Matthews: Catholic Church a haven for conservative bigots, or something

posted at 11:40 am on February 21, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Say, did Chris Matthews make this complaint when Barack Obama won the Catholic vote in 2008 by a 54/45 margin? Naaaah:

SCOTT WHITLOCK: Hi, Mr. Matthews, my name is Scott Whitlock. I’m with the Media Research Center and-

CHRIS MATTHEWS: What’s the Media Research Center?  

WHITLOCK: Uh, we write about liberal media bias. 

[Matthews visibly sighs and looks irritated. Audience laughs.]

MATTHEWS: Earlier tonight, you were talking about Nixon and the Southern Strategy and bigotry and things like that you and you said, quote, “If you’re really anti-gay, you become a Catholic now.” [Audience laughs.] I was wondering if you were saying that bigots become Catholic now and if you wanted to expand or apologize for that? [Audience laughs.]

MATTHEWS: I think there are people who have chosen to convert to the Catholic faith because they don’t like the liberal positions taken by their sectarian groups. That’s a fact. So, you can write that down. No, you can write that down. 

WHITLOCK: So, you’re saying Catholicism is drawing bigots? Is that what you’re saying?

MATTHEWS: I’m saying that some people who are bigoted against gay people have changed religions. Yes. You got it right.

As a Catholic, I’m a little bemused by this argument.  Almost all Christian denominations oppose same-sex marriage, and Catholics aren’t the most vocal on that point, at least not uniformly.  Of all the larger Christian denominations, Catholics are the most liberal in terms of voting record, not the most conservative; Democrats are much more competitive among Catholics than among Protestants and especially evangelicals. As an active member of a Catholic parish, I can assure you that it’s much more liberal than any workplace in which I have ever worked.

There seems to be a lot less hesitation in the national media to indulge in attacking Catholics, especially on ludicrous and unsupported allegations like Matthews’.  I think we see pretty clearly where the bigotry originates, and, well, I’m writing that down.

Update: Yes, I’m very well aware that Matthews is Catholic, which makes this even more bizarre.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Update: Yes, I’m very well aware that Matthews is Catholic, which makes this even more bizarre.

Not really bizarre when one considers how oikophobic liberals are, especially the limousine variety like Matthews.

They first and foremost hate their church, nation, Constitution, founders, fellow Americans beyond essentially anything or anyone else.

Matthews behavior is not bizarre, it is liberal normative and exactly what one should expect from him.

DrDeano on February 21, 2012 at 2:29 PM

The Roman Catholic Church represents to may people a symbol of white imperialism arcoss the globe.

At least this is a aspect of Black Liberation Theology as taught by Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s pastor.

The idea is to take down this symbol of white imperialism and replace it with something else, anything else.

In Egypt and Lybia we helped deposed a pro-U.S. secular government with an anti-U.S. Islamic government.

In Syria we’re seeking a change, from a secular government steeped in religious history predating Islam, to the Islamic rebels.

In Israel we’re seeking to encroach on Israeli soverenty through support of any number of Islamic aggressorse.

While in Iran, the most anti-U.S. nation, we’re pretty much looking the other way. We won’t help their over-throw movements like we did in Egypt and Lybia.

Question:

After 10 years of fighting Islamic terrorism, why is Obama now siding with Islamists to over-throw secular governments, some of whom were allied with the U.S.?

Why does Obama embrace Rev. Wright’s Black Liberation Theology, and the expense of established culture?

Who’s side is Obama really on here?

Lawrence on February 21, 2012 at 2:29 PM

timberline on February 21, 2012 at 2:28 PM

I interpret that condemning the disobedience of a single man with regard to God’s command concerning a a single woman in a single order. I don’t see how it could be interpreted as
condemning all contraception. I think the better argument is Genesis 1 but I still don’t agree. Since it is not salvivic in nature we can disagree and still rejoice over our mutual regeneration.

tommyboy on February 21, 2012 at 2:34 PM

Correct. That was a typo that I recognized simultaneously with clicking the submit button. I hate when that happens.

tommyboy on February 21, 2012 at 2:28 PM

Ego te absolvo a peccatis tuis in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen.

Ite in pacem.

timberline on February 21, 2012 at 2:37 PM

ah, so its not the “all one needs to do is follow the clear, literal meaning of the words presented.” sometimes is “analogus precepts”.
nathor on February 21, 2012 at 2:28 PM

If you can’t recognize obvious, clear correlations then you should avoid automobiles and sharp objects. My teaching experience has demonstrated that 8 year old children can recognize them on their own with no prompting by me or anyone else.

tommyboy on February 21, 2012 at 2:40 PM

I don’t see how it could be interpreted as
condemning all contraception. I think the better argument is Genesis 1 but I still don’t agree. Since it is not salvivic in nature we can disagree and still rejoice over our mutual regeneration.

tommyboy on February 21, 2012 at 2:34 PM

There are no canons defining the different levels of masturbation in the Catholic Church. The Church treats them fairly and equally, which is the “right and proper thing to do”. No matter what the circumstances, if the final result is to purposefully drop the ball at climax time, this act is an abomination and in the Catholic Church, a mortal sin.

timberline on February 21, 2012 at 2:46 PM

nathor on February 21, 2012 at 2:01 PM

Awwwwww. Nathor’s so cute when he gets his God-hate on. Wait’l he stamps his little foot. Just precious!
/s

Solaratov on February 21, 2012 at 2:47 PM

Please identify one single 4th century heretical movement that was “wiped out”? They were merely excommunicated and banished from the Church. Had there been truth to their doctrines they would have flourished and the doctrine we follow now would have disappeared. But they were false and people recognized it and they died out from their own lack of truth. The vast majority the early heretical doctrines were gnostic spin offs of neo-platonic idealism and eventually recognized as such. They could not stand.

tommyboy on February 21, 2012 at 2:24 PM

like truth is a necessary condition for a religion\sect to thrive?! men were fooled in those days like they are fooled now. for all those sects to have disappeared and only one remained(the catholic roman church), violence was used, and lots of it.

but since you asked for examples, enjoy:

Original Source: Vlasis Rassias, Demolish Them!
Published in Greek, Athens 1994

314 Immediately after its full legalization, the Christian Church attacks
non-Christians. The Council of Ancyra denounces the worship of Goddess
Artemis.

324 The emperor Constantine declares Christianity as the only official
religion of the Roman Empire. In Dydima, Minor Asia, he sacks the Oracle of
the god Apollo and tortures the pagan priests to death. He also evicts all
non-Christian peoples from Mount Athos and destroys all the local Hellenic
temples.

325 Nicene Council. The god-man gets a promotion: ‘Christ is Divine’

326 Constantine, following the instructions of his mother Helen, destroys
the temple of the god Asclepius in Aigeai Cilicia and many temples of the
goddess Aphrodite in Jerusalem, Aphaca, Mambre, Phoenicia, Baalbek, etc.

330 Constantine steals the treasures and statues of the pagan temples of
Greece to decorate Constantinople, the new capital of his Empire.

335 Constantine sacks many pagan temples in Asia Minor and Palestine and
orders the execution by crucifixion of “all magicians and soothsayers.”
Martyrdom of the neoplatonist philosopher Sopatrus.

341 Constantius II (Flavius Julius Constantius) persecutes “all the
soothsayers and the Hellenists.” Many gentile Hellenes are either imprisoned
or executed.

346 New large scale persecutions against non-Christian peoples in
Constantinople. Banishment of the famous orator Libanius accused as a
“magician”.

353 An edict of Constantius orders the death penalty for all kind of worship
through sacrifice and “idols”.

354 A new edict orders the closing of all the pagan temples. Some of them
are profaned and turned into brothels or gambling rooms.

Execution of pagan priests begins.

A new edict of Constantius orders the destruction of the pagan temples and
the execution of all “idolaters”.

First burning of libraries in various cities of the empire.

The first lime factories are organized next to the closed pagan temples. A
major part of the holy architecture of the pagans is turned into lime.

357 Constantius outlaws all methods of divination (astrology not excluded).

359 In Skythopolis, Syria, the Christians organize the first death camps for
the torture and executions of the arrested non-Christians from all around
the empire.

361 to 363 Religious tolerance and restoration of the pagan cults is
declared in Constantinople (11th December 361) by the pagan emperor Julian
(Flavius Claudius Julianus).

363 Assassination of Julian (26th June).

364 Emperor Jovian orders the burning of the Library of Antioch.

An Imperial edict (11th September) orders the death penalty for all those
that worship their ancestral gods or practice divination (“sileat omnibus
perpetuo divinandi curiositas”).

Three different edicts (4th February, 9th September, 23rd December) order
the confiscation of all properties of the pagan temples and the death
penalty for participation in pagan rituals, even private ones.

The Church Council of Laodicea (Phrygia – western Asia Minor) orders that
religious observances are to be conducted on Sunday and not on Saturday.
Sunday becomes the new Sabbath. The practice of staying at home and resting
on Saturday declared sinful and anathema to Christ.

365 An imperial edict from Emperor Valens, a zealous Arian Christian (17th
November), forbids pagan officers of the army to command Christian soldiers.

370 Valens orders a tremendous persecution of non-Christian peoples in all
the Eastern Empire. In Antioch, among many other non-Christians, the
ex-governor Fidustius and the priests Hilarius and Patricius are executed.
The philosopher Simonides is burned alive and the philosopher Maximus is
decapitated. All the friends of Julian are persecuted (Orebasius,
Sallustius, Pegasius etc.).

Tons of books are burnt in the squares of the cities of the Eastern Empire.

372 Valens orders the governor of Minor Asia to exterminate all the Hellenes
and all documents of their wisdom.

373 New prohibition of all divination methods is issued. The term “pagan”
(pagani, villagers, equivalent to the modern insult, “peasants”) is
introduced by the Christians to demean non-believers.

375 The temple of Asclepius in Epidaurus, Greece, is closed down by the
Christians.

380 On 27th February Christianity becomes the exclusive religion of the
Roman Empire by an edict of the Emperor Flavius Theodosius, requiring that:

“All the various nations which are subject to our clemency and moderation
should continue in the profession of that religion which was delivered to
the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter.”

The non-Christians are called “loathsome, heretics, stupid and blind”.

In another edict, Theodosius calls “insane” those that do not believe to the
Christian God and outlaws all disagreement with the Church dogmas.

Ambrosius, bishop of Milan, begins the destruction of pagan temples of his
area. The Christian priests lead the hungry mob against the temple of
goddess Demeter in Eleusis and try to lynch the hierophants Nestorius and
Priskus. The 95 year old hierophant Nestorius ends the Eleusinian Mysteries
and announces “the predominance of mental darkness over the human race.”

