toldailytopic: What do you suppose God thinks of the Catholic Church?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
You saw this movie?
And to your mind it's a cogent argument against the Catholic Church?
Reading the parents' guide at the link you gave, I wonder why any Christian would want to see it based on the number of F words (over 100), other foul language, and its depiction of God as a woman, let alone a number of other things that likely wouldn't bother you because they're specifically aimed at Catholics.
How many F words do you think Christians should sit through in coming to believe that Hollywood is their first argument against the Catholic Church? Amazing.
I expected what John W wrote. It's pretty much what I've seen over the years, and there's nothing new there.
But this is a first. DOGMA as apologetics. Wow.
Last edited:
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
So then Peter teaching what Paul taught him, that Jesus suffered only once for all sin means nothing? Got it.
MrDeets
TOL Subscriber
Yup. About 7 or so years ago when I wanted nothing to do with God.
Where exactly did I say that? :idunno:
As I said, I haven't seen it in many years, which would mean I haven't seen it since bowing before the Throne... also, please illustrate where I have shown any malice, dislike, or any other even slightly negative emotion whatsoever towards Catholics. I'll wait...:nono:
Whats this have to do with anything?
Proof that I am suggestiong this movie as any type of source(good bad or ugly) for apologetics, please? I never even began to think, much less suggest that Dogma should be used as a basis for one's theology. I believe I said:
. Perhaps you are simply a hypersensitive catholic that cannot take any joke about an obviously flawed church. Before you make an assumption, here, I'm not saying that any other church is perfect. I'm simply saying the catholic church, as large as it is, and with its mixed history and recent events, should expect some harrasment.
You sure made a whole mess of assumptions when replying to my one sentence post... maybe you ought to have at least some basic knowledge of a person and their personality(like propensity to act in a sarcastic manner) before making such outrageous assumptions.
In short, take a chill pill.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Perhaps if you had stuck to "In short," you would have been a lot more convincing.
MrDeets
TOL Subscriber
Wasn't trying to be convincing, just honest. I guess honesty doesn't sit well with you...
Is a short smug answer all you can muster here? No proof for any of your assumptions?
I didn't think so...
lain:Anna, it's going to sound like, but I'm not preaching at you. Using the f word ((ignoring the "particular word" issue) , is not something the Bible addresses. Its pretty much a non issue Biblically.
The Bible does address slander cursing (which is what you see in here all the time with the Rcc being cursed by Protestants in their conversation) , and other offenses that deal with the content of what you say, not the words you say them with.
The apostle Paul said a very vulgar word for fecal waste in kne of His letters. He did so to accurately describe the disgust he felt of worldly opinions gained. You can get some comments on this by searching Google for the word skubalon.
Col 2 warns of the man made "do nof"s rules that creep into our faith. Paul battled those issues constantly. Do not see, do not taste, d not touch, (do not say?), etc...by most anticussing Xians standards Paul, as a zealot, was a chaser.
The most important thought is, slander and lying is spoken of directly about, over 15 times, what we call cussing, none. Yet people will freak out over ****, damn, or hell, but have Ni problem bearing false witness, slandering, etc...
And this fact assures me, this is kne more example of people adding rules to the faith that God never added. Just like the Col 2 warnings said not to do.
Now, this has been a perpetuation of a mindset an eon ago, at least. So, yiu nor anyone else here is guilty of starting anything. That's not my point, but making issue of things that aren't things can't be good.
I became as the Romans to witness to the Romans, etc...
Peter was hypocritical in his application of the eating laws...
We aren't to set a fake standard, don't drink, smoke, or say that word, for new believers. Trust me, if God finds these issues He will let them know. The danger is obvious with such fake standards, people accomplish the fakes and feel they have accomplished something when they haven't, and that causes all sorts of falsity.
None of this is reproachng you for your comment, but seemed a good place to out some minds in motion.
