The real reason

You know, if I was god, I'd make my commands and desires fairly easy to understand, that way there would be no confusion and thus no fighting among my followers.

Hoodlum-- "the problem with fool-proof design is that fools are so ingenious."

What a frustrated little man, was Mr. Martin turned down by a seminary at one time?

Once again, the theist poo-pooers can't make up their minds. How often do we hear how childish and easy-answer religion is? Now, the complaint is that it is too complicated for adults to understand. It's like wathcing a helicopter fly with the rear-rotor shot off.

Thanks for blogging on this, and I'm glad Jimmy caught on too. I decided to give myself a cool down period, because the response I was formulating in my head involved "s-head" and "c---s----r" and "f----r" and such. I read stuff like this, and it makes me happy the secular arm used to burn heretics. Ah, the good old days...

I did write to CNN, somewhat restrained, and informed them I would never visit cnn.com again. Which I plan on sticking to.

Just chalk it up to a young ex-Catholic trying to get attention.

Scott, my remark was aimed at the fact that the bible, like every other HUMAN written book, has to be interpreted by the reader.

This is not a problem with most fiction, but with the bible this leads to mass murder and mayhem because people believe, without objective evidence, that their interpretation is correct and everyone is immoral and evil :(

Hoodlum,

That is why the story of creations is not written using quantum physics.

Is the Pope anymore foolish than most Christians who believe that only Jesus can bring you to salvation? The truth of the matter is no religion owns God and if all followers of Jesus would stop trying to tell the world that their beliefs are the only beliefs this world would be a better place. I would think that God is big enough for every belief system.

It just made me sad to read him. When he said that he wasn't encouraged to read the Bible, I thought, "Poor kid - why did his family not want him to read it?" Seriously, though, I think he's about the same age as my cousins whose parents basically relied on CCD teachers to handle their formation (or not).

I am surprised that he points out that the Catholic church claims to be the only true church with such disregard to ANOTHER church that does the SAME thing---only they send out 50,000+ missionaries every year--the Mormon Church.

I have no problem with a critic taking issue with the Pope, but if there is any church who makes a point of having fast and testimony meetings to declare that their church is the one and only true church, it is the Mormons.

He blasted away at the Catholic Pope, but not a word about other churches that make a similar claim. The deal with the Mormons is that they make that claim every day, with every missionary lesson, and NOBODY takes them to task.

The Pope says it, and everybody is all over him.

This is why ALL religions should be outlawed. Religion has nothing to do with spirituality. All religion does is divide people. You don't have to belong to a "religion" to believe in God or to be spiritual. How many people have died throughout history because of someone's religion?...Millions. It is still going on today. If you don't believe me, watch the news. Everyday, it seems there is a story about terrorism - which is driven by someone's religion. The U.S. and Britian are under constant threat of terrorist attack because we don't share the same religious beliefs as Muslims.
Just as Mr. Martin did, I grew up Catholic. I went to a Catholic grade school for eight years. The hipocracy that is innate in ALL religions and that I witnessed growing up has lead me to not trust or take seriously, anyone that is deeply religious. Seriously, listen to yourselves, you sound like 5yr. olds, "My religion is better than your religion."

Apparently, you don't know much about religion. Or human nature. Yep, you went to Catholic school alright.

You've just proved my point.

Oh, I see there's an atheism infestation. Always good to see the "open minded" seeking to ban religion. As we all know, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao all killed millions in the name of religion. except they didn't. Howe much more bloodshed has been shed by utopia-seeking secularists since the French Revolution? So much more than has been caused by the religious.

Pity these people, but pray for them as well.

Christopher Hitchens! Is that you?? Aww I've missed hearing form ya! Honestly, Eric, right on with that statement. There is more harm done in crusades/jihads and more evil wrought by missionairies and mullahs than you can calculate.

You just have to love divisive people bearing news that all that you've known and hold dear is wrong. Thank you Pope Benedict for clearing things up. You've shown me the light and the supremacy of the Catholic Church is without question. We have a couple thousand altar boys with a few lawsuits, while you have some time, your emminence.

Seriously, the CNN article was very straightforward and put forth with very little venom. Just an honest rebuttal to the Pope's declaration. He's entitled to his opinion. This Pope is the most hardline/activist cleric we've seen in a long time. I remember John Paul II and he was quite beloved by a number of denominations. This one comes bearing a sword. I'm sure it was meant jog the old blood among Catholic orders, giving them a sense of purpose and directive. Unfortunately, here's the real problem.