381 At the Council of Constantinople the ‘Holy Spirit’ is declared ‘Divine’
(thus sanctioning a triune god). On 2nd May, Theodosius deprives of all
their rights any Christians who return to the pagan religion. Throughout the
Eastern Empire the pagan temples and libraries are looted or burned down. On
21st December, Theodosius outlaws visits to Hellenic temples.

In Constantinople, the Temple of Aphrodite is turned into a brothel and the
temples of the Sun and Artemis to stables.

382 “Hellelujah” (“Glory to Yahweh”) is imposed in the Christian mass.

384 Theodosius orders the Praetorian Prefect Maternus Cynegius, a dedicated
Christian, to cooperate with local bishops and destroy the temples of the
pagans in Northern Greece and Minor Asia.

385 to 388 Prefect Maternus Cynegius, encouraged by his fanatic wife, and
bishop ‘Saint’ Marcellus with his gangs, scour the countryside and sack and
destroy hundreds of Hellenic temples, shrines and altars. Among others they
destroy the temple of Edessa, the Cabeireion of Imbros, the temple of Zeus
in Apamea, the temple of Apollo in Dydima and all the temples of Palmyra.

Thousands of innocent pagans from all sides of the empire suffer martyrdom
in the notorious death camps of Skythopolis.

386 Theodosius outlaws the care of the sacked pagan temples.

388 Public talks on religious subjects are outlawed by Theodosius. The old
orator Libanius sends his famous epistle “Pro Templis” to Theodosius with
the hope that the few remaining Hellenic temples will be respected and
spared.

389 to 390 All non-Christian calendars and dating-methods are outlawed.
Hordes of fanatic hermits from the desert flood the cities of the Middle
East and Egypt and destroy statues, altars, libraries and pagan temples, and
lynch the pagans. Theophilus, Patriarch of Alexandria, starts heavy
persecutions against non-Christian peoples, turning the temple of Dionysius
into a Christian church, burning down the Mithraeum of the city, destroying
the temple of Zeus and burlesques the pagan priests before they are killed
by stoning. The Christian mob profanes the cult images.

391 On 24th February, a new edict of Theodosius prohibits not only visits to
pagan temples but also looking at the vandalized statues. New heavy
persecutions occur all around the empire. In Alexandria, Egypt, pagans, led
by the philosopher Olympius, revolt and after some street fights they lock
themselves inside the fortified temple of the god Serapis (the Serapeion).
After a violent siege, the Christians take over the building, demolish it,
burn its famous library and profane the cult images.

392 On 8th November, Theodosius outlaws all the non-Christian rituals and
names them “superstitions of the gentiles” (gentilicia superstitio). New
full scale persecutions are ordered against pagans. The Mysteries of
Samothrace are ended and the priests slaughtered. In Cyprus the local bishop
“Saint” Epiphanius and “Saint” Tychon destroy almost all the temples of the
island and exterminate thousands of non-Christians. The local Mysteries of
goddess Aphrodite are ended. Theodosius’s edict declares:

“The ones that won’t obey pater Epiphanius have no right to keep living in
that island.”

The pagans revolt against the Emperor and the Church in Petra, Aeropolis,
Rafia, Gaza, Baalbek and other cities of the Middle East.

393 The Pythian Games, the Aktia Games and the Olympic Games are outlawed as
part of the Hellenic “idolatry”. The Christians sack the temples of Olympia.

395 Two new edicts (22nd July and 7th August) cause new persecutions against
pagans. Rufinus, the eunuch Prime Minister of Emperor Flavius Arcadius
directs the hordes of baptized Goths (led by Alaric) to the country of the
Hellenes. Encouraged by Christian monks the barbarians sack and burn many
cities (Dion, Delphi, Megara, Corinth, Pheneos, Argos, Nemea, Lycosoura,
Sparta, Messene, Phigaleia, Olympia, etc.), slaughter or enslave innumerable
gentile Hellenes and burn down all the temples. Among others, they burn down
the Eleusinian Sanctuary and burn alive all its priests (including the
hierophant of Mithras Hilarius).

396 On 7th December, a new edict by Arcadius orders that paganism be treated
as high treason. Imprisonment of the few remaining pagan priests and
hierophants.

397 “Demolish them!” Flavius Arcadius orders that all the still standing
pagan temples be demolished.

398 The 4th Church Council of Carthage prohibits everybody, including
Christian bishops, from studying pagan books. Porphyrius, bishop of Gaza,
demolishes almost all the pagan temples of his city (except nine of them
that remain active).

399 With a new edict (13th July) Flavius Arcadius orders all remaining pagan
temples, mainly in the countryside, be immediately demolished.

400 Bishop Nicetas destroys the Oracle of Dionysus in Vesai and baptizes all
the non-Christians of this area.

401 The Christian mob of Carthage lynches non-Christians and destroys
temples and “idols”. In Gaza too, the local bishop “Saint” Porphyrius sends
his followers to lynch pagans and to demolish the remaining nine still
active temples of the city.

The 15th Council of Chalcedon orders all the Christians that still keep good
relations with their non-Christian relatives to be excommunicated (even
after their death).

405 John Chrysostom sends hordes of grey-dressed monks armed with clubs and
iron bars to destroy the “idols” in all the cities of Palestine.

406 John Chrysostom collects funds from rich Christian women to financially
support the demolition of the Hellenic temples. In Ephesus he orders the
destruction of the famous temple of Artemis. In Salamis, Cyprus, “Saints”
Epiphanius and Eutychius continue the persecutions of the pagans and the
total destruction of their temples and sanctuaries.

407 A new edict outlaws once more all the non-Christian acts of worship.

408 The emperor of the Western Empire, Honorius, and the emperor of the
Eastern Empire, Arcadius, order all the sculptures of the pagan temples to
be either destroyed or to be taken away. Private ownership of pagan
sculpture is also outlawed. The local bishops lead new heavy persecutions
against the pagans and new book burning. The judges that have pity for the
pagans are also persecuted. “Saint” Augustine massacres hundreds of
protesting pagans in Calama, Algeria.

409 Another edict orders all methods of divination including astrology to be
punished by death.

415 In Alexandria, the Christian mob, urged by the bishop Cyril, attacks a
few days before the Judeo-Christian Pascha (Easter) and cuts to pieces the
famous and beautiful philosopher Hypatia. The pieces of her body, carried
around by the Christian mob through the streets of Alexandria, are finally
burned together with her books in a place called Cynaron.

On 30th August, new persecutions start against all the pagan priests of
North Africa who end their lives either crucified or burned alive. Emperor
Theodosius II expels the Jews from Alexandria.

416 The inquisitor Hypatius, alias “The Sword of God”, exterminates the last
pagans of Bithynia. In Constantinople (7th December) all non-Christian army
officers, public employees and judges are dismissed.

423 Emperor Theodosius II declares (8th June) that the religion of the
pagans is nothing more than “demon worship” and orders all those who persist
in practicing it to be punished by imprisonment and torture.

429 The temple of goddess Athena (Parthenon) on the Acropolis of Athens is
sacked. The Athenian pagans are persecuted.

431 Council of Ephesus (“Robber Synod”). Promotion for the god-man – “Christ
is complete God and complete man.”

435 On 14th November, a new edict by Theodosius II orders the death penalty
for all “heretics” and pagans of the empire. Only Judaism is considered a
legal non-Christian religion.

438 Theodosius II issues an new edict (31st January) against the pagans,
incriminating their “idolatry” as the reason of a recent plague!

440 to 450 The Christians demolish all the monuments, altars and temples of
Athens, Olympia, and other Greek cities.
book burning
448 Theodosius II orders all non-Christian books to be burned.

450 All the temples of Aphrodisias (the City of the Goddess Aphrodite) are
demolished and all its libraries burned down. The city is renamed
Stavroupolis (City of the Cross).

451 Council of Chalcedon. New edict by Theodosius II (4th November)
emphasizes that “idolatry” is punished by death. Assertion of orthodox
doctrine over the ‘Monophysites’ – ‘JC has single, divine nature.’

457 to 491 Sporadic persecutions against the pagans of the Eastern Empire.
Among others, the physician Jacobus and the philosopher Gessius are
executed. Severianus, Herestios, Zosimus, Isidorus and others are tortured
and imprisoned. The proselytizer Conon and his followers exterminate the
last non-Christians of Imbros Island, Northeast Aegean Sea. The last
worshippers of Lavranius Zeus are exterminated in Cyprus.

482 to 488 The majority of the pagans of Minor Asia are exterminated after a
desperate revolt against the emperor and the Church.

486 More “underground” pagan priests are discovered, arrested, burlesqued,
tortured and executed in Alexandria, Egypt.
full body baptism 515 Baptism becomes obligatory even for those that
already say they are Christians.

The emperor of Constantinople, Anastasius, orders the massacre of the pagans
in the Arabian city Zoara and the demolition of the temple of local god
Theandrites.

523 Emperor Justin I outlaws the Arian heresy and campaigns to suppress
Arianism everywhere.

528 Emperor Justinian outlaws the “alternative” Olympian Games of Antioch.
He also orders the execution-by fire, crucifixion, tearing to pieces by wild
beasts or cutting to pieces by iron nails-of all who practice “sorcery,
divination, magic or idolatry” and prohibits all teachings by the pagans
(“the ones suffering from the blasphemous insanity of the Hellenes”).

529 Justinian outlaws the Athenian Philosophical Academy and has its
property confiscated.

532 The inquisitor Ioannis Asiacus, a fanatical monk, leads a crusade
against the pagans of Minor Asia.

542 Justinian allows the inquisitor Ioannis Asiacus to forcibly convert the
pagans of Phrygia, Caria and Lydia in Asia Minor. Within 35 years of this
crusade, 99 churches and 12 monasteries are built on the sites of demolished
pagan temples.

546 Hundreds of pagans are put to death in Constantinople by the inquisitor
Ioannis Asiacus.

556 Justinian orders the notorious inquisitor Amantius to go to Antioch, to
find, arrest, torture and exterminate the last non-Christians of the city
and burn all the private libraries down.

562 Mass arrests, burlesquing, tortures, imprisonments and executions of
gentile Hellenes in Athens, Antioch, Palmyra and Constantinople.

578 to 582 The Christians torture and crucify Hellenes all around the
Eastern Empire, and exterminate the last non-Christians of Heliopolis
(Baalbek).

580 The Christian inquisitors attack a secret temple of Zeus in Antioch. The
priest commits suicide, but the rest of the pagans are arrested. All the
prisoners, the Vice Governor Anatolius included, are tortured and sent to
Constantinople to face trial. Sentenced to death they are thrown to the
lions. The wild animals being unwilling to tear them to pieces, they end up
crucified. Their dead bodies are dragged in the streets by the Christian mob
and afterwards thrown unburied in the dump.

