Conquer Club

I don't know too many Catholics, but I sometimes read books by them. Since Michael Novak just died, I can't think of any other good Catholics. Maybe you know one, and this would be the place to share it. However, by default, tzor takes the mantle.

From the link:

He was gripped, he said in a talk at the University of Notre Dame in 1998, by “a powerful intellectual conviction that the left was wrong about virtually every big issue of our time: the Soviet Union, the North Vietnamese regime, economics, welfare, race, and moral questions such as abortion, amnesty, acid and the sexual revolution.”

DoomYoshi wrote:I don't know too many Catholics, but I sometimes read books by them. Since Michael Novak just died, I can't think of any other good Catholics. Maybe you know one, and this would be the place to share it. However, by default, tzor takes the mantle.

From the link:

He was gripped, he said in a talk at the University of Notre Dame in 1998, by “a powerful intellectual conviction that the left was wrong about virtually every big issue of our time: the Soviet Union, the North Vietnamese regime, economics, welfare, race, and moral questions such as abortion, amnesty, acid and the sexual revolution.”

Eamon Duffy is a great Catholic historian- The Stripping of the Altars is a really interesting book for anyone interested in the Reformation in England. One of those books that kind of transforms the way you look at a period.

It sort of depends on what you whether you just want to hear something that you agree with though.

DoomYoshi wrote:I don't know too many Catholics, but I sometimes read books by them. Since Michael Novak just died, I can't think of any other good Catholics. Maybe you know one, and this would be the place to share it. However, by default, tzor takes the mantle.

That's a good question. I've really haven't sorted any current living ones to give you an impression of "great." So out of the top of my head in no particular order.

Scott Hahn - I used to actively read him in the 90's when I lived in Key West.
Christopher A. Ferrara - a very ultra conservative Catholic.

I'll try to think up some more.

tzor wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:I don't know too many Catholics, but I sometimes read books by them. Since Michael Novak just died, I can't think of any other good Catholics. Maybe you know one, and this would be the place to share it. However, by default, tzor takes the mantle.

That's a good question. I've really haven't sorted any current living ones to give you an impression of "great." So out of the top of my head in no particular order.

Scott Hahn - I used to actively read him in the 90's when I lived in Key West.
Christopher A. Ferrara - a very ultra conservative Catholic.

I'll try to think up some more.

Ferrara is a huge fan of Pope Francis, eh?

This guy maybe
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/priest-yvon-arsenault-molestation-shediac-1.3997532

Lots to nominate from this list:

http://bishop-accountability.org/priestdb/PriestDBbylastName-A.html

Malachi Martin gets no respect. BTW why is Catholicism so intertwined with ancient pagan religions? They have symbols everywhere. Maybe Tzor can have a crack at it. As a former Catholic I'm truly intrigued.

warmonger1981 wrote:Malachi Martin gets no respect. BTW why is Catholicism so intertwined with ancient pagan religions? They have symbols everywhere. Maybe Tzor can have a crack at it. As a former Catholic I'm truly intrigued.

Like most religions that evangelised, there was a basic philosophy of universal truth in place. When encountering a new faith, it was actually just a poorly understood part of the true faith. People tend to think of Christianity as all "burn the heretics", but early Christian thought was heavily involved in the Pagan cultures it was trying to get on board.

St Patrick's Day is coming up, so, as an example- he explained the Trinity via the three-leafed clover.

DoomYoshi wrote:Ferrara is a huge fan of Pope Francis, eh?

I'll have to check in on that. I think it's hard in general to be a big fan of any Jesuit. Especially one who tries to pretend to be a Franciscan.

But that's just the Secular Franciscan in me talking.

warmonger1981 wrote:BTW why is Catholicism so intertwined with ancient pagan religions?

Once upon a time there was this guy, you might have heard of him, a former strict Pharisee by the same of Saul of Tarsus. Anyway, he had a "Come to Jesus" (actually Jesus came to him in a bolt of lightning) moment and started preaching the Gospel. He went to his Greek city and saw a shrine to "an unknown God" and used it as a vehicle to explain Jesus to them.

Using what was a part of the community to express the higher truth is a part of the Christian Church since Paul.

