Pope Francis attacks Christian Fundamentalist Catholics in response to Terrorism

[Root of Jesse]

When it comes to Francis and what he thinks -- it is common to find a few non-Catholics saying about his ideas "we don't really know - or care".

So when we come to this board and ask the question "what did Francis mean by his term - Catholic Fundamentalist" how refreshing to see some Catholics join with non-Catholics in their view of it.

As if anyone sharing the same faith should speak the same language exactly the same way, like lock=stepping Nazis?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I see - so then Pope Francis did not say that at all -- it was all just made up by the... ??

"dreaded newsMax"??

Still -- not one person offering to say what they think Francis meant by a Catholic "Fundamentalist".

How... 'instructive'

To the list of "dreaded news outlets" you might want to add

I and some other Christians have been called "fundamentalist".....whatever the the heck that is ehehe

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/staff-edit.7350852/page-17#post51039482
CF Fundies. Who are they?

Thekla said: ↑
Never saw that one ...

though wonder if the "fundie list" is like Harvard - it's said it's harder to flunk out there than it is to get accepted.

Never mind - I've seen the "fstdt" board. Wouldn't worry about their assessment

(At any rate, I don't think your response is so "off" - imo, the heart and mind is more important than the brain !)

LLOJ said:
Awww.....thanks sis
At least my bro Phil, "AV1611VET" joined me on there also..

Fundies Say the Darndest Things!

FSTDT Search

There are a lot of things I have concluded to be wrong, without studying them in-depth.
Evolution is one of them. The fact that I don't know that much about it does not bother me in the least.

AV1611VET, Christian Forums [2006-Sep-12]



.

 

[Hoghead1]

I appreciate your honesty,1611. However, your refusal to study evolution seriously comprises the credibility of your statements about it. It puts you in the position of being one who hates things without understanding them. Don't you that that kind of ignorant and bigoted?

 

[BobRyan]

I appreciate your honesty,1611. However, your refusal to study evolution seriously comprises the credibility of your statements about it. It puts you in the position of being one who hates things without understanding them. Don't you that that kind of ignorant and bigoted?

Blind faith evolutionism is not the solution to every subject.

 

[Hoghead1]

I hear you, AV1611, The problem I have with your statement is that evolution is definitely not a blind-faith proposition. I've been there, done that. I can speak from my own experience as a graduate student in the behavioral sciences and I know for a fact that neither evolution or other major fields of science function on just blind faith. Again, you are way, way off the facts, and are going t continue to be, unless you get off your lazy duff and do some real homework n these matters. I love dialoging and teaching. However, I am not here to be a science teacher. Hence, it vie it as a waste of my time and the time of others, if you are just going to grab material, which you don not understand, from just anywhere and dump it in here. If you do not understand the point, then you should not bring it up in discussion.

 

[BobRyan]

I hear you, AV1611, The problem I have with your statement is that evolution is definitely not a blind-faith proposition. .

yes it is. it is nothing short of "blind faith" to imagine that dust, gas and rocks will ever come up with "A human mind".

It is nothing short of "blind faith" to imagine that even one single cell prokaryotes will ever turn into a single cell eukaryote.

It does not work in the lab - it does not happen at all. The very start - is a failure and if we include the failure to even assemble a workable set of amino acids ... the failure simply compounds.

Even their own atheist evolutionists argue this "evolution as a religion" as a "tenet of faith" in the case of Collin Patterson -- as you well know.

In any case you seem to voting that Francis was speaking about option two in the list of options given for this thread -

A non-violent Christian believer in absolute truths such as a literal creation week or a literal virgin birth

So then we have another vote for #2!!

 

[Hoghead1]

Bob, the problem I am having with your comments is that they are purely based on your POV, which is a long way from the POV of science. Why? You are a member of the laity. OK, fine. However the world of science is a wholly different ballgame than the world of laity. The world of science has wholly different standards, priorities, methods, etc. For example, you boldly proclaim that it is blind faith to assume that dust, gas, and rocks will ever come up with a human mind. How do you know that? You seem to be going on a blind faith in your standards. It seems unlikely to you, so it certainly cannot be likely in nature. Yes, but how much solid scientific education have you had? Also, I find it very interesting how you say dust will never come up with a human mind. I thought the Bible said that humans were created out of dust or mud, and not out of nothing? You say it doesn't work in the lab. Wrong. I can cite more than one scientific paper of laboratory-induced evolution in bacteria. See, everything you are saying here is suspect to me, right off the bat, because you are speaking on behalf of your standards. Big deal, so what? How come the experts, and they are experts, think otherwise than you do? Could it be they know something you don't? It does not happen at all? How do you know? Bob, whenever someone, such as yourself, takes off after science, the first thing I ask for are some big, big credentials and some big, big evidence on the other guy's part. Sorry to say, but with laity such as yourself, I see neither and therefore hold your statements as the unqualified judgments of unqualified people. You probably remember that I mentioned I had an M.S. in a major scientific field. OK, I have seen science from the inside, you haven't, and I will proof positive quorate you that you have absolutely no idea what is going on.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, the problem I am having with your comments is that they are purely based on your POV,