583 New persecutions against the gentile Hellenes by Emperor Maurice.

590 In all the Eastern Empire the Christian accusers “discover” pagan
conspiracies. New storm of torture and executions.

nathor on February 21, 2012 at 2:50 PM

canopfor on February 21, 2012 at 12:31 PM
——————————————-

I read that transcript a little while ago. As usual, the media is blowing it out of proportion.

1. Contrary to what some headlines are inferring, and some people here have repeated, the comments are not recent. They were made in 2008.

2. Again, contrary to what’s being inferred, the comments were not off the cuff in an interview, they were part of a speech he gave at a Catholic University.

3. Other than the mention of politics, he didn’t say anything that I haven’t heard coming from the pulpits of Baptist churches.

Flora Duh on February 21, 2012 at 1:20 PM

Flora Duh:Not much to add,I agree on all points,and its no com
parison,to Rev.Wrights/Father Plefger rants!:)

canopfor on February 21, 2012 at 2:54 PM

canopfor on February 21, 2012 at 12:31 PM
—————————————–

Must be true. Didn’t I read in the last couple of days something about Satan messing with Jesse Jackson Jr.’s re-election?

silvernana on February 21, 2012 at 1:57 PM

silvernana:Oh gawd,lol!:)

canopfor on February 21, 2012 at 2:57 PM

nathor on February 21, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Well! Let’s hang all the Catholics. That’ll show’em there’s no statute of limitations on bad behavior.

You’re an idiot. And desperate.

Solaratov on February 21, 2012 at 2:59 PM

nathor on February 21, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Dude, seriously, step away from the Wikipedia and the 6th century Christian church. You’re making a fool out of yourself.

Trafalgar on February 21, 2012 at 3:01 PM

No matter what the circumstances, if the final result is to purposefully drop the ball at climax time, this act is an abomination and in the Catholic Church, a mortal sin.
timberline on February 21, 2012 at 2:46 PM

And I don’t see that anywhere in scripture. The passage regarding Onana and Tamar is dealing with a specific act of disobedience to God in a specific situation. I don’t see how any doctrine could be based on it other than for OT Jews to obey God’s law on the duties of brothers. However this is something we can agree to disagree on and still be friends.

tommyboy on February 21, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Must be true. Didn’t I read in the last couple of days something about Satan messing with Jesse Jackson Jr.’s re-election?

silvernana on February 21, 2012 at 1:57 PM

“Between 40 and 60 ministers on Monday joined Jackson to endorse his re-election campaign. They’re prepared for a fight, and Pastor Willie James Campbell even denounced the “satanic forces” that want to defeat their man.

Solaratov on February 21, 2012 at 3:04 PM

I can hardly wait for tomorrow – I’m giving up responding to ant-Catholic posts written be arrogant, ego-centric, ignorant, hostile morons for Lent. Oh Nathor, it must be nice to appoint yourself Pope and pass judgement. Someone once said : It’s easier to point out the splinter in someone else’s eye, rather than the timber in your own.

Fuquay Steve on February 21, 2012 at 3:08 PM

Must be true. Didn’t I read in the last couple of days something about Satan messing with Jesse Jackson Jr.’s re-election?

silvernana on February 21, 2012 at 1:57 PM

“Between 40 and 60 ministers on Monday joined Jackson to endorse his re-election campaign. They’re prepared for a fight, and Pastor Willie James Campbell even denounced the “satanic forces” that want to defeat their man.“

Solaratov on February 21, 2012 at 3:04 PM

Thanks for that! I knew I read it but didn’t remember where.

silvernana on February 21, 2012 at 3:09 PM

SparkPlug on February 21, 2012 at 12:18 PM

I don’t know where my Jewish relatives-like my dad and someday my mother-will go. Jews are God’s Chosen People.
I’m sure that he has it under control. He doesn’t need my help.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 21, 2012 at 12:20 PM

Jesus spoke about this to Nicodemus, a Jewish leader, in John 3:14-18. He is referring to Numbers 21:4-9 in the Tenach (the Old Testament) —

14 “…And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God….”

God loved His Hebrew people so much that He rescued them from slavery in Egypt; but when they sinned against Him, He required them to look toward the bronze serpent on the pole if they wanted to be saved from the poison of the fiery serpents He sent to punish them. They were not automatically saved because they were His Chosen People.

Jesus is saying in these verses that the bronze serpent was a symbol of the death He was about to suffer on the cross in order to pay for the sins (to save from the fatal poison of sin) of everyone who looks to Him in faith (obedient trust).

The need for faith in Jesus in order to be saved applies to my dear relatives as well as yours. My beloved grandmother, and my dear father, are separated from God by their sins forever unless they put their faith (obedient trust) in Jesus before they died.

KyMouse on February 21, 2012 at 3:12 PM

Update: Yes, I’m very well aware that Matthews is Catholic, which makes this even more bizarre.

Maybe he was only talking about JFK. You know, that guy who had the affair with the 19 yr old intern. Then he made her give “favors” to his aides while he watched… the guy that Matthews still considers a hero…

Book on February 21, 2012 at 3:12 PM

Matthews is a suit with voice. He has a generic formal education with no specialization that enables him to posture as a great critical thinker or an expert on any given subject. He was hired to sit in a chair before a camera and read what was put before him. He would serve himself and his network best if he confined himself to that role. He’s not paid to think.

thatsafactjack on February 21, 2012 at 3:29 PM

like truth is a necessary condition for a religion\sect to thrive?!

According to the Bible it is for it to last. They can survive for a season but will eventually fail. See: Acts 6:33-39

And nothing in the long Wiki excerpt you cut and pasted (the only source you ever cite.) conflicted with my assertion that the early heretical sects were never physically persecuted in a manner to “wipe them out”. Indeed, after the death of Constantine his son sided with Arius and DID persecute the orthodox Christians who rejected Arianism. The early Church father Althanasius was exiled 4 times for this reason.

tommyboy on February 21, 2012 at 3:40 PM

The institution is run by men who do not marry so they inherently have a disdain for women

liberal4life on February 21, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Does that include the Virgin Mary???

(hint: see all S American/Central American and N American Catholics)

Odie1941 on February 21, 2012 at 12:43 PM

Probably, since they had to go back a generation to have her ‘immaculately conceived’ (no original sin) so that she could then be impregnated, not by a man but by a ghost. All this foolishness is barking mad but it’s hard to purge if it inculcated into children. The theologians here might ask if Jesus, brothers and sisters, coming out of this same immaculate womb, had (have) any specie status.

Annar on February 21, 2012 at 3:41 PM

specie –> special

Annar on February 21, 2012 at 3:42 PM

Well! Let’s hang all the Catholics. That’ll show’em there’s no statute of limitations on bad behavior.

You’re an idiot. And desperate.

Solaratov on February 21, 2012 at 2:59 PM

I was born catholic and many of my relatives still are catholic.

Dude, seriously, step away from the Wikipedia and the 6th century Christian church. You’re making a fool out of yourself.

Trafalgar on February 21, 2012 at 3:01 PM

4th century, which was around the time where the bible you now read was finally compiled. dont you like to know what those christians were doing by those days?

nathor on February 21, 2012 at 3:45 PM

And nothing in the long Wiki excerpt you cut and pasted (the only source you ever cite.) conflicted with my assertion that the early heretical sects were never physically persecuted in a manner to “wipe them out”. Indeed, after the death of Constantine his son sided with Arius and DID persecute the orthodox Christians who rejected Arianism. The early Church father Althanasius was exiled 4 times for this reason.

tommyboy on February 21, 2012 at 3:40 PM

well, in 380, the roman empire officially was declared “catholic”, and heretics branded as madmen.

The term Catholic Christians entered Roman Imperial law when Theodosius I, Emperor from 379 to 395, reserved that name for adherents of “that religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter, as it has been preserved by faithful tradition and which is now professed by the Pontiff (Pope) Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria(athanasius)as for the others, since in our judgement they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give their conventicles the name of churches.” This law of 27 February 380 was included in Book 16 of the Codex Theodosianus.[14] It established Catholic Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire.

50 years later, the madmen were to be slaughtered.

435 On 14th November, a new edict by Theodosius II orders the death penalty
for all “heretics” and pagans of the empire. Only Judaism is considered a
legal non-Christian religion.

regarding early Christians that were destroyed in the the later 4th and 5th centuries, you have for example, the marcionites:

Eznik the Armenian bishop, who flourished about 450 A.D. In his treatise “The Destruction of False Doctrines”, he devotes the fourth and last book to the Marcionites, who seem to have been even at that late date a most flourishing body.

nathor on February 21, 2012 at 4:11 PM

The theologians here might ask if Jesus, brothers and sisters, coming out of this same immaculate womb, had (have) any specie status.

Annar on February 21, 2012 at 3:41 PM

Mary remained “ever virgin” and conceived no other children, so your question smacks of total ignorance of a belief which you dismiss as being “barking mad”. Look, you don’t have to believe in anything, nobody is demanding that you do. But to cavalierly dismiss those who do, while at the same time displaying your ignorance, is the height of arrogance.

Trafalgar on February 21, 2012 at 4:16 PM

The Romans and their emperors were not the Christian Church so that is irrelevant. And “catholic” with a small “c” means universal. At the time it did not refer to the Roman Catholic Church. The wiki page left that out, huh?

And what you call “destruction” was just a sect dying out due to criticism. For example, name one single Christian Theodosius had killed.

You really need to find another source rather than the annonymous, agenda driven Christian hating wiki. Any one relying on it in a footnote in a scholarly paper would be knocked down a letter grade.

tommyboy on February 21, 2012 at 4:24 PM

“Mary remained “ever virgin” and conceived no other children”

Not only does the bible NOT say that, it says much the opposite. It say Mary ONLY stayed celibate while pregnant with Jesus. It also says Jesus had brothers and sisters and never even hints they were half-brothers or sisters. The eternal virgin doctrine is pure invention.

tommyboy on February 21, 2012 at 4:27 PM

nathor on February 21, 2012 at 2:50 PM

I see you focused on the Christians. Catholics in particular. I’m wondering why? Why do you ignore the attrocities commited, during the same period, by the muslims, Incas, Africans and pretty much every other society in the world. Times were tough back then. Times were brutal! Tyranny ruled! What Catholics did during this period was no different…in fact, arguably not even as bad…as any other society of the time.

I’m not apologizing or justifying, just saying that you need to consider what the Catholic church did back than to the times in which they existed. Otherwise, you’re being more than a little naive and unfair in your condemnation of 5th Christianity by 21st century standards.

PorchDawg on February 21, 2012 at 4:28 PM

The incarnation happened and the Truth exists.