Ninety-Five percent of the world's religions say that the other 80% of the world is absolutely wrong in their beliefs and doomed to hell. Magnanimous God in all his wisdom couldn't have doomed the whole of humanity to eternal punishment. Could He?

Religious leaders take the path to earthly power thru divine praise. Beyond local shepherding, it's all a game of politics. This power is spread by fear and intimidation of others. Hatred and bigotry of other religions is the easy tool used by men of wisdom to warp the gullible and poor.

You need to look no further than WACO, Heaven's Gate, the Taliban, the Crusades, Iraq, Palestine, Darfur, 9/11, Bosnia, the Inquisition, or the London subway to see what steps people take when they believe they alone are saved by god. The big 3 divine religions don't have a great track record.

>> but is further evidence of what happens when ego is more important than the work of Christ.

It is interesting that the CNNinny identifies ego as a problem. As my cohort Shelray would no doubt observe, it would seem that this confused soul is providing a classical demonstration of projection.

You call those people "utopia-seeking"? Your idea of utopia is a lot different than mine. You should look up the word atheist. I didn't say I don't believe in God, I said I don't belive in religion. By the way, if you consider religious leaders "open minded", you are mistaken. Case in point, the Pope's latest comments. Isn't that what this whole thing is about? As far as numbers, do you think anything comes close to the bloodshed of the crusades? Not to mention the wars still being fought today have an underlying cause... someone's religion.

This is why ALL religions should be outlawed.

You know, for people supposedly so versed in history, the sure can overlook the fact that religion (and Christianity in particular) positively thrives when people try to squash it. So bring it on.

You all are missing the point. You don't NEED religion to be a spiritual person. Let it go. Get past the rules and just believe.

@ paul zummo, I certainly don't have the stats to this but I am damn sure that the atheists have killed less people than the followers. Besides, why do you take Hitler in account his beliefs had nothing to do with atheism.
@ JonathanR, human nature and religious belief are two completely different entities.
@ Jeff Miller, boy where should I begin? Lets just say that the use of the word "idiotic" exemplifies of your ignorant belief in religion.

Wow. Eric's latest has to be the most unintellectual, misinformed thing ever written on this blog, and Hoodlum has posted here pretty frequently. I suppose the 100+ million killed in Communist and Fascist regimes does equal the bloodshed of the Crusades, a remarkable accomplishment considering how much smaller the population was in the early part of the millennium.

As for the rest - really, go back to getting your info from CNN. Clearly it's a font of reason and knowledge, as is evidenced by your comments. In fact, it's good to hear back from some of the people who were led here from CNN's website. It kind of reaffirms my decision to get my news from other sources.

As far as numbers, do you think anything comes close to the bloodshed of the crusades?

And why the Crusades? I think a decent case can be made that they as justfiable as allied involvement in WWII (in which the allies were guilty of a few atrocities which in no way invalidate the justness of resisting the Nazis itself)

i personally don't care what the pope thinks. i worship god, not the head of a pagan religion.

@ paul zummo, why do you confuse fascists and commies with atheists? You seem like any other person who grew up during the cold war.

paul zummo, I certainly don't have the stats to this but I am damn sure that the atheists have killed less people than the followers. Besides, why do you take Hitler in account his beliefs had nothing to do with atheism.

It's probably folly to keep feeding the trolls, but I have to just sit back and admire them. First off, I simply love the open admission of "not having the stats to this." But that won't slow Jaime down, because dang it, Jaime's just got a gut feeling. It's like when people just know David Eckstein is a great player, stats be damned.

Of course, who the heck knows what Jaime means by "followers." Followers of what? From the quote, it seems that it would be followers of . . . atheism. So in essence, Jaime is saying that atheists have killed less people than the followers of atheism. At least, that's what could be implied from the grammatical structure of the sentence. I won't argue with that claim.

As for Hitler - it took me a while to understand just what was being claimed here, but I'm throwing Hitler in with the brutal mass murderers of the 20th century who were not inspired by religious angst.

Seriously, this has been fun. Rant on, ye atheist soldiers. You provide loads of entertainment. I think I'm going to make some popcorn and watch the fireworks.

You all are missing the point. You don't NEED religion to be a spiritual person. Let it go. Get past the rules and just believe.

Who says we even NEED to be spiritual? It's quite simple--I believe the testimony of the Apostles. You can complain about my credulity all day and give laundry lists of crimes of the faithful, but you can't demonstrate that it is an unreasonable belief without resorting to axioms that require the same kind of credulity that you complain we use.