The Bible does address slander cursing (which is what you see in here all the time with the Rcc being cursed by Protestants in their conversation) , and other offenses that deal with the content of what you say, not the words you say them with.
The apostle Paul said a very vulgar word for fecal waste in kne of His letters. He did so to accurately describe the disgust he felt of worldly opinions gained. You can get some comments on this by searching Google for the word skubalon.
Col 2 warns of the man made "do nof"s rules that creep into our faith. Paul battled those issues constantly. Do not see, do not taste, d not touch, (do not say?), etc...by most anticussing Xians standards Paul, as a zealot, was a chaser.
The most important thought is, slander and lying is spoken of directly about, over 15 times, what we call cussing, none. Yet people will freak out over ****, damn, or hell, but have Ni problem bearing false witness, slandering, etc...
And this fact assures me, this is kne more example of people adding rules to the faith that God never added. Just like the Col 2 warnings said not to do.
Now, this has been a perpetuation of a mindset an eon ago, at least. So, yiu nor anyone else here is guilty of starting anything. That's not my point, but making issue of things that aren't things can't be good.
I became as the Romans to witness to the Romans, etc...
Peter was hypocritical in his application of the eating laws...
We aren't to set a fake standard, don't drink, smoke, or say that word, for new believers. Trust me, if God finds these issues He will let them know. The danger is obvious with such fake standards, people accomplish the fakes and feel they have accomplished something when they haven't, and that causes all sorts of falsity.
None of this is reproachng you for your comment, but seemed a good place to out some minds in motion.
God can by no means work openly in the Catholic church so He works secretly.
My Grandad lived in a street in Northern Ireland which was half catholic and half protestant....Imma thinking God stepped over the dividing line. God is like that.
My Grandad lived in a street in Northern Ireland which was half catholic and half protestant....Imma thinking God stepped over the dividing line. God is like that.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Wasn't trying to be convincing, just honest. I guess honesty doesn't sit well with you...
Is a short smug answer all you can muster here? No proof for any of your assumptions?
I didn't think so...
Your assumption that "honesty doesn't sit well" with me is abjectly wrong, but of course I have no way to prove that, do I?
Perhaps if you'd look at your last two comments, you'd see how much more assuming you'd done about my personal character--while accusing me of same --than you will find in my original comment, where you will not find the words "malice" or "dislike" because I never said them. You did, however. You inferred them, but I didn't say them. On the other hand, you had no qualms in saying that "honesty doesn't sit well" with me. Interesting situation, that.
Since I didn't say what you ascribed to me as saying, your inference of it can be attributed to a common logical fallacy - or it can be a failing on my part of properly stating my case.
I'll go with the latter. It was my failing. There should have been nothing in my words which should have caused you to think I was attacking you personally. For that, I apologize.
I should have left your comment, and your link, alone. It should have just sat there, unremarked on by me.
Although I'm not at all sorry for what I said about DOGMA, I made a mistake in letting it get to me.
I did come off as irritable, and so I'm sorry for that too.
Your "take a chill pill" was actually the best and the most helpful thing you could have said to me. :e4e:
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
IXOYE:
Thanks for your thoughts. I raised some really fine kids, all grown. I don't know what they say when they're not around me, and I don't worry about it. But there's no way they'd ever use the F word in front of their mama.
For many people today, the F word has pretty much lost all shock value. It's just another word.
But if you think about it, it's an ugly, guttural word for something that was meant to be a beautiful thing.
That's not all that's wrong with the movie. Reading the synopsis at IMDB tells me all I need to know, going beyond the F words, and it doesn't pass the Biblical test of Phil. 4:8.
As to the rest, Catholics really have never been prudes. We drink, we smoke (well, I don't), we dance, we play cards, even. And no, despite what some people think, we don't hate sex. In the context of marriage, it's a beautiful thing, appreciated for what it is--and that appreciation has brought forth many a happy family. :e4e:
Thanks for your thoughts. I raised some really fine kids, all grown. I don't know what they say when they're not around me, and I don't worry about it. But there's no way they'd ever use the F word in front of their mama.