Fuquay Steve on February 21, 2012 at 4:28 PM

Actually, in my expreience, being raised Catholic, the Catholic church is more of a haven for liberal Democrat hypocrits than anything else. Catholics as a group have historically voted Dem in very large percentages. Which I always found to be an interesting hypocrisy since the Dems are / have been the ones pushing policies in direct conflict with church policies/edicts.

dentarthurdent on February 21, 2012 at 4:32 PM

What does any of this argument have to do with anything?

Was the Catholic Church perfect throughout history? No. Is it perfect now? No. Does that have anything to do with whether the Church should be allowed the religious freedom guaranteed by (not created by) the First Amendment? No.

If we are to decide who gets what religious freedom based on some kind of poll on whether we like the believes or not, then there is no religious freedom.

I’m a Catholic and I’ll be the first to admit that the Church has made mistakes and had dark days. But that is the failure of man. Any institution run by men is going to fail and make mistakes. There is no major religion where one can find no mistakes made and nothing to criticize.

So?

For each liberal attack on the church, I point out that the time-frame in question (usually) the Church was basically akin to an empire and therefore can also be judged as a gov’t. And it tends to support conservative arguments for small, limited gov’t. The more powerful the gov’t, the more it will reduce freedom and abuse its power. Just as the Church did at times in its history.

Liberals want to eradicate religious faith and replace it with an all-powerful government. Somehow they believe this will not lead to tyranny and oppression. How they come to that belief – with the history of mankind – is odd.

If the left is successful in eradicating religion, it will in turn eradicate charity and morality. How they believe that is good is beyond me. it is already well documented that the religious give of their time and money to a far greater extent than the non-religious. thus, it seems obvious that if religion were eradicated, so too would charity be eradicated. As for morality, while there can be philosophical arguments for a non-religious based morality, the reality is that without a fear of consequences (i.e., the afterlife) for one’s actions, most people would not care much about morality. Without morality there is no ethical standard for anyone – people will no longer do the right thing and gov’t will become even more corrupt and more tyrannical.

I’m not sure how liberals believe replacing religion with gov’t will lead to utopia. It is disturbing that they can believe that with more than 4,000 years of the history of mankind to study.

Monkeytoe on February 21, 2012 at 4:36 PM

dentarthurdent on February 21, 2012 at 4:32 PM

Sounds exactly like Jews too.

kirkill on February 21, 2012 at 4:41 PM

Monkeytoe on February 21, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Good post.

As for morality, while there can be philosophical arguments for a non-religious based morality

None that maintain logical integrity. Kant gave it a good shot with his catagorical imperative but the existentialists shredded it to pieces using pretty much the same arguments contained in the book of Ecclesiastes.

tommyboy on February 21, 2012 at 4:41 PM

The Romans and their emperors were not the Christian Church so that is irrelevant. And “catholic” with a small “c” means universal. At the time it did not refer to the Roman Catholic Church. The wiki page left that out, huh?

what it matters big C or little c. the emperor Theodosius allied itself with the organization that holds the Apostolic succession that later generated the big C catholics of today. its the same organization.

And what you call “destruction” was just a sect dying out due to criticism. For example, name one single Christian Theodosius had killed.

from this book, read pages 307-308, you will get a glimpse of how other christian sects were persecuted by theodosious. in page 308, you will find example of some executed.

The theory of persecution was established by Theodosius whose and piety have been applauded by the saints but the prac of it in the fullest extent was reserved for his rival and colleague Maximus the first among the Christian princes who shed blood of his Christian subjects on account of their religious opinions The cause of the Priscillianists 51 a recent sect of heretics who disturbed the provinces of Spain was transferred by from the synod of Bordeaux to the Imperial consistory of and by the sentence of the Praetorian prafecf seven persons tortured condemned and executed The first of these was 52 himself bishop of Avila 53 in Spain who adorned advantages of birth and fortune by the accomplishments of eloquence and learning Two presbyters and two deacons accompanied their beloved master in his death which they esteemed as a martyrdom…

You really need to find another source rather than the annonymous, agenda driven Christian hating wiki. Any one relying on it in a footnote in a scholarly paper would be knocked down a letter grade.

tommyboy on February 21, 2012 at 4:24 PM

The history of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire by gibbon is not good for you?

nathor on February 21, 2012 at 4:43 PM

“the emperor Theodosius allied itself with the organization that holds the Apostolic succession that later generated the big C catholics of today. its the same organization.”

So? The Christians had no power to oppose Theodosius so he did whatever he wanted. And he, as well as Constantine, just used and manipulated the Church for their own ends. Constantine wasn’t baptized and never called himself a Christian untill minutes before he died. He didn’t make himself the true head of the Church just by unilaterally declaring it to be so. The unibomber called himself a liberal yet that doesn’t make all liberals murdering letter bombers. And Maximus was also a Roman emperor not an ordained leader of the Church.

The history of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire by gibbon is not good for you?

Gibbon never asserted that the Christian Church “wiped out” the early heretics you mentioned and nothing you pasted asserts otherwise. He mentions Roman persecution but that was a fact of life from the time of Caligula. Or even from the time of Emperor Pompey if we want to include Roman persecution of the Jews. You’ve now been reduced to just making stuff up.

tommyboy on February 21, 2012 at 4:55 PM

It also says Jesus had brothers and sisters and never even hints they were half-brothers or sisters. The eternal virgin doctrine is pure invention.

tommyboy on February 21, 2012 at 4:27 PM

“Brother” and “sister” were common terms used to denote kinfolk, and not always direct brother and sister. In the Old Testament, Lot was refereed to as Abraham’s brother (I believe Abraham called him brother, but I’m not sure), when in fact he was Abraham’s nephew. Also, if Jesus actually did have brothers and sisters, there was no need for Him to tell Mary that she was Johns mother, and John that he was Mary’s son. It would have been an insult to any “actual” bothers and sisters.

According to Luke, Mary was conceived by the Holy Ghost. Furthermore, it states that Mary bought for a son, not that she gave birth to a son. There are cases in the New Testament where word usage might imply that Mary remained a virgin “until” a point in time, but the misunderstanding is ours. There are cases where you see the phrase “until death.” That doesn’t mean that whatever the thing was, it happened after death.

Kraken on February 21, 2012 at 5:04 PM

I see you focused on the Christians. Catholics in particular. I’m wondering why? Why do you ignore the attrocities commited, during the same period, by the muslims, Incas, Africans and pretty much every other society in the world. Times were tough back then. Times were brutal! Tyranny ruled! What Catholics did during this period was no different…in fact, arguably not even as bad…as any other society of the time.

well, I would argue that the previous roman times of “pax romana” were probably much more tolerant and peaceful than the centuries that followed. when the Christians took over the empire with constatinus, they did not reversed the trend, indeed, they led the empire into the dark ages.

I’m not apologizing or justifying, just saying that you need to consider what the Catholic church did back than to the times in which they existed. Otherwise, you’re being more than a little naive and unfair in your condemnation of 5th Christianity by 21st century standards.

PorchDawg on February 21, 2012 at 4:28 PM

sure, point taken and I agree. but I am also trying to make a point that those 4th\5th century Christians were very intolerant and were the same guys that made some of the most important compilations of what we consider today, the bible. as tommyboy said, the church of these days was “tottaly currupt”.

nathor on February 21, 2012 at 5:05 PM

I’m not sure how liberals believe replacing religion with gov’t will lead to utopia. It is disturbing that they can believe that with more than 4,000 years of the history of mankind to study.

Monkeytoe on February 21, 2012 at 4:36 PM

And, to follow-up on that – most of these liberals believe that religion is the “opiate of the masses” and used to control people. Well, isn’t that gov’t?

So, if you believe that religion is bad b/c it is abused by the people running it how do you believe an all-powerful gov’t will be any different?

My point being that all of the arguments used against religions (particularly the Catholic Church) apply, in today’s world, even more powerfully to gov’t. The Catholic Church does not have any real power anymore outside of the power of persuasion. Gov’t has real power.

Monkeytoe on February 21, 2012 at 5:08 PM

It also says Jesus had brothers and sisters and never even hints they were half-brothers or sisters. The eternal virgin doctrine is pure invention.

tommyboy on February 21, 2012 at 4:27 PM

It is one of the four Marian dogmas of the Catholic Church that Mary remained ever virgin. Biblical references to Jesus’ brothers and sisters have been interpreted and misinterpreted in many ways as Kraken has pointed out; however,it is an article of faith in the Catholic Church that Mary remeained ever virgin.

Trafalgar on February 21, 2012 at 5:19 PM

What does any of this argument have to do with anything?

Was the Catholic Church perfect throughout history? No. Is it perfect now? No. Does that have anything to do with whether the Church should be allowed the religious freedom guaranteed by (not created by) the First Amendment? No.

this whole argument is besides the point of the First Amendment. I agree.

If we are to decide who gets what religious freedom based on some kind of poll on whether we like the believes or not, then there is no religious freedom.

I’m a Catholic and I’ll be the first to admit that the Church has made mistakes and had dark days. But that is the failure of man. Any institution run by men is going to fail and make mistakes. There is no major religion where one can find no mistakes made and nothing to criticize.

carefull with these assertions. because, has you know, the bible was also made by men. bishops like athanasius, important in those “dark days” of the church, made the final compilations of the bible.

So?

For each liberal attack on the church, I point out that the time-frame in question (usually) the Church was basically akin to an empire and therefore can also be judged as a gov’t. And it tends to support conservative arguments for small, limited gov’t. The more powerful the gov’t, the more it will reduce freedom and abuse its power. Just as the Church did at times in its history.

dont confuse me with a liberal.

Liberals want to eradicate religious faith and replace it with an all-powerful government. Somehow they believe this will not lead to tyranny and oppression. How they come to that belief – with the history of mankind – is odd.

that is communists. and by the way, santorum also believes in all powerfull goverment, just with a theological inspiration.

If the left is successful in eradicating religion, it will in turn eradicate charity and morality.

what a leap, irradicate religion? who defends this? from this you make even more strange assertions.

How they believe that is good is beyond me. it is already well documented that the religious give of their time and money to a far greater extent than the non-religious. thus, it seems obvious that if religion were eradicated, so too would charity be eradicated. As for morality, while there can be philosophical arguments for a non-religious based morality, the reality is that without a fear of consequences (i.e., the afterlife) for one’s actions, most people would not care much about morality. Without morality there is no ethical standard for anyone – people will no longer do the right thing and gov’t will become even more corrupt and more tyrannical.

what a straw man you got there.

I’m not sure how liberals believe replacing religion with gov’t will lead to utopia. It is disturbing that they can believe that with more than 4,000 years of the history of mankind to study.