"i personally don't care what the pope thinks. i worship god, not the head of a pagan religion." -melvinowens

Finally someone who gets the point!

"i personally don't care what the pope thinks. i worship god, not the head of a pagan religion." -melvinowens

Finally someone who gets the point!

Ohh I get the point. Catholicism is pagan. Well, that's easy to state, but quite another thing to establish.

who the heck knows what Jaime means by "followers."
You went to church school, thats for sure. On a blog where we are talking about the pope you must be really slow to not take a hint but if you are really are that retarded that i must clear this up here you go: atheists have killed less people than the "followers" -> followers as in those who follow any religion but most particularly the catholic church as you make proof of tremendous ignorance. As for my grammatical structure I am making a comparison and I can't compare the atheists to themselves, can I? I hope you won't send your kids to Sunday school.

Crusades pale in comparison to the slaughter of The American People. Which American people?

Europeans brought diseases against which the indigenous peoples of the Americas had no immunity. Chicken pox and measles, though common and rarely life-threatening among Europeans, often proved fatal to the indigenous people, and more dangerous diseases such as smallpox were especially deadly to indigenous populations. Epidemics often immediately followed European exploration sometimes destroying entire villages. It is difficult to estimate the total percentage of the indigenous population killed by these diseases, but some historians estimate that up to 80 percent of some indigenous populations may have died due to European diseases.

Smallpox, typhus, influenza, diphtheria, measles, malaria, and other epidemics swept in after European contact, felling a large portion of the indigenous peoples of the Americas, causing one of the greater calamities in human history, comparable only to the Black Death. In North America alone, at least 93 waves of epidemic disease swept through native populations between first contact and the early 20th century.

Not that there are any Aztec left to blog about forced conversion to Catholicizm. They're all dead or bred into the Catholic Mexican population by the Spaniards. Then the Amazon Indians whose homes were cut down by the Portugeese. WooT! Go Team!

"We must bring God to these lawless heathens!" So thru Manifest Destiny, the Colonists wiped out the American Indians, the Conquistadors gutted >> tortured >> converted the Myan people, and then when we reached the pacific shores, we sent missionaries to bring Christ (and later Islam) to the phillipines.

Oh, those people HAD their own religions before we got there? NAH. We have the one TRUE church and we have to save them! By papal edict, we're told in 1492 - oddly enough.

"...I certainly don't have the stats to this, but I am damn sure..."

Only a fool is "sure" of something without evidence.

@ paul zummo, why do you confuse fascists and commies with atheists? You seem like any other person who grew up during the cold war.

Communism and Facism adherents were hostile to religion and tried to squash and outlaw it. Whether they perfectly fit a narrow definition of atheist is irrelevant because the very clearly implied and mind-bogglingly stupid assertion is that the elimination of relgion will eliminate atrocites. The Communist and Facist atrocities simply destroy that and amazing how coy non-believers are on this point.

huh, this seriously is getting entertaining, ok what i meant by that is that even though nobody has counted every single person to die in a religious war there numbers are far too significant compared to those who were killed to eliminate all religion.

"We must bring God to these lawless heathens!" So thru Manifest Destiny, the Colonists wiped out the American Indians, the Conquistadors gutted >> tortured >> converted the Myan people, and then when we reached the pacific shores, we sent missionaries to bring Christ (and later Islam) to the phillipines.

Oh, those people HAD their own religions before we got there? NAH. We have the one TRUE church and we have to save them! By papal edict, we're told in 1492 - oddly enough.

Much ado and data-dumping about nothing. Sure, some justified coloniztion with religion, but the reason was good ol' fashion greed.

@ Scott, I understand what you mean but their main goal was getting power and world domination. Even though they didn't follow any religion.

huh, this seriously is getting entertaining, ok what i meant by that is that even though nobody has counted every single person to die in a religious war there numbers are far too significant compared to those who were killed to eliminate all religion.

Another case of needing to make up their minds. I always hear non-believers say that the only reason that religious war deaths don't equsl 20th centuiry non-religious deaths is because they lacked the population and technology to do so. Which is it?

@ Scott, I understand what you mean but their main goal was getting power and world domination. Even though they didn't follow any religion.

Ok, but my point stands. Elimination of religion does not equal eliminating of atrocities. And we are back to the problem of Good again. Why, whether from religion or from totalitarians, are they even atrocities anyway?