Mind you a lot of so called "pagan" elements actually is a result of people trying to smash square pegs into round holes. These nonsense arguments from the protestant reformation are as stupid as those in later centuries who insisted that the people in the middle ages thought the world was flat.

tzor wrote:

warmonger1981 wrote:BTW why is Catholicism so intertwined with ancient pagan religions?

Once upon a time there was this guy, you might have heard of him, a former strict Pharisee by the same of Saul of Tarsus. Anyway, he had a "Come to Jesus" (actually Jesus came to him in a bolt of lightning) moment and started preaching the Gospel. He went to his Greek city and saw a shrine to "an unknown God" and used it as a vehicle to explain Jesus to them.

Using what was a part of the community to express the higher truth is a part of the Christian Church since Paul.

Mind you a lot of so called "pagan" elements actually is a result of people trying to smash square pegs into round holes. These nonsense arguments from the protestant reformation are as stupid as those in later centuries who insisted that the people in the middle ages thought the world was flat.

I think you'd like Eamon Duffy

tzor wrote:

warmonger1981 wrote:BTW why is Catholicism so intertwined with ancient pagan religions?

Once upon a time there was this guy, you might have heard of him, a former strict Pharisee by the same of Saul of Tarsus. Anyway, he had a "Come to Jesus" (actually Jesus came to him in a bolt of lightning) moment and started preaching the Gospel. He went to his Greek city and saw a shrine to "an unknown God" and used it as a vehicle to explain Jesus to them.

Using what was a part of the community to express the higher truth is a part of the Christian Church since Paul.

Mind you a lot of so called "pagan" elements actually is a result of people trying to smash square pegs into round holes. These nonsense arguments from the protestant reformation are as stupid as those in later centuries who insisted that the people in the middle ages thought the world was flat.

Tzor and War That is one narrative about Paul "the plant" Pants on fire. The narrative I'm more familiar with goes like this. Saul was the head of religious police for the Sandhedrin(the jewish religious court system, exactly equivilant with sharia law in present times, except lacking the requirement of a caliph/titular head of the nation & faith to give validity to laws), Saul was tasked with destroying the fledgling jewish reform movement(which was what christianity was before Paul abased and distorted it). Muslims and practising jews would argue that Saul/Paul did his job well. Introducing polytheism, idolatry, and divinely problematic dietary choices into the movement he twisted. The concept of the trinity was not a part of christianity. The prophet jesus never said he was Allah, he also mentioned that there was to be a messenger after him. The final prophet Mohammed peace be upon him. The elements of human sacrifice in the catholic mass are regressive to put it mildly. To think that catholics consider muslims to be barbaric.
Jewish heritage amongst melting pot family tree. Raised protestant, went to catholic schools after being expelled from protestant schools, attend one of my many local mosques every friday. Have been interested in comparative religious studies for a long time. One of the things that I really appreciated about both my grandfathers who were Seventh Day Adventist clergy, was their willingness to say that they didn't know. If asked a question that was troubling or hadn't come up before, they would say they didn't know and that they would try to find out. If only politicians and clergy could all do the same.

Paul hardly introduced Polytheism, the month Tammuz is named after the Sumerian god of vegetation. Jesus did claim he was the Son of God, otherwise he wouldn't have been crucified for "blasphemy". Divinely problematic dietary choices? Genesis says that all animals are to be used as food, except the blood. You can complain all you want about the shadow John conspiracy but it still is a primary historical document.

DoomYoshi wrote:Paul hardly introduced Polytheism, the month Tammuz is named after the Sumerian god of vegetation. Jesus did claim he was the Son of God, otherwise he wouldn't have been crucified for "blasphemy". Divinely problematic dietary choices? Genesis says that all animals are to be used as food, except the blood. You can complain all you want about the shadow John conspiracy but it still is a primary historical document.