Monkeytoe on February 21, 2012 at 4:36 PM

the straw man force is strong on you! yikes.

nathor on February 21, 2012 at 5:29 PM

carefull with these assertions. because, has you know, the bible was also made by men. bishops like athanasius, important in those “dark days” of the church, made the final compilations of the bible.

I never said otherwise. That is completely irrelevant to what the Catholic Church holds as its religious doctrine. Whether written by men or driven by divine guidance, it is their religion.

dont confuse me with a liberal.

Too funny. Why do all liberals refuse to accept the label? We conservatives are more than happy to be called conservative. I guess it goes to the inherent dishonesty of liberalism.

that is communists. and by the way, santorum also believes in all powerfull goverment, just with a theological inspiration.

No, most of modern American liberalism hates religion. I won’t argue too much with you that most of modern American liberalism shares a whole lot with communism, but to the extent one argues it doesn’t, modern American liberals despise religion. Just as you do. As to Santorum, I don’t necessarily support him but I also won’t take your word for it as to what he believes the gov’t role should be. I somehow doubt he sees a gov’t as big and controlling as, say, you would like.

what a leap, irradicate religion? who defends this? from this you make even more strange assertions.

Liberals have been going after religion for decades. They hate it and their desire to get rid of it are pretty clear. Your own hatred of religion is pretty telling. Liberals being ok with Obama simply taking away religious freedom is another clear sign of your desire to get rid of religion. You can argue otherwise all you want, but actual facts are on my side. I was a liberal at one time and walked in those circles. I know what liberals believe and think.

what a straw man you got there.

Really, what part was untrue in that quote? I guess you have no idea what “straw-man means”. You could have reasonably used “straw-man” against my argument that liberals wish to eradicate religion, but not against my argument as to what would happen if religion were eradicated. You don’t seem to up on common terminology? Are you still in school?

Nobody can win an argument as to whether Liberals want to eradicate religion or not. Let’s just agree that liberals hate religion because it gets in the way of their utopian plans.

Why do you feel the need to come on this site and attack the Catholic Church? Because the Catholic Church fights against abortion. It’s in your way. What do liberals do with things in their way? Seek ways to destroy them.

Monkeytoe on February 21, 2012 at 5:40 PM

“carefull with these assertions. because, has you know, the bible was also made by men. bishops like athanasius, important in those “dark days” of the church, made the final compilations of the bible.”

What was “dark” about those days? The dark days were the days of the 20th century enlightenment based atheistic Russian, Chinese and Cambodian governments which collectively butchered around 100 million people. There were six month periods during these days when more were murdered by the government than all the other governments before then combined. Those are the darkest ages of all.

tommyboy on February 21, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Really, what part was untrue in that quote? I guess you have no idea what “straw-man means”.
Monkeytoe on February 21, 2012 at 5:40 PM

They don’t explain that on Wikipedia.

tommyboy on February 21, 2012 at 5:46 PM

I’m a Catholic and I’ll be the first to admit that the Church has made mistakes and had dark days. But that is the failure of man. Any institution run by men is going to fail and make mistakes. There is no major religion where one can find no mistakes made and nothing to criticize.

carefull with these assertions. because, has you know, the bible was also made by men. bishops like athanasius, important in those “dark days” of the church, made the final compilations of the bible.

Looking back, it is extremely unclear what you are trying to say here. Are you denying that any institution run by men is going to fail and make mistakes? that there is no major religion that did not make mistakes?

What, aside from having to point out you belief that there was no divine inspiration in the creation of the bible, was your point? That everything flowing from the bible is wrong? Well, obviously you are going to believe that as you don’t believe in religion. Just like I believe that everything flowing from the Koran is wrong or everything flowing from the Pearl of Great Price is wrong.

Your arguments seem to make my point for me. Liberals hate religion and can’t help themselves but attack it. You think you are doing it in our best interests because you think the beliefs “hurt” us by having us stick to archaic ideas. Just the same way liberals really aren’t too fond of the constitution – always wanting it to be a “living constitution” – meaning it can be interpreted to mean whatever we want it to mean regardless of what it says. It’s the same basic thing. Liberals don’t like religion because it teaches things differently than how liberals want them understood.

Monkeytoe on February 21, 2012 at 5:49 PM

Liberals don’t like religion because it teaches things differently than how liberals want them understood.
Monkeytoe on February 21, 2012 at 5:49 PM

and because they don’t believe in moral absolutes or any non empirical truth at all.

tommyboy on February 21, 2012 at 5:51 PM

So? The Christians had no power to oppose Theodosius so he did whatever he wanted. And he, as well as Constantine, just used and manipulated the Church for their own ends. Constantine wasn’t baptized and never called himself a Christian untill minutes before he died. He didn’t make himself the true head of the Church just by unilaterally declaring it to be so. The unibomber called himself a liberal yet that doesn’t make all liberals murdering letter bombers. And Maximus was also a Roman emperor not an ordained leader of the Church.

lol. the church until this day calls them Saint Constantine and Saint Theodosius!

see what the catholic encyclopedia calls describes theodosius:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14577d.htm

Roman Emperor (also known as Flavius Theodosius), born in Spain, about 346; died at Milan, 17 January, 395. Theodosius is one of the sovereigns by universal consent called Great. He stamped out the last vestiges of paganism, put an end to the Arian heresy in the empire, pacified the Goths, left a famous example of penitence for a crime, and reigned as a just and mighty Catholic emperor.

what a puff piece of a tyrant
how Orwellian can you get? intolerance is justice! lol!

Gibbon never asserted that the Christian Church “wiped out” the early heretics you mentioned and nothing you pasted asserts otherwise. He mentions Roman persecution but that was a fact of life from the time of Caligula. Or even from the time of Emperor Pompey if we want to include Roman persecution of the Jews. You’ve now been reduced to just making stuff up.

tommyboy on February 21, 2012 at 4:55 PM

what you mean? later heretics like the Priscillianists were ok to be wiped out, but early ones like, say, the marcionites not?
the early church did not persecute or wiped out any one, for the simple reason they were powerless to do it. when they did get the power, in the 4th century, they did indeed persecute all heretics(also all other religions).
they did a stupendous job because, indeed most of them was eradicated. this is not making stuff up, its a fact that most of the plethora of religions and sects that existed before Christians took power were eradicated. remaining only the catholic church for many, many centuries.

nathor on February 21, 2012 at 5:52 PM

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14577d.htm

Roman Emperor (also known as Flavius Theodosius), born in Spain, about 346; died at Milan, 17 January, 395. Theodosius is one of the sovereigns by universal consent called Great. He stamped out the last vestiges of paganism, put an end to the Arian heresy in the empire, pacified the Goths, left a famous example of penitence for a crime, and reigned as a just and mighty Catholic emperor.

tommyboy, notice the BIG C?

nathor on February 21, 2012 at 5:53 PM

tommyboy on February 21, 2012 at 5:44 PM

In fairness to him, he was responding to me and I used the term “dark days”. I was merely pointing out that whether or not the church did bad or wrong things, it doesn’t effect the Church’s right to religious freedom today. Nor does it necessarily mean the religion is wrong – it simply means that there were people who did bad/wrong things.

I didn’t really state what dates specifically I was talking about, I wasn’t going to go through and debate each issue as to whether it was justified, truly a moral outrage, etc. I was just saying basically “taking your point as true that the Church did something wrong” in year x – it is still entitled to religious freedom in American in 2012.

He did however pick the date of the “dark days” in order to attack the bible through implication, which I find interesting.

Monkeytoe on February 21, 2012 at 5:55 PM

Does that include the Virgin Mary???

(hint: see all S American/Central American and N American Catholics)

Odie1941 on February 21, 2012 at 12:43 PM

Jesus had brothers. Maryland virginity was over after the birth of Jesus.

liberal4life on February 21, 2012 at 5:59 PM

Mary*

liberal4life on February 21, 2012 at 5:59 PM

and because they don’t believe in moral absolutes or any non empirical truth at all.

tommyboy on February 21, 2012 at 5:51 PM

Well, there is abortion.

Monkeytoe on February 21, 2012 at 5:59 PM

Jesus had brothers. Maryland virginity was over after the birth of Jesus.

liberal4life on February 21, 2012 at 5:59 PM

No. See my post above.

Kraken on February 21, 2012 at 6:00 PM

tommyboy on February 21, 2012 at 4:27 PM

Just because I think it’s a well thought out and reasoned explanation, you might want to take a look at Pope John Paul II on Mary’s perpetual virginity. And no, it’s not Wikipedia!!

Cheers.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2bvm31.htm

Trafalgar on February 21, 2012 at 6:00 PM

“lol. the church until this day calls them Saint Constantine and Saint Theodosius!”

And it was the corrupted Church of the middle ages which did this.

As I mentioned that was established hundreds of years later by a Roman Catholic Church that had been totally corrupted by political pothe early church did not persecute or wiped out any one, .

NO you didn’t mention that. I was the one who mentioned that. Only when you were called out to back up your assertion that the Christian Church “wiped out” the early heretical movements did you suddenly switch gears and change your assertions to commenting on things which happened a thousand years later. I pointed out that by that time the Catholic church had been hopelessly corrupted and you now acknowledge this.

tommyboy on February 21, 2012 at 6:01 PM

Jesus had brothers. Maryland virginity was over after the birth of Jesus.

liberal4life on February 21, 2012 at 5:59 PM

You were there? It strikes me that this is an issue of religious faith more than a fact that one can assert. I will admit that I find it hard to believe that Mary remained chaste for the remainder of her life, or that Joseph would go for it, but what proof do you have to offer? That the bible mentions “brothers”.

I guess if you are taking the bible literally we can talk about how a man is not supposed to lie with another man. Or do you not believe homosexuality is a sin?

It’s all in what you believe.

Monkeytoe on February 21, 2012 at 6:01 PM

Jesus had brothers. Maryland virginity was over after the birth of Jesus.

liberal4life on February 21, 2012 at 5:59 PM

No, see my post above and the link at 6:00

Kraken, Don’t you just hate it when atheists try to lecture us on Church dogma? I got your back!