"You can complain about my credulity all day and give laundry lists of crimes of the faithful, but you can't demonstrate that it is an unreasonable belief without resorting to axioms that require the same kind of credulity that you complain we use."

You are confusing a belief in religion with a belief in God. They are two distinctly separate things. You can have a belief in God without believing in or belonging to a religion.

Did this get posted up on some atheist or fundy Christian forum somewhere? Where are all these people coming from?

Ah, the incessant argument from word games. "WE
are spiritual, THEY are only religious... just
don't ask us to define the difference."

Funny, the countries that still have large
Indian and mixed-blood populations are all
Catholic. Yeah, let's blame the Catholic church
for everything.

"Elimination of religion does not equal eliminating of atrocities."

No, but it would seriously reduce them.

Will, be nice...no one said religious people were not spiritual. These type of comments along with the name-calling comments of Paul Zummo just add more validity to my point.

This has got to be the stupidest article I have ever read on a supposed 'quality' newsite. This person has no clue about history or the RC faith. First of all, it is beyond ridiculous to quote scripture to refute the claims of the Church. It was the RC Church that compiled the bible and then codified it in the 4th century. Without the RC Church the protestants wouldn't have a bible, and considering that for over 1,000 years of Christianity's history most people were illiterate and books were beyond most people's ability to afford them or have them copied, I highly doubt God would make reading the bible a necessary prerequisit for salvation.
And of course what does the author make of Christ's quote "Peter, you are the rock on which I will build my Church and the gates of hell with not prevail against it." and then the author still claims that Christ didn't found a Church.... well then how can Christ's message survive without an organization to maintain and promote his teachings?
Try letting go of your prejudices and open a histoy book or use your common sense, there has only been one organization that has kept Christ's teaching intact from the beginning to this day and that is the Church that Christ Himself founded.

Did this get posted up on some atheist or fundy Christian forum somewhere? Where are all these people coming from?

Andy, the atheist/ fundy website CNN is linking here.

Being 'spiritual' doesn't do anyone any good; 'spiritual' people, while well-intentioned, usually end up making their own rules and living out a solitary sort of vapid faith. Often, it amounts to feeling good when the weather is fine and maybe doing a good deed now and then. "Spirituality" also implies the 'spirit' is important but not the body, and that leads to a lot of people who are 'spiritual' engaging in activity that is less than moral (although they'd disagree with us traditionalists about what constitutes morality). And as Augustine says, "What am I but a guide to my own self-destruction?" Human beings need community, ritual, tradition, and a way of life that engages body, soul and spirit if they are to 'spiritually' thrive.

Wow! Pope Benedict sure is receiving many blessings while he's "on vacation"! I've been praying that he be abundantly blessed, but this beatitude isn't quite what I had it mind. May the truth of his teaching, and his uncompromising love for the Lord be heard above the noise of all the "spiritual" protesters! I pray this in the holy name of Jesus, and ask St Michael's particular protection for the Vicar of Christ.

I'm Protestant, and I find this discussion somewhat fascinating. I have only been to a catholic service once in my life so I don't know a whole lot about it. But one of the issues I have with the religion is why do Catholics have to go to a priest to confess their sins. Do Catholics not believe they can talk directly to God. Where does this belief come from? Secondly, why do catholics pray to the virgin Mary? Is that in the out of some text? Lastly, how did the Pope come into being. And what power over the church does he have? Just some honest questions from someone trying to learn more about a religion I don't know very much about.
Thanks

He's getting shelled over at Akin's site right now. I was gonna comment but it's all been said. The man just doesn't know what he's talking about. God forgive him.

Will's comment from above implies that religious people are spiritual. I would agree with that. No one is saying they are not.

Irenaeus says, "Being 'spiritual' doesn't do anyone any good". In the same paragraph says, "Human beings need community, ritual, tradition, and a way of life that engages body, soul and spirit if they are to 'spiritually' thrive." A total contradiction of the first sentence. Not to mention, all of those things can be achieved without the "help" of a religion.

Based on their comments, I assume (I know I shouldn't do that) that both of these people belong to an organized religion. However, they contradict each other on the issue of spirituality. If religious people are spiritual and being spiritual "doesn't do anyone any good", then why be part of a religion?

Wes, I don't want to get into a long discussion on the blog, but you could send me an email for followup if you'd like.