For many people today, the F word has pretty much lost all shock value. It's just another word.
But if you think about it, it's an ugly, guttural word for something that was meant to be a beautiful thing.
That's not all that's wrong with the movie. Reading the synopsis at IMDB tells me all I need to know, going beyond the F words, and it doesn't pass the Biblical test of Phil. 4:8.
As to the rest, Catholics really have never been prudes. We drink, we smoke (well, I don't), we dance, we play cards, even. And no, despite what some people think, we don't hate sex. In the context of marriage, it's a beautiful thing, appreciated for what it is--and that appreciation has brought forth many a happy family. :e4e:
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
That is the saddest thing I've read here in a long time.
Well, I was saving that Catholics "get it" in that sense much more than Protestants who go much further.B-) being a protesting Protestant, I really get annoyed when some who.shares that tag with me goes off the deepened. I share some snide snickety snippets for chuckle value when needed.
The thing that irks me is this whole don't say that word thing, that today hos offensive only because of generations of assuming its offensive, which started feom a distracting teaching that has nothing to do with the substance of the ffaith. But things that do bear on the substance etc... slander and all that nobody give's a skubalon about.
It just shows me, that people are more focused on looking or acting Xian, than becoming Xian.
And anyone embracing that tangential nightmare, needs someone to he'll redirect them.
What impresses me, is you took my rant for what it was, and didn't read offense into it, or anything like that! You mist be smarter than the average bear.
The thing that irks me is this whole don't say that word thing, that today hos offensive only because of generations of assuming its offensive, which started feom a distracting teaching that has nothing to do with the substance of the ffaith. But things that do bear on the substance etc... slander and all that nobody give's a skubalon about.
It just shows me, that people are more focused on looking or acting Xian, than becoming Xian.
And anyone embracing that tangential nightmare, needs someone to he'll redirect them.
What impresses me, is you took my rant for what it was, and didn't read offense into it, or anything like that! You mist be smarter than the average bear.
Why could he not work openly ? Rome has a much more Biblical model than Protestants do. (Excluding liturgical Protestants.)
I mean, other than he works through someone He appoints nearly everytime He brings a mmessage, I think God is very active in the Rcc. They do things right Protestants protest in spite of the Bible, or TO spite the Bible.
Spitfire
New member
There is some relevance to what is actually going on with Catholicism in the part where the crucifix is replaced with "Buddy Jesus." Other than that, that movie has nothing to do with anything that Catholicism actually teaches. So I really don't see how it could possibly function as the clever commentary on Catholicism that people imagine it to be. It's serves far better as a look at how Catholicism (and Christianity in general) are perceived by people whose understanding is very superficial and whose attitude is inimical to begin with. Or by people who were "raised Catholic" yet still somehow know absolutely nothing about their own religion.
Spitfire
New member
I do read the Bible. I do believe the Bible. I don't believe that popes and priests are always right about everything and can do no wrong.
So, either you have no idea what you're talking about or none of what you said applies to me anyway. Or both.
Look, the movie was funny. Like Bruce Almighty that h!d an atheist filling for god.
The most hated thing of dogma is it forces the self promoting, over inflated egos in the church fkr have their narcissistic images pointed out to be false. N narcissist wants their image ruffled. That show sure did it. As it was written in parody, I have a tough time finding reason to be negative towards them. As a parody, its brilliant.
The most hated thing of dogma is it forces the self promoting, over inflated egos in the church fkr have their narcissistic images pointed out to be false. N narcissist wants their image ruffled. That show sure did it. As it was written in parody, I have a tough time finding reason to be negative towards them. As a parody, its brilliant.
Spitfire
New member
Parody of what, though? That was my point. What does Catholicism actually teach that the show was parodying?