Trafalgar on February 21, 2012 at 6:03 PM

Well, there is abortion.
Monkeytoe on February 21, 2012 at 5:59 PM

I think they consider that a sacrament not a precept. ;-)

tommyboy on February 21, 2012 at 6:03 PM

I guess if you are taking the bible literally
Monkeytoe on February 21, 2012 at 6:01 PM

How else would one take the historical narratives, Gospels and epistles? To take them any other way is to turn them into a Rorschach test.

tommyboy on February 21, 2012 at 6:08 PM

Don’t you just hate it when atheists try to lecture us on Church dogma? I got your back!
Trafalgar on February 21, 2012 at 6:03 PM

I feel the same way listening to people who have never read the bible try to argue the bible.

tommyboy on February 21, 2012 at 6:13 PM

No, most of modern American liberalism hates religion. I won’t argue too much with you that most of modern American liberalism shares a whole lot with communism, but to the extent one argues it doesn’t, modern American liberals despise religion. Just as you do. As to Santorum, I don’t necessarily support him but I also won’t take your word for it as to what he believes the gov’t role should be. I somehow doubt he sees a gov’t as big and controlling as, say, you would like.

I confess i dislike religion, but, I am strongly secular to the point that by no way, your most basic religious rights (assembly, speech) , should ever, ever be taken from you.
communist were not secularists, they were totalitarian! there is no point of separation of church and state if no church was to be allowed.

Liberals have been going after religion for decades. They hate it and their desire to get rid of it are pretty clear. Your own hatred of religion is pretty telling. Liberals being ok with Obama simply taking away religious freedom is another clear sign of your desire to get rid of religion. You can argue otherwise all you want, but actual facts are on my side. I was a liberal at one time and walked in those circles. I know what liberals believe and think.

sure they dislike religion, but irradicate it? I knew some atheists(not exactly liberal atheist) that actually claimed wanting to make religion some kind of psychological disease, however, I strongly disagreed with him. In my view there can be no censorship of any Idea, no matter how silly it seems.

Nobody can win an argument as to whether Liberals want to eradicate religion or not. Let’s just agree that liberals hate religion because it gets in the way of their utopian plans.

ok, I can agree with you on this, they sure have some big goverment utopian plans.

Why do you feel the need to come on this site and attack the Catholic Church? Because the Catholic Church fights against abortion. It’s in your way. What do liberals do with things in their way? Seek ways to destroy them.

Monkeytoe on February 21, 2012 at 5:40 PM

well, Santorum, Inspired by Catholicism, wants to destroy libertarianism.
however, I really do wish a more libertarian goverment, because what we have, will keep pushing me atheists like me against social cons like you.

nathor on February 21, 2012 at 6:13 PM

Trafalgar on February 21, 2012 at 6:03 PM

Sweet, Brother.

NOTE: The usage of the term “Bother” above implies no direct familial relation between Trafalgar and me.

Kraken on February 21, 2012 at 6:14 PM

“communist were not secularists, they were totalitarian!”

An almost universal feature of atheistic governments.

tommyboy on February 21, 2012 at 6:16 PM

Chris Matthews, heh, he’s a million laughs a minutes.

Because he does not really believe that Catholics are “severely” conservative, he is simply not that out of touch.

Somebody, somewhere, tells/pays him to say this stuff.

A guy who’s been immersed in politics as much as this guy actually believes such a thing?

I got a bridge to sell….cheap.

Just been renovated.

patfish on February 21, 2012 at 6:19 PM

Perhaps those who insist Jesus had “brothers” want to address the below Bible quotes:

Acts 2:29 “Men and ‘brethren’ let me freely speak unto you…”

Romans 7:4 “Wherefore my brethren ye also are become dead to the law…..”

Romans 10:1 “Brethren, my hearts desire and pray to God for Israel….”

1 Corinthians 15:1 “Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the Gospel….”

Philipians 4:1 “Therefore my brethren dearly beloved and longed for…”

Philipians 4:8 “Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true…”

1 Thess. 2:1 “For yourselves, brethren, know our entrance in unto you…”

1 Thess. 2:9 “For ye remember, brethren, our labor…”

Philemon 1:1 “Paul a prisoner of Jesus Christ, and Timothy our brother…”

Hebrews 3:1 “Wherefore holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling…”

Galatians 3:15 “Brethren, I speak after the manner of men…”

Galatians 4:12 “Brethren, I beseech you, be as I am…”

Galatians 5:11 “And I, brethren, if I yet preach…”

Galatians 6:1 “Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault…”

To believe the “brotherists” would require one to assume, for example, that Paul’s parents were the most prolific of their time.

OR…

We could accept the usage of the word does not always state direct relations.

And yes, I’ve read the Bible…

Kraken on February 21, 2012 at 6:20 PM

I confess i dislike religion

nathor on February 21, 2012 at 6:13 PM

Well then, quit talking about it. I don’t feel the need to impose my faith on you, why do you feel the need to denigrate and trash the sincere faith of millions of people?

Trafalgar on February 21, 2012 at 6:20 PM

Somebody, somewhere, tells/pays him to say this stuff.

I think he just knows he has to be over the top offensive and sensationalist to get the very small audience and celebrity he has.

tommyboy on February 21, 2012 at 6:21 PM

Well then, quit talking about it. I don’t feel the need to impose my faith on you, why do you feel the need to denigrate and trash the sincere faith of millions of people?
Trafalgar on February 21, 2012 at 6:20 PM

We both know the answer to that – insecurity. He’s trying to convince himself. Which is why he’s never studied the subject any more than to read Wiki pages which he knows will agree with him.

tommyboy on February 21, 2012 at 6:23 PM

We both know the answer to that – insecurity. He’s trying to convince himself. Which is why he’s never studied the subject any more than to read Wiki pages which he knows will agree with him.

tommyboy on February 21, 2012 at 6:23 PM

Yeah, you’re right. It just frustrates the he!! out of me. This religion-hater pops up and pops off with the same pseudo-intellectual inanities on every thread vaguely connected to faith. I guess the right thing to do is to pray for him that God finds him sooner or later.

Trafalgar on February 21, 2012 at 6:28 PM

Yeah, you’re right. It just frustrates the he!! out of me. This religion-hater pops up and pops off with the same pseudo-intellectual inanities on every thread vaguely connected to faith. I guess the right thing to do is to pray for him that God finds him sooner or later.

Trafalgar on February 21, 2012 at 6:28 PM

That’s really the only thing that will change a person. We can argue passionately, but ultimately the Holy Spirit needs to work and we just have to pray. It’s hard not to get frustrated, but you know the big picture, so be encouraged.

BakerAllie on February 21, 2012 at 6:33 PM

tommyboy on February 21, 2012 at 6:23 PM

Yeah, you’re right. It just frustrates the he!! out of me. This religion-hater pops up and pops off with the same pseudo-intellectual inanities on every thread vaguely connected to faith. I guess the right thing to do is to pray for him that God finds him sooner or later.

Trafalgar on February 21, 2012 at 6:28 PM

You guys, especially you tommyboy, have given it a valiant try. But IMHO, I think it’s time you invoke Matthew 10:14.

Flora Duh on February 21, 2012 at 6:38 PM

And it was the corrupted Church of the middle ages which did this.

but you seemed to try to defend him early on. you asked me how many heretics did Theodosius killed. you changed your mind about constantine and theodosius?

NO you didn’t mention that. I was the one who mentioned that. Only when you were called out to back up your assertion that the Christian Church “wiped out” the early heretical movements did you suddenly switch gears and change your assertions to commenting on things which happened a thousand years later. I pointed out that by that time the Catholic church had been hopelessly corrupted and you now acknowledge this.

tommyboy on February 21, 2012 at 6:01 PM

wait. i started listing heretics from this site:
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-great-heresies
and they asked what happened to heretics like the arians or the cathars.
arians were 4th century and like the 11th century cathars, they were “wiped out”.
before the 4th century, the church did not have the power to “wipe out” anyone. as such, some early christian sects like the marcionites, originating from the 2nd century, prevailed from their inception till being persecuted by the later 4th century catholic church.

you are telling me that the church is corrupted, so all those persecutions where blamed on corrupted men. very well, I say, those are Easy words for a protestant, but, dont forget, that by the 4th century, church doctors like athanasius, were still compiling the bible you hold so dear and discarding all other Christian religious doctrines as heretic and excluding them from the biblical cannon. like it or not, you Christianity owns a lot to those 4th century corrupted men. and you should think deeply on what it means.

nathor on February 21, 2012 at 6:40 PM

invoke Matthew 10:14.

Flora Duh on February 21, 2012 at 6:38 PM

Ah, shaken, but not stirred… ;-)

Kraken on February 21, 2012 at 6:43 PM

Also, if Jesus actually did have brothers and sisters, there was no need for Him to tell Mary that she was Johns mother, and John that he was Mary’s son. It would have been an insult to any “actual” bothers and sisters.

That only works if you assume he told her that for her benefit instead of for theirs. Jesus hadn’t lived at home for years and certainly wasn’t Mary’s caretaker. I don’t see anything in that, that necessarily insults any living brothers or sisters if he was trying to comfort John.

According to Luke, Mary was conceived by the Holy Ghost. Furthermore, it states that Mary bought for a son, not that she gave birth to a son. There are cases in the New Testament where word usage might imply that Mary remained a virgin “until” a point in time, but the misunderstanding is ours. There are cases where you see the phrase “until death.” That doesn’t mean that whatever the thing was, it happened after death.

Kraken on February 21, 2012 at 5:04 PM

The thing that always gets to me with this is why should we want Mary to have stayed a virgin all of her life? That’s the part that definitely sounds anti-woman as though she would somehow be less sacred if she’d slept with her own husband, the man who risked his own reputation to marry a pregnant woman. Though it also sounds anti-man. Why did Joseph need to be abstinent? Are we assuming he was a virgin too? It’s never discussed, but he’s never been considered a cheater either.

The only reason it matters is to “prove” that Jesus wasn’t an ordinary child. Beyond that, there’s nothing super spiritual about denying your spouse sex. In fact, Paul condemns the very idea in one of his letters going so far to say that no spouse should deny the other except for fasting and prayer.

Esthier on February 21, 2012 at 6:44 PM

“communist were not secularists, they were totalitarian!”

An almost universal feature of atheistic governments.

tommyboy on February 21, 2012 at 6:16 PM

are todays secular democracies, even in atheist majority countries like sweden, totalitarian?
this mix of atheist, agnostics and religious people, united in a secular democracy, actually make, what it seems, the less worse type of goverment in our current era.

and some of the worse governments today, like north korea, are not only communists, but also abandoned atheism for for a new deity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kim_Jong-il%27s_titles

Great Man, Who Descended From Heaven
Glorious General, Who Descended From Heaven
The Great Sun of Life
Guiding Sun Ray
Shining Star of Paektu Mountain

nathor on February 21, 2012 at 6:52 PM

I confess i dislike religion

nathor on February 21, 2012 at 6:13 PM

So did Jesus. That’s not really the point though. You get hung up on that, and you get hung up on the inconsequential when you could be suspended in the divine.

Why sell yourself short?

Esthier on February 21, 2012 at 6:54 PM

Well then, quit talking about it. I don’t feel the need to impose my faith on you, why do you feel the need to denigrate and trash the sincere faith of millions of people?