Quick, very brief and incomplete answers:

1. Jesus breathed on the apostles and said "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive men's sins, they are forgiven them; if you hold them bound, they are held bound." (John 20:22). Catholics believe that the Bishops (present-day successors to the apostles) and, through them, priests, have the power to forgive sins in a way that is certain and very powerful.

2. If you look up the texts in the Bible about Mary you will find her as a great contemplative, obedient in every way, "full of grace," "blessed amoung women,"--and you will find her standing at the foot of the Cross and with the apostles at Pentecost. Most of all you will find her as the real, true mother of Jesus the Lord, who is God. She is the Mother of God. Catholics believe that all saints have special intercessory power with God--we can pray through them and it is stronger and deeper than our own prayer. But Mary, because she is more involved in the mysteries of salvation, is an even stronger intercessor.

3. Jesus said "You are Peter, and on this Rock I will build my Church, and the jaws of hell will not prevail against it." (Mt 16:18) And he gave him the ministry of "confirming the brethren." (Luke 22:32)

Of course, Catholics believe that all authority is from the Father and has been given to the Son. But we also believe that a part of God's mysterious plan is to share authority with human beings, including Mary, and with Peter and his successors and the other apostles and their successors.

(I reiterate: this is a really inadequate and brief response.)

@Kathy - thanks for putting Wes on the correct path to enlightenment.

@Wes - "I'm a Protestant ... the issue I have with Catholic religion is (paraphase)". How can you be a Protestant if you don't even know the history of the RC church that your protestant views are completely dependent on? Talk about fascinating ...

@Scott - Amen, brother.

For myself, all I can say is that I am comforted in the knowledge that I follow instruction from the apostolic church given to us through Christ himself - and not through some upstart "church" that was devised via an egotiscal human who believes he/she knows more about Christ and his intentions then the apostles themselves.

Michelle, Why such angst. I know more about the history of my church then most of my catholic friends. Its only the people on these blogs that reminds me that some catholics care about there faith.
You said that how can I be protestant if I do not even know the history of the RC Church. Are you now saying that one has to know the history of the RC Church in order to be saved? Fascinating, I can see how your logic would also lead you to believe that you cannot confess your sins directly to God. Instead you must confess them to another imperfect human, who can forgive your sins. Tell me, who fogives your priests sins? Who forgives the Pope's sins. I was merely asking for information and you had to get all defensive. Fascinating.

I don't see where Michelle was exhibiting "angst" or being "defensive".

"...I can see how your logic would also lead you to believe that you cannot confess your sins directly to God."

Huh?

Priests and the Pope make confession too...

I was just going to say, Wes, that priests and the Pope go to confession too.

Nobody knows, really, why Jesus chose to trust fallible human beings with the judgment about sins. It is not at all an easy mystery to understand. But, do you dispute that John 20:22 is an authentic biblical passage?

NOT TO WORRY.YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE A CATHOLIC TO GO TO HEAVEN BUT ONCE YOU GET THERE (WE HOPE)YOU WILL AUTOMATICALLY BE A CATHOLIC YEAH.THAT'S TRUE!!!
.

I don't dispute the passage in John. But if we keep your logic then take the same logic into the passage in Matthew 6:14,15 "For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins." Do you see my point. That would mean we all can forgive each others sins, not just the priests. Secondly, what about the Lord's Prayer in Matthew 6. Why would Jesus teach us to pray to him "forgive us our sins" if he could not do it directly for us? Lastly look at 1 Timothy 2:5 "For there is one God; there is also one mediator between God and humankind, Christ Jesus, himself human." Jesus' death gives us direct connection between God and ourselves. That's why the Protestant Church stresses a close relationship between God and the believer. Again I am no scholar, but just seeking and defending truths that I hold dear.

Eric said:

"If religious people are spiritual and being spiritual "doesn't do anyone any good", then why be part of a religion?"

Those are some profound logical acrobatics.

Why do we confess to a priest and not to God directly? The question is wrong. Christ is present in all the sacraments and it is him who does the sacrament and the priest is the instrument. I should also point out that we CAN and do confess sins outside of the sacrament. Anyone who does a tradtional catholic evening examination of conscience does this. Forgiveness is of course available outside the sacrament, but the problem is most of us have tangled minds and are always second-guessing ourselves whether we confessed properly, are truly forgiven, etc. God throughtout the Bible never leaves us in such an abstract, quasi-gnostic world and always works with us in the real world. This is in the form of another living, actual human being authorized to forgive sins in His name. This is one giant piece of good news because it in a manner of speaking it sets up a lower court in which God has promised not to overrule their absolutions. Now my confessions are not just a mind game, but a real thing.

