Jump to content

Moonobserver

Regular Member
  • Content Count

    80
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Moonobserver last won the day on October 6

Moonobserver had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

41 Good

About Moonobserver

  • Rank
    Doubter

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Interests
    Political science, history, philosophy, theology, the Arts, the Humanities and the Red Green Show
  • More About Me
    I've also been into Star Trek since I was a kid, but I think what they did with the Klingon makeup was just silly.

Previous Fields

  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what?
    The Divine Mystery

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. For me it was that unpardonable sin issue. That was the first inconsistency I couldn't ignore. It didn't take away my belief in God, but it did make it a lot easier to take a long, hard look at Christianity.
  2. In addition, it's just common sense to conclude that a delicately balanced system----like the ecosystem----is going to be thrown out of balance by the countless tons of chemical pollutants being dumped into it every year.
  3. Rather, you seem to feel that I expect *illogical* things to work out. I don't.
  4. Interesting, and also telling. The CC absolutely insists on its communion bread being wheat, and absolutely insists that in order to qualify as wheat it must contain gluten----thereby firmly establishing gluten as an *elemental* substance of its communion bread, then dismisses it as an "accidental" substance when it makes people sick. That's the part that doesn't work out.
  5. To any Catholics who may read this, I apologize for the direction this thread has taken. My intent was to illustrate, in as frank but as diplomatic a way as possible, a serious theological issue concerning the central doctrine of the Catholic Church; it was not my intent for the discourse to deteriorate into the base, sophmoric morass of gratuitous rancor it has since become. In considering my observation on this highly sensitive subject, of which I am confident you are more capable than some, I hope you will bear that distinction in mind.
  6. The heart of Catholic worship is the sacrament of the Eucharist, and the heart of the Eucharist is the doctrine of transubstantiation. For those who have never been in the Catholic Church and are unfamiliar with this, it's the belief that the bread and wine consecrated for Communion become the literal, physical body and blood of Jesus. This is an absolute dogma which every Catholic must believe in order to BE Catholic. The CC maintains guidelines stipulating that the bread administered in Communion must be made of wheat, since it was wheat bread used by Jesus when he initiated the Eucharist at the Last Supper. Wheat contains gluten, therefore the CC has ruled that its Communion bread must have enough gluten to qualify as wheat bread. Some people----including some Catholics----suffer from celiac disease, an allergic reaction to gluten which can make them violently ill. In an effort to accommodate them, the CC has authorized the use of low-gluten bread for Communion and the availability of separate wine chalices for gluten-sensitive parishoners to avoid cross-contamination. The problem is that this leads back to the doctrine of transubstantiation. Logically, if transubstantiation actually takes place there should be no need for the CC to take any such measures to protect gluten-sensitive individuals, because once transubstantiation has occurred the gluten should no longer be there regardless of how much or how little there was to begin with. The CC claims that all of its official decisions are divinely guided. Why would they have to take measures to protect sincere believers from being harmed by the Body of Christ? It makes absolutely no theological sense.
  7. https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ https://qz.com/1726232/the-three-types-of-climate-change-denial/amp/
  8. Since recognizing the problems with traditional Christian theology, I have been through numerous phases; I've had neopagan leanings, made a transition from there toward Taoism and more recently identified with Deism. I haven't discarded any of these as patently false; it feels more like moving from room to room in a large house built of spiritual and philosophical possibilities. Some might dismiss this as the proverbial "cafeteria religion", but I would remind such critics that if they're going to compare spirituality to nutrition, they should concede that a balanced diet requires variety. Thus I now find myself mindful of what each of these spiritual directions has given me. Deism has provided me with an intellectual approach to metaphysics and a way to ponder the mechanistics of a material cosmos and the phenomenon of its existence. Taoism, from its Eastern approach, has shown me the universe as an organism in the flow and harmony of its being. Neopaganism has put personal faces on the transpersonal forces of life and given me a way to relate to the universe being-to-being. I consider all as having merit and none as mutually exclusive.
  9. I believe Ussher was invoked by William Jennings Bryan in the Scopes Monkey Trial, where Clarence Darrow made a monkey out of Bryan.
  10. My pleasure. Just keep in mind that I'm still fumbling my way through the Cosmic Conundrum myself----I don't claim to have any definite answers; all I can do is relate my own experience & let you judge it as you deem fitting.
  11. Yes, I believe that the Bible *says* that, but that doesn't mean it's really why rainbows appear.
  12. Uhh......okay, then. Honestly, I can't figure out if these replies are supposed to be a rebuttal or a joke. They look like gibberish to me. Is that intentional?
  13. I'm sorry----I've been trying, but I can't figure out what this word salad is supposed to mean.
  14. I know this thread is some months old, but it seems to refer to a continuing issue. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/mach/amp/ncna879346
  15. I think the whole "you were never a Christian to begin with" line is a way of pretending that Christian doctrine is logically irrefutable in order to pretend that no logical person could refute it.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.