purposes. A mass has also been compiled from some of Haydn's profane compositions. The "wassail of notes", the complete absorption of our consciousness by artistic melodic or harmonic combinations and sensuous melodies, the display of instrumental virtuosity, the joyous rush of tonal masses put to flight all devout recollection of the sacrificial act and all heartfelt prayer. March, dance, and other jerky rhythms, bravura arias, and the crash of instruments affect the senses and nerves, but do not touch the heart. Even a reminiscence of the concert hall is a distraction to those who wish to pray

Until the mid-fifteenth century, printed religious documents were rare, and reading was an uncommon skill. The Catholic church at that time opposed the printing of books, Bibles in particular. In 1515, Pope Leo X tried to introduce a censorship and a supervision of printed books. This measure had little effect.

That's why it's contagious.