Wes, I do hope that, as you said, you are sincerely asking for information and are not trying to prove Catholics wrong. I'll take you just once again on your word...

Catholics don't deny that forgiveness comes from God in Jesus Christ. We just have a communal sense about it. The Lord's Prayer doesn't say, "Forgive us our sins DIRECTLY"; it says "Forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us." In other words, there is a human factor involved in the process. The same occurs in the passage from Mt 6:14-15: If you forgive me, then God will forgive you. (Not: if you forgive me, God forgives me too--which is how you are reading it.)

--Do you deny that the apostles had special authority in the Gospels?

--What do you think the passage in John 20 means?

--What do you think about Paul's relationship to the Corinthians, including the man who was immoral?

--Is individualism part of the Biblical teaching? Or is the relationship among the members of the Church seen as important?

--"Remember your leaders who spoke the Word of God to you. Consider how their lives ended and imitate their faith. Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, today and forever. Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teaching." (I would include under "strange teaching" the radical individualism that is a much different kind of living Christianity than is written in the New Testament.)

--"For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, 'This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.' In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.' For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes."

I am a convert to the Catholic church who studied church history, both Catholic and Protestant, for years and went from church to church to find which one Christ actually started. I knew they could not all be right, since they all told you different things on just about every point of doctrine or behavior. Also, I found every one of the teachings of the Catholic Church in, or implied in, the Bible, contrary to what most Protestants told me.

Everytime one person leaves the Catholic Church another comes in. Thank God for Pope Benedict!

Where else can you find the Real Presence of Christ? John 6 is the only text of the Bible not taken literally (as Jesus intended and reiterated) by our brothers.

I believe God did give the Apostles special powers in the Gospels. I believe the Apostles used this as a way of evangelizing and ministering. But it is a reach of interpretation to apply that to present day Bishops/Priests. It never says in the Bible to confess you must confess your sins to a person of the church. I understand we all must forgive each other which is great. And I believe we must confess to those we sin against. However,what scott is saying about this special sacrement is never mentioned by Christ. It was set up later on in the RC Church.

Again it is one interpretation to say that in verse Matthew 16:18 Jesus was setting up the guidelines for a pope. You could see that anyone outside of the RC church would think that is simply a stretch of interpretation. No where does he say that there is one head of the church who will make all the decisions for the church. To trust in one mans decisions is folly, since he to is human and sins like us. For the most part I agree with the Pope's teaching. I just believe the main differences between the RC church and the Protestant church are their interpretation of the bible.

"Again it is one interpretation to say that in verse Matthew 16:18 Jesus was setting up the guidelines for a pope."

It's not just "one interpretation". Its the one all of the Apostles decided to run with. What with their God-given responsibilities and all.

That's the problem with mass interpreting. 20,000 churches is not what the Jesus nor the Apostles had in mind. Especially where we have such things as Councils and hierarchy as depicted even in the Bible. Or would you grant more authority to that guy with a Bible in your living room than Peter, Paul, etc.?

As for the difference between the injunction to forgive and the God-given power to forgive (necessitating confession), one must realize that sin cries out against both man and God. You are called to forgive, hence addressing the harm done to man. And yet man must confess to a priest as a liaison of God, in order to repair the relationship with God. Confessing "directly" to God does not have the manifest advantage of sacramental grace. There is power in the forms of the rituals, such as confession. If not, then what is the point of gathering together in worship services when one can pray in his own house?

"No, but it would seriously reduce them."

Right. As if an aggravated German dictator would stop his armies from conquering if he suddenly found out there was no God or religion (oh, wait, that's what he wanted). Stalin would quiver in fear of godlessness and lack of religion and stop his mindless massacre of those who didn't get with his atheist/materialist program.

You want to know the only major ruler of a burgeoning superpower to put a stop to all activities of conquest by his subjects for the sake of a moral/philosophical question that needed to be thought over and answered? That's right. Emperor Charles V (or Charles I to Spaniards), ruler of the Holy Roman Empire and Spain. Some Christian king so caught up in his religion that when some pesky bishop demanded that he consider the natives of the colonies as fully rational human beings, he stopped all official acts of colonial expansion just to answer that question and come up with the appropriate policies. (Result: Law of the Indies forbidding enslavement of American natives, as well as conversion by the sword, aka, why my ancestors were never slaves.) And to think Stalin would've put such a bishop in a gulag. Long live dialectical materialism, I guess....