Everyone posts a POV - as you just did.

But not everyone avoids objective evidence -- like that. I refer not merely to "Creationists" talking about the "blind faith evolutionism" element in the mythology we know as evolutionism - rather I refer to the leadership - even the atheist leadership in the evolutionist priestood - who also admit to the same thing, in the case of Patterson... and you and I both know it.

You are a member of the laity. OK, fine.

I suppose a catholic priest might view me that way .

However the world of science is a wholly different ballgame than the world of laity. The world of science has wholly different standards, priorities, methods, etc.

Which is what Patterson was addressing in his lament about the distinctively religious faith-based nature of the case being made for evolution.

Details matter.

For example, you boldly proclaim that it is blind faith to assume that dust, gas, and rocks will ever come up with a human mind. How do you know that?

you can't be serous!!

Isaac Asimov also comments on that same point - confessing that such a progression would require a "massive DECREASE in entropy" - and that my friend is an irrefutable point of physics on this subject. As an atheist Asimov (like Patterson) had no other choice but to "believe in it anyway" no matter that it cannot be demonstrated at all in the lab.

Also, I find it very interesting how you say dust will never come up with a human mind. I thought the Bible said that humans were created out of dust or mud,

one statement argues that the "properties" inherent in dust, gas, and rocks are sufficient to give rise to the human mind "given enough time and chance -- and a truckload of just-so stories". (Something even Dawkins could not swallow without first appealing to "space aliens")

The other option is that an infinitely intelligent and creative God can MAKE the human mind out of dust.

Essentially you equivocate between the space ship that is MADE from basic elements on earth -- vs the elements "having inherent properties in themselves" that when left to themselves "come up with" the space program. You then suggest that we are so removed from observations in nature and "experiment in the lab" that we can't know that you are guilty of gross equivocation. That my friend is not a compelling position -- and the human mind is far more complex than the space program.

If that sort of gross equivocation satisfies the level of critical thinking you wish to bring to the subject - - then fine.

We all have free will - you may choose that path if you wish.

Don't expect us all to leap off that cliff with you. Not even Patterson would do it.

 

[Hoghead1]

First of all, I view "blind faith evolutionism" as an uncalled-for derogatory term. As you know, I am coming out of a solid scierntific education. I have seen the world of science from the inside, and I know creationism is bogus. In other posts I have so stated why.

I may have confused you about my position on the rocks. What I was trying to say is that I view mind and matter as one. Hence, I posit all things, in all their aspects, consist solely of psyches or minds. I could go into my rationale here, but let's stay on track. My position in the matter is that God and evolution are one. Creation is God's own self-evolution from unconsciousness and mere potentiality into self-consciousness and self-actualization. So, no, I did not leave God out of the equation here.

I also found your remarks on atheism and religion to be highly insensitive to the issues involved. First, there is a deeply spiritual dimension to science. Einstein, for example, spoke of how the universe inspired deep awe in him and said that is why science was his religion. The noted Jesuit philosopher Teilhard de Chardin has said that a religion of the earth is fighting a religion of the sky. The universe with its vast profusion of complex structure and interrelationships seems far more aesthetically appealing than the tame, one-dimensional God of classical theism, who is void of body, parts, passions, compassion, wholly immutable, without even the shadow of movement, extensionless, etc. The universe is starting to play God. And I think that is a real kick in the ass to explore new models of God that include the universe as a definite physical of God's own being.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

LLOJ
Awww.....thanks sis
At least my bro Phil, "AV1611VET" joined me on there also..

Fundies Say the Darndest Things!

FSTDT Search

There are a lot of things I have concluded to be wrong, without studying them in-depth.
Evolution is one of them. The fact that I don't know that much about it does not bother me in the least.