The Torah/Pentateuch, in particular the book of Leviticus has dietary laws. Meat that is suitable for consumption vegetarian animals with cloven hooves who chew their own cud. Jesus didn't claim to be the son of god, when he said his father, just like christians reciting the lords prayer. Suggesting that God is like a father to his creations. Jesus was accused of blasphemy, but convicted of sedition for purportedly claiming to be the king of the jews. Hence the label written above his cross. The romans practised freedom of religion, since jesus was convicted in a roman court he wasn't convicted of blasphemy. People in roman occupied nations were allowed to practise their religions, as long as they didn't try to force their beliefs on others. As for primary historical document, by that logic Death of a Salesman is a cornerstone document for the US constitution.

BoganGod wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:Paul hardly introduced Polytheism, the month Tammuz is named after the Sumerian god of vegetation. Jesus did claim he was the Son of God, otherwise he wouldn't have been crucified for "blasphemy". Divinely problematic dietary choices? Genesis says that all animals are to be used as food, except the blood. You can complain all you want about the shadow John conspiracy but it still is a primary historical document.

The Torah/Pentateuch, in particular the book of Leviticus has dietary laws. Meat that is suitable for consumption vegetarian animals with cloven hooves who chew their own cud. Jesus didn't claim to be the son of god, when he said his father, just like christians reciting the lords prayer. Suggesting that God is like a father to his creations. Jesus was accused of blasphemy, but convicted of sedition for purportedly claiming to be the king of the jews. Hence the label written above his cross. The romans practised freedom of religion, since jesus was convicted in a roman court he wasn't convicted of blasphemy. People in roman occupied nations were allowed to practise their religions, as long as they didn't try to force their beliefs on others. As for primary historical document, by that logic Death of a Salesman is a cornerstone document for the US constitution.

Im really not getting which version you're reading because half the stuff you say, but in particular.... Jesus multiple times did claim and affirm others responses when he was called the son of god. Christians use the term father because of the concept of adoption. Also DY isn't completely wrong on WHY he was crucified... Not the made up reason, but the real reason on why the Jewish leaders crucified him. Sure in the official roman books it was for sedition, but anyone who knew the priests and pharisees knew it was they wanted to get rid of a threat to their power... So they used blasphemy to the jewish people and sedition to the romans...
What kind of cliffnotes are you reading to make up this stuff anyways?

Also while it is true that the Pentatuch had dietary restrictions, however these can be put into two issues: 1. being sanitary and disease related 2. As a type "Picture" of clean and unclean things. (Remember the Isrealites were supposed to be separate from the other nations around them.)

rishaed wrote:Also while it is true that the Pentatuch had has dietary restrictions, however these can be put into two issues: 1. being sanitary and disease related 2. As a type "Picture" of clean and unclean things. (Remember the Isrealites were supposed to be separate from the other nations around them.)

Your argument is a strong one, that not many people argue well. Early people world wide have used pigs as currency/indicators of wealth. Growing up in the pacific I saw that. I also saw Seventh Day Adventist(follow leviticus dietary dictates) communities prosper by uncoupling their status markers from the pigs back.
Today muslims are more lax than orthodox jews when it comes to diet. Things are divided into Halal - Permitted, and Haram - Forbidden. Some items are Makrouh - Frowned upon or not advised, but not forbidden.
Paul/Saul's convientent revelation with the lovely music and cornucopia bedsheet of food items, instantly made christianity less attractive to jews, and more attractive to non jews. Mission accomplished double agent paul.
It wasn't accidental the casting of demons into swine by jesus, was highly symbolic. Reinforcing pigs as unclean, harming the pocket of the Canaanites/non jews, and pointing out again the ritual and physical cleansing nature of water.

BoganGod wrote:

rishaed wrote:Also while it is true that the Pentatuch had has dietary restrictions, however these can be put into two issues: 1. being sanitary and disease related 2. As a type "Picture" of clean and unclean things. (Remember the Isrealites were supposed to be separate from the other nations around them.)