Your point's a whole lot of hooey. And the only point this will prove, Eric, is that you're all bluster and no wisdom. And that the Church needs better religious instruction in her schools, if the result is...well...you.

It also never says in the Bible that the Bible is the sole rule of Faith.

JonathanR, my point are not only validated, but made stronger when you result to name-calling.

I'm not sure why you have such a facination with Hitler and Stalin, however; the atrocities perpetrated on the natives of North America (as Eathan posted earlier), and in those perpetrated in the crusades, and those perpetrated in the wave of terrorism currently sweeping the planet were/are fueled by religion.

Andy, you should read the whole post before you comment. Those were not my words, but the words of your brethern.

Actually, the thing that has caused the most bloodshed, death, and suffering over the ages has been property and resources. Therefore, let us abolish all property and turn it over to the Government.

Except that, without a doubt, government has caused the most war in all of history - not to mention all the disputes over who was in charge of the government.

Just a reality-check here. ;)

//however; the atrocities perpetrated on the natives of North America (as Eathan posted earlier), and in those perpetrated in the crusades, and those perpetrated in the wave of terrorism currently sweeping the planet were/are fueled by religion.//

There's one of the problems with lumping anything that can be called "religion" in one basket - if they're all the same, they're all responsible for each others actions - thus resulting in absurdities like the genocidal actions of the Protestant (for it was more strongly Protestant in principle at the time) United States and violence commited by Muslim extremists being turned into a stick to use against Catholics.

Oh, I missed the previous comment, R. Fact is, most of the atrocities committed against Native Americans was over land and gold, not about religion at all. In fact, the viceroys weren't dispatched until AFTER a monk (de las Casas) and other religious fanatics sent dispatches to the Spanish court about the atrocities of the conquistadores. De las Casas' main claims were these 1) the native people were God's children and thus deserved protection under the law and 2) because the King ruled the colonies, the native people had the same rights to education as did other citizens.

Of course, if you really knew about pre-Colombian people, you'd know that many tribes (or nations) had been warring with each other for years. The native people of Michigan still tell stories of the extinction (in other words, complete decimation) of a people who lived on Mackinaw Island. This was prior to white men arriving. When Fr. Marquette arrived, he was instrumental in gathering the scattered people of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan and making peace between them and their mortal enemies in Wisconsin.

Really, what annoys me about the "Christians killed the Native Americans" narrative is that 1) it lumps all the First Nations and their histories into one group without recognizing the distinctions between them that are as profound as the differences between France and England, and 2) it refuses to acknowledge that the Europeans were interested in RESOURCES and thus the Native Americans were misused because of materialism, not religious fervor. (And I'm not even getting into the differences between the approach of Catholic, Anglican, etc. missionaries. Here's a hint: Look at which ones conducted marriage ceremonies between Europeans and Native Americans, and which didn't.)

"JonathanR, my point are not only validated, but made stronger when you result to name-calling.

I'm not sure why you have such a facination with Hitler and Stalin, however; the atrocities perpetrated on the natives of North America (as Eathan posted earlier), and in those perpetrated in the crusades, and those perpetrated in the wave of terrorism currently sweeping the planet were/are fueled by religion."

Err...no. No point of yours is validated once the stupidity of your entire point is exposed, no matter the indignation your little ego feels. It may validate the point that says there ought to be a law against name-calling (hah!), but not a point that says ALL RELIGION SHOULD BE OUTLAWED!!!1111 Apparently, Catholic schools need to step up teaching logic too, if you're any indication.

As for the atrocities of the European colonists, most of their casualties came as a result of disease unwittingly introduced by the European populace, rather than any systematic abuse. And where there was systematic abuse, it was perpetrated by the State, not the Church. In fact, the treatment of native Americans has been the cause of much head-butting between Church and State. (See for example, Archbishop Bartolome de las Casas and Father Francisco de Vitoria compelling the Spanish Crown to cease its awful treatment of colonized peoples.) And even then, all that is dwarfed by the millions systematically destroyed by such atheist niceties as dialectical materialism. So, if you're looking for a scourge of the earth, religion is pretty weak sauce.

"Actually, the thing that has caused the most bloodshed, death, and suffering over the ages has been property and resources. Therefore, let us abolish all property and turn it over to the Government."

ROFLOL!!!

Yeah, I got your proletariat revolution right here.