AV1611VET, Christian Forums [2006-Sep-12]

I appreciate your honesty,1611.
However, your refusal to study evolution seriously comprises the credibility of your statements about it. It puts you in the position of being one who hates things without understanding them. Don't you that that kind of ignorant and bigoted?

What percentage of Christianity believes in Evolution?



........................................................

.

 

[BobRyan]

First of all, I view "blind faith evolutionism" as an uncalled-for derogatory term. As you know, I am coming out of a solid scierntific education.

Psychology??? Behavioral science?? err... ummm....

That is quite a distance from Physics and Biology don't you think?

Secondly "uncalled for" by what standard? Here is an actual scientist whose field is biology on the subject of blind faith evolutionism - which he himself is "saddled with" because he is atheist.

====
Collin Patterson (atheist and diehard evolutionist to the day he died in 1998) - Paleontologist British Museum of Natural history speaking at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 - said:

Patterson - quotes Gillespie's arguing that Christians

"'...holding creationist ideas could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact,'"

Patterson countered, "That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact (saying):'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"

"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here...

"...,Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge , apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..."
====

That "calls for" the term "blind faith evolutionism"

I may have confused you about my position on the rocks. What I was trying to say is that I view mind and matter as one. Hence, I posit all things, in all their aspects, consist solely of psyches or minds.

The fact that you equivocate between God's stated ability to do something via infinite knowledge and power - with "gas, dust and rocks having the inherent property" to turn themselves into a human mind... is more than a little 'instructive' for the unbiased objective reader.

in any case you "appear" to be taking the 2nd option in our list - that Francis' term "Catholic Fundamentalist" refers to
A non-violent Christian believer in absolute truths such as a literal creation week or a literal virgin birth

My position in the matter is that God and evolution are one.

I think that is the very sort of religion that Patterson is complaining about.

Creation is God's own self-evolution from unconsciousness and mere potentiality into self-consciousness

ok so maybe I should have added "pantheism" to my list.



and self-actualization. So, no, I did not leave God out of the equation here.

The universe is starting to play God. And I think that is a real kick in the ass to explore new models of God that include the universe as a definite physical of God's own being.

Just a note of caution - as it turns out - pantheism is not all that it is cracked up to be.

 

[Hoghead1]

Look, Wgc, the minute I see some movement, process or any other major movement, , being off as immoral and some form of "intellectual degeneration," I know I am no t talking to a scholar, but someone who has a real chip on his solder. I find it interesting referred to the "muddled language" of the Pope. I thought you ere the one got on my case and said it was disrpectcftul to ac use the fathers of "muddled thinking." You say you can hardly bear the who-are-you-to-judge position. So what does give you the authority and right to judge others and not also be criticized? So the question is: How hard is it for you to speak respectfully about others you may disagree with? " I also found amusing you use of language here. You call those who disagree with you morally and intellectually degenerate, muddled. Cool! I love history and this reminds of a major chapter in history, the NAZI period, when anything the disagreed with was so described in those same words. I see myself as on the left and definitely relativistic, and it's always great to receive validation from outers about my identity, especially when I seem to appear on the his list of some sort of NAZI in the group. Heil, Wgw. And please keep it coming.

 

[Hoghead1]

Good questions, LittlelambofJesus. However, I don't really know. There is a lot interesting survey literature to look at ,regarding the discussion issue here. How many scientists believe in God? How many people are interested in religion? What percent of the population attend church,etc.? Trouble is, if you explore the literature, you will generally find highly contradictory claims. On my end o, I am a serous academic and so I really don't care what percentage of the population does or does not agree with me. The popularity of an idea tells you nothing much about the validity of the ideas. Because I am a liberal Christian who believes God and evolution are one and who is outspoken and published on this topic, as well as being highly critical on the traditional Christian model God, I have and will came user fire from the right wing of the church. But big deal, so what? Occupati0nal hazard for those of us on the cutting end of Christian thinking. I bonus to the whole thing is that we you get called a heretic, morally and intellectually degenerate, you know you've made it, you know who are powerful enough to make a real impression on and get taken seriously by the right wingers. It gives you a high, like you're Indiana Jones and the NAZI's are after you. You can compare yourself and identify with all sorts of famous persecuted drown thug the ages, from Carl Orff to Jesus himself. Another perk is that if you pick through the largely inflammatory rhetoric of their attacks, you might find some criticism that it w ould sharper you up in your own thinking, to respond to.