Trafalgar on February 21, 2012 at 6:20 PM

abortion, contraception, sexual morals, etc, etc.

nathor on February 21, 2012 at 6:55 PM

So did Jesus. That’s not really the point though. You get hung up on that, and you get hung up on the inconsequential when you could be suspended in the divine.
Esthier on February 21, 2012 at 6:54 PM

suspended in the divine sounds very attractive, but the skeptic in me says being suspended in reality is more important.
if religion was not so intertwined with politics, I would be an apatheist. because that is really where I wish to be.

nathor on February 21, 2012 at 7:02 PM

Esthier on February 21, 2012 at 6:44 PM

I understand your concern and what “gets to you” about Mary’s virginity; however, Catholic dogma is that it was Mary herself who declared her intent to remain ever virgin. Here’s Pope John Paul II on the matter. Hope it helps.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2bvm27.htm

Trafalgar on February 21, 2012 at 7:02 PM

abortion, contraception, sexual morals, etc, etc.

nathor on February 21, 2012 at 6:55 PM

To be fair, though, can we at least agree that sexual morals have a larger effect on society as a whole? It’s not so much imposing the faith on society as it is pointing out that moral choices have an effect on a larger swatch of the populace than just the religious.
The fact that some liberals see the need for a nanny state because some older people never had children to take care of them, or because someone got knocked up by 5 different men and doesn’t have a support system in place for their children is an effect of moral or immoral behavior.

BakerAllie on February 21, 2012 at 7:04 PM

abortion, contraception, sexual morals, etc, etc.

nathor on February 21, 2012 at 6:55 PM

In no way do I try to impose my beliefs on you. My sexual morals, my position on abortion and contraception are driven by my faith. You are free to believe or not believe whatever you want to. But it seems to me in the present circumstances that a liberal administration is trying to impose its beliefs on sexual morals, abortion and contraception on me, not the other way around, and in direct contradiction of my right to freely exercise my religion.

And while you are free to not believe, I sincerely do pray that you will open your heart and let God find you and bring you into His love.

Trafalgar on February 21, 2012 at 7:11 PM

“arians were 4th century and like the 11th century cathars, they were “wiped out”.”

No, the Arians were not “wiped out”. They were rejected, preached against, ignored and then just faded away. There was no wiping out which implies repression. The Trinitarians were just as persecuted by the Romans for rejecting Arianism as the Arians ever were for embracing it. Both preached their own Gospel and the Holy Spirit worked the truth in the actions of Christians of the time who made the informed choice to acknowledge the Trinity. That’s how all the earliest heresies died out, even the Donatists and the Gnostics, who lasted the longest. People chose Augustine over the Donatists and Gnosticism just faded out but keeps coming back every few centuries under new names. Most forms of Eastern mysticism and panthiesm mirror many of the more popular flavors of Gnosticism. There was sporadic fighting back and forth between the two sides, which living in close quarters will always cause. But, nothing which approached “wiping out” on either side. There was nothing which even approched, resembled or was even in the same universe as the systematic persecution which the Catholics visited upon the Albigensians in the 13th Century. And the use of these methods alone tells us more about the true Christian character of the persecutors then any doctrine espoused by the victims ever could.

Yet, Jesus warned us there would be false Churches calling themselves Christian who weren’t. And they would be brutal and immoral and wouldn’t reflect him at all. Thus, this seems to confirm scripture not oppose it. But he also said these Churches could repent and come back into the fold. In fact he begged them to do it. So, my opinion about the Catholic Church of the middle ages is not meant to reflect, in any respect necessarily, my beliefs about the contemporary Catholic church. My wife is Catholic. As the Church lost political power it became more pious. I mean sincere piety. Thus telling us the true villian here. Political power eventually corrupts everything and everyone it touches. Humans are like that.

tommyboy on February 21, 2012 at 7:14 PM

To be fair, though, can we at least agree that sexual morals have a larger effect on society as a whole? It’s not so much imposing the faith on society as it is pointing out that moral choices have an effect on a larger swatch of the populace than just the religious.

sure, I have been here in HA railing against polygamy, which has a very good secular argument against it. but I find myself conflicting with my libertarian views. that government intervention, either in sexual or economic issues, will probably do more worse than bad.

The fact that some liberals see the need for a nanny state because some older people never had children to take care of them, or because someone got knocked up by 5 different men and doesn’t have a support system in place for their children is an effect of moral or immoral behavior.

BakerAllie on February 21, 2012 at 7:04 PM

well, your examples are not conforting. older people can see all their childreen die in accidents\crime and those 5 childreen should not pay for their mother “slutiness”.

nathor on February 21, 2012 at 7:19 PM

That only works if you assume he told her that for her benefit instead of for theirs. Jesus hadn’t lived at home for years and certainly wasn’t Mary’s caretaker.

Actually, as Mary’s firstborn son, He would be considered her caretaker. Certainly, the head of the house, even if he wasn’t home for years.

And Mary’s “sister” was with her at the cross. This could be her actual sister, or a close relative. It’s interesting that Mary and her relative were there, but none of Jesus’ supposed brothers and sisters could be there.

The thing that always gets to me with this is why should we want Mary to have stayed a virgin all of her life? That’s the part that definitely sounds anti-woman as though she would somehow be less sacred if she’d slept with her own husband, the man who risked his own reputation to marry a pregnant woman. Though it also sounds anti-man. Why did Joseph need to be abstinent? Are we assuming he was a virgin too? It’s never discussed, but he’s never been considered a cheater either.

Mary is the most revered person in the Catholic Church, second ONLY to Jesus, the Son of God. That hardly qualifies as anti-woman. As Trafalgar points out, Mary had already made a vow of virginity, as there was no reason for her to break it. It was something she wanted.

Admittedly, I’m a bit sketchy on Joseph so I’ll have to do some reading on him to answer your question. I have the impression that he was previously married, but I can’t remember why I have that.

Kraken on February 21, 2012 at 7:25 PM

you get hung up on the inconsequential when you could be suspended in the divine.

Why sell yourself short?

Esthier on February 21, 2012 at 6:54 PM

I like you!

Kraken on February 21, 2012 at 7:26 PM

those 5 childreen should not pay for their mother “slutiness”.

nathor on February 21, 2012 at 7:19 PM

When you believe a child is a child at the moment of conception, this argument is exactly why I’m anti-abortion as well. Pro-adoption needs to be talked about more too.

I may not have used the best examples, but the subject is so interwoven into everything that it’s hard to get across in just a web discussion. Older people can see the children die in an accident, but the ratio’s would not be the same in most couples who had 4 children vs. 2 children, and if there is a high tax rate people cannot afford to have more children and you are battling a culture that is not friendly to children, etc. It’s hard to get it across just writing it because it’s a thread that is woven and entrenched in every level of society. Freedom is a great thing, but people’s choices in that freedom do have greater value and greater benefit than others.

BakerAllie on February 21, 2012 at 7:30 PM

invoke Matthew 10:14.
Flora Duh on February 21, 2012 at 6:38 PM

Yeah, I know eventually you get to that point and we may be there. But like any experienced debator I know the audience I’m arguing to isn’t the other debator. There may be many lurkers out there who are sincerely interested in hearing the truth of the history of the Church so I never want to cut off too early. They are encouraged, if interested, to look into it themselves and see what the overwhelming concensus is among millions of impartial scholars over a period of two centuries and be able to distinguish them from the obscurant handful of outliers who are very loud, like to sell lots of books and are very influential in the popular press despite constituting a miniscule number of Christian scholars and historians. They also like to write Wiki pages and consider it marketing.

tommyboy on February 21, 2012 at 7:36 PM

two centuries = two thousand years. (they should have a preview)/s

tommyboy on February 21, 2012 at 7:37 PM

Alright my brothers and sisters. Time to deal with temporal things and the rest of my life. Thank you all for your insight and the fascinating conversation.

To my Christian friends…well, you know already.

To my atheist friends, you have my prayers and my hope that you will open your hearts to God’s love and let Him in. It will be the most amazing thing to ever happen to you…I guarantee it.

Trafalgar on February 21, 2012 at 7:42 PM

Chrystal Methews is conflicted by his Catholic faith and his slavering obsequiousness to in his liege lord, Obamao. Breaking up is hard to do.

LizardLips on February 21, 2012 at 7:48 PM

No, the Arians were not “wiped out”. They were rejected, preached against, ignored and then just faded away. There was no wiping out which implies repression. The Trinitarians were just as persecuted by the Romans for rejecting Arianism as the Arians ever were for embracing it. Both preached their own Gospel and the Holy Spirit worked the truth in the actions of Christians of the time who made the informed choice to acknowledge the Trinity. That’s how all the earliest heresies died out, even the Donatists and the Gnostics, who lasted the longest. People chose Augustine over the Donatists and Gnosticism just faded out but keeps coming back every few centuries under new names. Most forms of Eastern mysticism and panthiesm mirror many of the more popular flavors of Gnosticism. There was sporadic fighting back and forth between the two sides, which living in close quarters will always cause. But, nothing which approached “wiping out” on either side. There was nothing which even approched, resembled or was even in the same universe as the systematic persecution which the Catholics visited upon the Albigensians in the 13th Century. And the use of these methods alone tells us more about the true Christian character of the persecutors then any doctrine espoused by the victims ever could.

1) I noticed that I failed to paste the link to gibbons book that details how the 4th century persecutions were done.
http://books.google.es/books?id=MOgZAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA82&lpg=PA82&dq=priscillianists+gibbons&source=bl&ots=NJA_s5zba1&sig=AE0jx94VK91yC_f9RnhoooThySM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=UTdET6HlBYWYhQejjJGSAg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

II The rigorous prohibition of Conventicles was carefully extended to every possible circumstance in which the heretics could assemble with the intention of worshipping God and Christ according to the dictates of their conscience Their religious meetings whether public or secret by day or by night in cities or in the country were equally proscribed by the edicts of Theodosius and the building or ground which had been used for that illegal purpose was forfeited to the imperial domain III It was supposed that the error of the heretics could proceed only from the obstinate temper of their minds and that such a temper was a fit object of censure and punishment The anathemas of the church were fortified by a sort of civil excommunication which separated them from their fellow citizens by a peculiar brand of infamy and this declaration of the supreme magistrate tended to justify or at least to excuse the insults of a fanatic populace The sectaries were gradually disqualified for the possession of honourable or lucrative employments and Theodosius was satisfied with his own justice when he decreed that as the Eunomians distinguished the nature of the Son from that of the Father they should be incapable of making their wills or of receiving any advantage from testamentary donations The guilt of the Ma nichaean heresy was esteemed of such magnitude that it could be expiated only by the death of the offender and the same capital punishment was inflicted on the Audians or Quartodeci mans 49 who should dare to perpetrate the atrocious crime of celebrating on an improper day the festival of Easter Every Roman might exercise the right of public accusation but the office of Inquisitor of the Faith a name so deservedly abhorred was first instituted under the reign of Theodosius Yet we are assured that the execution of his penal edicts was seldom enforced and that the pious emperor appeared less desirous to punish than to reclaim or terrify his refractory subjects 50

keep reading if you wish.
you assertions that heretics of the 4th century were “convinced” or “persuaded” to abandon their heresies is just not true. they were persecuted, forbidden of congregating and spreading heresies and terrorized with selected punishments, social exclusion and mobs of fanatics. what was done, although not called a crusade, just as worse as it happened to the cathars, and with the same effect.
and all in the 4th century.