Oh, and the casualties to innocents during the entirety of the Crusades is but a year's work to Uncle Joe and his pet revolution.

Fortunately for religion, its attempts at large scale violence have been checked by lack of means, small numbers of members or targets, or outsider intervention.

Look at Yugoslavia during WWII, the reason the Pius blessed and tolerated Ustashi movement failed to massacre its Serbian populace was not some religious morality, but the intervention of the Partisans, Italian Army, and even the Nazis who were appalled at the misbehavior of their loyal Catholic allies.

If the Crusades repeated today, with the advantages of modern government and weaponry, among the world's ballooned populations, the body count would be horrific.

"If the Crusades repeated today, with the advantages of modern government and weaponry, among the world's ballooned populations, the body count would be horrific."

Not nearly as horrific as the body count from the killing of millions upon millions of innocent pre-born children through abortion.

I think some people need to get an education on the actual document at hand: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html

It's ok jonathanr, let go of all the anger and hostility. You'll feel much better once you let it all out. You are so angry that you are insulting other people that are actually agreeing with you. So, if there are anymore names you would like to call me, go ahead, I'll be your sounding board. That way the healing can begin and we can get back to discussing the points that you have been avoiding by calling me names.

Jeff,

Thanks for your commentary. I have a feeling CNN's going to have a problem in the next few days with Martin's commentary, you know, from these followers of the "old man."

Why not go read the Bible and see what it tells you and not what somebody else tells you. If you're really searching for something, it'll be there.

Why not go read the Bible and see what it tells you and not what somebody else tells you?

What constitutes the Bible and how do you know? Whether you use the Catholic or Protestant canon, your concept of what the Bible is is determined by reference to authority.

Eric, stop being condescending. Jonathan has been addressing your points.

How about the gospels?

I'm amazed that it took so long for someone to mention the modern-day slaughter of the innocents as an example of the atrocities committed, not in the name of religion, but in the name of humanism, of compassion, and (to play the Margaret Sanger card) in the name of improving the breed. Of course, to abortion we can also attach euthanasia. If it's just a numbers game people want to play vis a vis the destructive power of religion, take a look at the number of people murdered each year in the womb, against which atrocity the Church has firmly and will continue firmly to respond. And, in a gesture of ecumenism, I include not only the Catholic pro-lifers, but all those who believe that life is precious and should be defended (yes, and there are Atheists for Life, and Feminists for Life, and Jews for Life, et. al.). Let's stop dredging up the Crusades and the Inquisition for a minute, and look at a real, contemporary case of violence perpetrated not in the name of God or of religion, but in the name if "choice."

AJF,
Good points! I would add in the name of Health, Social Responsibility, and of all things, according to many politicians, "Family Life"! Yes, in the name of Health we must "eliminate" unwanted (ugh!) children, for the good of the world community we must be thrifty regarding reproduction or sacrifice i altogether, and in the name of Family Life we must kill the youngest family members.

How about the gospels?

What do you mean by that?

First of all, I would like to say that I was raised as a Catholic but found it too narrow minded and eventually abandoned the idea of religion altogether. Like all human things religions, like goverments and many other things have had their bad and good sides the main problem comes with people believing so blindly in what the authority figures (religion, govertment, etc) say that they forget to ask themselves whether what they are being asked to do is good or not.
I think the idea of outlawing religion is extreme and uncalled for. However, I must say that I would suggest that the desicion should ultimately be let up to the individual and religions should stop forcing their beliefs on other people. Nothing wrong with exposing people to your ideas as long as you let them exercise their free will to choose.
Furthermore, a lot of the points based here are talking about the legitimacy of the bible. I believe many of the things written there have great validity and should be a guideline on how to live our lifes, but I do not believe it should be taken as the sole indicator. Also, the bible is not the only book that claims to be stem from God, the Koran and many other books have similar claims. I, again, think they all should be taken as guidelines, but as everything that is touched by human hands and time different, versions and interpretations; either caused by people trying to distort the writings to their purposes, in the process of translating them or many other things; have changed over time.
As to the question of atrocities, mankind has never had a lack of excuses to kill one another, religion, goverment and greed are but few of them. Tolerance is the key to stop this, nothing more, nothing less.
Well, these are my thoughts in the matter, God (or any higher power, if you believe in anything) bless you all.

AGC, how did you develop your ethical system? Is it "good?" If so, what do mean by "good?"

AGC: Do you believe that Jesus is God Incarnate? If you don't, how do you logically explain him?