 

[Root of Jesse]

When it comes to Francis and what he thinks -- it is common to find a few non-Catholics saying about his ideas "we don't really know - or care".

So when we come to this board and ask the question "what did Francis mean by his term - Catholic Fundamentalist" how refreshing to see some Catholics join with non-Catholics in their view of it.

Again, frankly, sometimes what the Pope says is important, sometimes, not so much. An interview on an airplane fits in that latter category. When he's speaking on matters of faith and morals to the entire Church (which includes YOU, by the way), we tend to perk up our ears, and pay attention.

 

[Root of Jesse]

"We Catholics, we have a few, even many fundamentalists. They believe they know absolute truth and corrupt others," he said, adding: "I can say this because this is my Church".



Ok so another vote for 'never happened' -- I think that is two so far for that one.

So, just because two words appear in a sentence, we can jam them together and ask what they mean? That's what I call out of context. But if you want a definition, read the next sentence, Bob...talk about not reading your own posts!

 

[Root of Jesse]

Blind faith evolutionism is not the solution to every subject.

Way to derail a thread...

 

[BobRyan]

We have at least one poster that seems to prefer this option in the list of options given for this thread

*
A non-violent Christian believer in a literal creation week or a literal virgin birth

I appreciate your honesty,1611. However, your refusal to study evolution seriously comprises the credibility of your statements about it. It puts you in the position of being one who hates things without understanding them. Don't you that that kind of ignorant and bigoted?

Bob, the problem I am having with your comments is that they are purely based on your POV, which is a long way from the POV of science. Why? You are a member of the laity. OK, fine. However the world of science is a wholly different ballgame than the world of laity. The world of science has wholly different standards, priorities, methods, etc. For example, you boldly proclaim that it is blind faith to assume that dust, gas, and rocks will ever come up with a human mind. How do you know that? .

Way to derail a thread...

some "instructive" posts for those reading them.

So then -- Yesterday at 9:31 AM #131

 

[BobRyan]

"We Catholics, we have a few, even many fundamentalists. They believe they know absolute truth and corrupt others," he said, adding: "I can say this because this is my Church".
Ok so another vote for 'never happened' -- I think that is two so far for that one.

The nonsensical "no Catholic fundamentalists mentioned in that statement" -- cannot be taken seriously. I think we all can see that.

 

[Meowzltov]

What is Francis saying about his fellow Catholics who are "fundamentalist"??

Catholic fundamentalists are people who think concretely, i.e. they believe in a literal six day creation rather than in evolution. They go to the extremes of the faith -- they take traditions and disciplines that are not Magisterial and treat them as if they are infallible, such as the issue of celibate priests. They often suffer from scrupulosity, worrying that they will end up in hell from their sins. They might be into ascetic practices. They do a lot of harm with their non-loving judgmentalism. EVERYTHING has a right way and a wrong way to do it; they idea that there might be more than one way is unthinkable--we call this black and white thinking. They are very into "we are DEVOUT Catholics and you are not" kind of thinking that makes them a minuscule group of innies and everyone else an outtie. They are "more Catholic than the Pope." As an example, some of the people I've met who are involved in Opus Dei have been fundamentalists. I think that now that Escriva has passed on, Opus Dei's more questionable practices will slowly fall by the wayside as they become more mainstream.

I looked up this website on religious fundamentalism in general and these are the traits it gave.
http://www.ehow.com/info_8760738_10-characteristics-religious-fundamentalism.html

• Reacting to modernism, which it feels is a very evil thing
• An exclusive club, feeling it has the only absolute truth or absolute morality.
• Absolutist rather than relativistic; doubt is a weakness
• Literalist
• Selective, tailoring their beliefs in order to fit well with their reactive worldview.
• Authoritarian, either with a charismatic leader, or strong institutional authority
• "With us or against us" mentality
• Strict morality, usually includes a prohibition against fraternizing with unbelievers
• End of Times Certainty
• Violence -- true of SOME but not all groups

Read more : http://www.ehow.com/info_8760738_10-characteristics-religious-fundamentalism.html

 

[BobRyan]

Catholic fundamentalists are people who think concretely, i.e. they believe in a literal six day creation rather than in evolution. They go to the extremes of the faith

Sounds like we have another vote for option 2

"A non-violent Christian believer in a literal creation week or a literal virgin birth"

some may prefer -

"A non-violent Christian believer in absolute truths such as a literal creation week or a literal virgin birth "