Your argument is a strong one, that not many people argue well. Early people world wide have used pigs as currency/indicators of wealth. Growing up in the pacific I saw that. I also saw Seventh Day Adventist(follow leviticus dietary dictates) communities prosper by uncoupling their status markers from the pigs back.
Today muslims are more lax than orthodox jews when it comes to diet. Things are divided into Halal - Permitted, and Haram - Forbidden. Some items are Makrouh - Frowned upon or not advised, but not forbidden.
Paul/Saul's convientent revelation with the lovely music and cornucopia bedsheet of food items, instantly made christianity less attractive to jews, and more attractive to non jews. Mission accomplished double agent paul.
It wasn't accidental the casting of demons into swine by jesus, was highly symbolic. Reinforcing pigs as unclean, harming the pocket of the Canaanites/non jews, and pointing out again the ritual and physical cleansing nature of water.

That wasn't Paul, it was Peter. Go read Acts for that one. Also later on when talking about foods that would cause a brother to be offended, Paul specifically says, if you know eating something will offend you/brother, don't eat it. However if nobody says anything to you, then its your call. That one's in Corinthian's I think. And while the vision of Peter's may have to deal with food items, it primarily focused on the fact that they could now go to the Gentiles (aka no jews.) If you remember Jesus's ministry in regards to his miracles was exclusively for the Jewish people when he came. It is only at the end of the Gospels that Jesus tells them to go unto all the world.

Symmetry wrote:

tzor wrote:I think you'd like Eamon Duffy

I'll look into him. Just ordered The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England, c.1400 to c.1580 (1992)

Paul never preached polytheism. Paul was raised in the strict Pharisee tradition until he received a vision. And in the vision he heard had something odd. The person, whom the followers of The Way (note the term Christian was not yet invented for them) claimed rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. "Why are you persecuting me?" But he wasn't. He was persecuting his followers. Follow that to the logical conclusion, he was in all of this followers, so persecuting his followers was persecuting him. From this one goes to the notion of God being in that person in the same way that person was in his followers which led him to preach that the followers were "children of God."

At the time the Sadducee were only interested in boxing God up in the temple. The Pharisee were dedicated to the notion that strict following of the law made them sinless. The followers of the Way insisted that God walked among them and was pouring out to all of them like rainfall. As John would insist "the word became flesh and dwelt among us."

Centuries later, encouraged by Christian heretics (Muhammad's first wife) the notion that God would become man (so man could come to God) was inverted to a notion that the Great and powerful God would never stoop so low to filthy dirt humanity. That's why Islam is based on "submission" and Christianity is based on "love." Like it or not, Islam was basically a "Christian" heresy.

tzor wrote:Paul never preached polytheism.

Bogie refers to the Trinity as polytheism.

tzor wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

tzor wrote:I think you'd like Eamon Duffy

I'll look into him. Just ordered The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England, c.1400 to c.1580 (1992)

Excellent choice- it's a great book, and an interesting counter-balance to people who see the Reformation in England as a one way street.

Let me know what you think of it.

I'm more interested in the esoteric side. Like why God gave specific measurements for the Tabernacle or the symbolism of the two pillars of Solomon Temple called Jachin and Boaz. Or the Seal of Solomon. People can debate on the pigs and food but I'm more into what the Church won't talk about that's in the Bible. Even why some books were kept out of the Bible like the Gospel of Judas or the significance of Enoch. Is it the Son of God or the Sun of God? Panspermia and obelisks. Or St.Peters square being a sundial. The Council of Nicea or Vatican Two and it's repercussions to Orthodox Christianity. I like the guts and meat. You guys are feasting on the excrements of religious philosophy.

warmonger1981 wrote:I'm more interested in the esoteric side. Like why God gave specific measurements for the Tabernacle or the symbolism of the two pillars of Solomon Temple called Jachin and Boaz. Or the Seal of Solomon. People can debate on the pigs and food but I'm more into what the Church won't talk about that's in the Bible. Even why some books were kept out of the Bible like the Gospel of Judas or the significance of Enoch. Is it the Son of God or the Sun of God? Panspermia and obelisks. Or St.Peters square being a sundial. The Council of Nicea or Vatican Two and it's repercussions to Orthodox Christianity. I like the guts and meat. You guys are feasting on the excrements of religious philosophy.

The Cheese and The Worms- that's the book for you. By Carlo Ginzburg.

DoomYoshi wrote:

tzor wrote:Paul never preached polytheism.

Bogie refers to the Trinity as polytheism.

Rightly so.