2)its noted how only other christian sects seems to matter to you. persecution of pagans by 4th century church barely seems to concern you.

nathor on February 21, 2012 at 7:49 PM

That’s kind of bigoted to call people who don’t like the promotion of the homosexual lifestyle “bigoted”.

Count to 10 on February 21, 2012 at 7:56 PM

Yet, Jesus warned us there would be false Churches calling themselves Christian who weren’t. And they would be brutal and immoral and wouldn’t reflect him at all. Thus, this seems to confirm scripture not oppose it. But he also said these Churches could repent and come back into the fold. In fact he begged them to do it. So, my opinion about the Catholic Church of the middle ages is not meant to reflect, in any respect necessarily, my beliefs about the contemporary Catholic church. My wife is Catholic. As the Church lost political power it became more pious. I mean sincere piety. Thus telling us the true villian here. Political power eventually corrupts everything and everyone it touches. Humans are like that.

tommyboy on February 21, 2012 at 7:14 PM

I was born catholic and many of relatives still are catholic. what I put in evidence here, these age old atrocities, I believe, are mostly meaningless in the 21th century. I am trying to put in evidence just how currupt and intolerant they were and question how these guys ended up finalizing the biblical cannon you still hold so dear today.
I ask you, is the 4th century church one of those “brutal and immoral” churches?

nathor on February 21, 2012 at 7:59 PM

you assertions that heretics of the 4th century were “convinced” or “persuaded” to abandon their heresies is just not true

I never asserted any such “abandonment” because they never did abandon their heresies. They died and fewer and fewer replaced them until the sect faded away. Christians on both sides of the controversies suffered similar isolated sporadic persecution by Romans for their beliefs and Gibbon also details the instances where this also occured to orthodox Christians, in gory detail, but you didn’t post that part. In no instance were the early heretical sects ever “wiped out” by the Romans, the Church or anyone else, nor does Gibbon ever assert that they were.

tommyboy on February 21, 2012 at 8:00 PM

I am trying to put in evidence just how currupt and intolerant they were and question how these guys ended up finalizing the biblical cannon you still hold so dear today.

The biblical cannon was settled almost immediately. By mid second century, centuries before the Roman Catholic Church existed, The Gospels, Pauls letters, Acts, John and Peter’s first epistle were universally treated as scripture. Origen also acknowledged, in writing, the book of Revelation as scripture. The apostle Peter himself declared Paul’s writings to be scripture. This is 90% of the NT. By the time Althenasius got around to writing as list of cannonical books we recognize today he was merely acknowledging what had already been long established. The canon was clearly established by the Spirit. The completely “corrupt and intolerant (whatever that means)” Church you are referencing didn’t come around util about 600 years later.

tommyboy on February 21, 2012 at 8:12 PM

I may not have used the best examples, but the subject is so interwoven into everything that it’s hard to get across in just a web discussion. Older people can see the children die in an accident, but the ratio’s would not be the same in most couples who had 4 children vs. 2 children, and if there is a high tax rate people cannot afford to have more children and you are battling a culture that is not friendly to children, etc.

it seems to me, that to avoid building the leftist safety net that pretty much takes care of this issues, you prefer to regulate people sexual and even reproductive preferences. from a libertarian perspective, its hard for me to see which one is worse.

It’s hard to get it across just writing it because it’s a thread that is woven and entrenched in every level of society. Freedom is a great thing, but people’s choices in that freedom do have greater value and greater benefit than others.

BakerAllie on February 21, 2012 at 7:30 PM

I know where you come from. I have discussed here in HA with others trying to propagate the same societal vision of economic libertarianism and strict social conservatism. well, its pretty much what america had 100 years ago.
to this I say, its senseless. the other side will fight hard keep their current lifestyles and personal freedoms. the demographics are also not in your favor because young people still stream to social liberal positions.
also, technology will keep coming and changing the social rules. social conservativism will have to adapt to the changing times.

nathor on February 21, 2012 at 8:18 PM

Where is this coming from? My guess is that Matthews has a problem with Episcopalians who are leaving that denomination over the celebration of the gay agenda in that denomination and are being welcomed by Catholic parishes. Chris must be a hater: he doesn’t like those who aren’t “real” Catholics, because they’re migrating to his denomination.

BuckeyeSam on February 21, 2012 at 12:37 PM

Or it might be because those Episcopalians are choosing to become Catholic precisely because of the Church’s position of not bowing to and celebrating the gay agenda.

Several friends of mine are adult converts to Catholicism. As a lifelong Catholic myself, it’s been my experience that often these converts take their faith much more seriously and prayerfully than some other lifelong Catholics I know, who, in some cases are CINOs, or have a very lackadaisical attitude toward it.

PatriotGal2257 on February 21, 2012 at 8:25 PM

I never asserted any such “abandonment” because they never did abandon their heresies. They died and fewer and fewer replaced them until the sect faded away.

they were persecuted for several generations until their sect died out.
similar to the inquisitions launched on the cathars after the military conquest.

Christians on both sides of the controversies suffered similar isolated sporadic persecution by Romans for their beliefs and Gibbon also details the instances where this also occured to orthodox Christians, in gory detail, but you didn’t post that part.

I know that part too. considering what christians did to pagans afterwards, I guess their error is not having it done worse.
and by the way, Christian and pagans were all romans in those days.
and its hard also to know how christian sects like arians vs catholics were also very violent between themselfs.

In no instance were the early heretical sects ever “wiped out” by the Romans, the Church or anyone else, nor does Gibbon ever assert that they were.

tommyboy on February 21, 2012 at 8:00 PM

they were persecuted for several generations until their sect died out.

nathor on February 21, 2012 at 8:39 PM

I know that part too. considering what christians did to pagans afterwards,

Uhh, the pagans did much worse to the Christians than they ever got in the form of both the Romans AND from the barbarians after they sacked Rome and in the period afterwards.

And no, the early heretical sects were not persecuted into extinction. Non of them suffered anything even close to the incredible institutional Roman persecution of orthodox Christians from 65 AD until about 333 AD. And it didn’t even slow the true Church down, it spread like wildfire over the entire known world. The heretical sects would pop up and die out like wild fires just like they do today.

tommyboy on February 21, 2012 at 8:49 PM

The biblical cannon was settled almost immediately. By mid second century, centuries before the Roman Catholic Church existed, The Gospels, Pauls letters, Acts, John and Peter’s first epistle were universally treated as scripture.

Iraneus seems by 160 ad, to be the first to declare the 4 gospels and no others.
some say, that marcion, put out his heretic cannon before that.

more confusing than that, is that those very early church guys like iraneus, had very strange beliefs:

“The Thirty aeons are not typified by the fact that Christ was baptized in his 30th year: He did NOT suffer in the twelfth month after his baptism, but was MORE THAN FIFTY YEARS OLD WHEN HE DIED.”

– Against Heresies, II, 22.

Irenaeus tells us that Jesus’s public ministry continued at least 10 years, and that JC was seen alive in Asia, with his disciple John and others, up to the time of the Emperor Trajan.

“From the 40th and 50th year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, affirming that John conveyed to them that information. And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan.”

Origen also acknowledged, in writing, the book of Revelation as scripture.

origin believed lots of stuff:

Anathemas (544, 553)

Origen and a form of apocatastasis were condemned at the Synod of Constantinople (543) by the Patriarch Mennas of Constantinople and the condemnation was ratified in 553 by the Fifth Ecumenical Council. Many heteroclite views became associated with Origen, and the 15 anathemas against him attributed to the council condemn a form of apocatastasis along with the pre-existence of the soul, animism (a heterodox Christology), and a denial of real and lasting resurrection of the body.[5] Some authorities believe these anathemas belong to an earlier local synod.[37]

The Fifth Ecumenical Council has been contested as being an official and authorized Ecumenical Council, as it was established not by the Pope, but the Emperor Justinian because of the Pope’s resistance to it. The Fifth Ecumenical Council addressed what was called “The Three Chapters”[38] and was against a form of Origenism which truly had nothing to do with Origen and Origenist views. In fact, Popes Vigilius, Pelagius I (556-61), Pelagius II (579-90), and Gregory the Great (590-604) were only aware the Fifth Council specifically dealt with the Three Chapters and make no mention of Origenism or Universalism, nor spoke as if they knew of its condemnation even though Gregory the Great was opposed to the belief of universalism.[13]

The Emperor Justinian chose the theory of eternal damnation over Apokatastasis and the underlying need for purification of all souls through multiple incarnations.[39]

By the time Althenasius got around to writing as list of cannonical books we recognize today he was merely acknowledging what had already been long established. The canon was clearly established by the Spirit.

by the spirit? like, the holy spirit guided the hand and minds of all those before athanasius in selecting those gospels? including the “jesus was alive by the time of trojan” iraneus, and the heretic origin?

when we look carefully at many of the characters of the early church that were not fully considered heretic, we see they believed in a different Christianity. and these guys were the ones that supposedly joined up the cannon we have today?

The completely “corrupt and intolerant (whatever that means)” Church you are referencing didn’t come around util about 600 years later.

tommyboy on February 21, 2012 at 8:12 PM

so, constantine and especially theodosius, and their descendants where not intolerant bigots? tell that to the pagans, and countless heretic sects.

nathor on February 21, 2012 at 9:24 PM

I agree with him. The catholic church hasn’t still explained to me why they cover Viagra for employees but refuse to cover birth control.

The institution is run by men who do not marry so they inherently have a disdain for women

liberal4life on February 21, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Really? Do you think that Viagra is a birth control method?

You’re making the same mistake other wedge drivers do in thinking that the Catholic Church discourages sexual activity. They don’t. They discourage preventing the natural result of sexual activity–that is to say, bringing forth life. The only time the Catholic Church discourages sex is before Communion, because the participants typically block the aisle.

john1schn on February 21, 2012 at 9:32 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4