You're the one being vague my friend. Catholosism doesn't work any specific way, people aren't required to be memebers of it like some kind of rigid militray structure and follow policy (unless your simply refering to the hierarchy…). I don't know what kind of bookish, theoretcial, unrealistic model of that branch of Christianity you have but it is clearly faulty.
I'm not convinced you know what Catholocism is. Espeically since anyone who does half a google will find out the Roman Catholic Church does have a rather strict order. Ask any Catholic. The Bishop is the interpreter of Biblical Law. But you have demonstrated you can discard facts to fit your worldview twice already, so I don't think you're really up for facts, but more to rant.
Or are you going to go back to how all Christians should “stay on message” with the idea that the world is 10,000 years old or not be true Christians?
Wow, again you mix Catholocism with Christianity. You flip your terms to suit your argument. It works well for people who aren't trying to work with clearly defined terms, but since you can't stay on any kind of topic *and* refuse to answer the age of the earth, I just don't see where I'm going to get much here.
The world just doesn't work that way. Yes, the church has an organisational structure, so what? You're defining catholisism purely by its hierarchy and cannot see anything wrong with maginfying such a single aspect and placing so much importance upon it?
Now this is just willful ignorance. I've given you tons of sources to research and you just want your worldview to be what is. Sorry, but Catholocism *doesn't* work that way.
Again I say it's like claiming the US is nothing more or less than its system of government.
No, its like saying the Catholic Chruch has strict dogma which is handled by Rome. You've already said you're not religious and obviously know *nothing* of catholocism, so please stop before you embarass yourself further. Anyone who has even remotely looked into Catholocism knows that its got a rather strict set of dogma.
Wow, that's myopic.
Its not everyone who can be insulting, *and* miuse a word. Double dip for you!
They're not even defined simply by their beliefs, that again would be myopic.
As the movie says, “I don't think that word means what you think it means.”
One interesting thing that does set Catholicism apart from the rest of Christianity is the way the the church hierarchy continually refines and redefines their idea of Christianity.
Not at all. Different branches of Christianity have Sees all the time. But to make a change in Catholocism, it all goes through Rome. I can't encourage you enough to really look into this so you stop making stuff up as you go along.
In Catholicism the bible is not the be all and end all; they have always been open to change (through certain channels), incorporating the writings of many scholars, Popes, scientific thought… That is one of their strengths, as opposed to many later Protestant movements that introduced some secular modernisation, but went back to the mythology of the bible on matters of belief;
The Catholic church belives in exorcism and that the eucharist involves transformation into the body and blood of Christ. Yup, no mythology here.
relying on the untutored cognizance of the individual to interpret it, rather than going through the educated, nuanced mediation of the church.
Wow, stop. First you're all about how the Catholocism isn't about structure and dogma, that is much, much, more, and then you cite the much much more as being the source of “unstructured cognizance?”
Congratulations. That's circular reasoning. I think there's a prize for it somewhere, unfortunately the prize is not a course in logic.
That was the strength of the Caotholic hierarchy, even as its rigidity is its weakness.
You spend your time telling me how the Catholic Chruch isn't rigid, and now it is? That's a double circle. Can we go for a double axle into a full twist?
Satanism is not a religion, it is at heart a philosophy (as claimed by its followers), which I don't really want to get into discussing.
Translation: Religion is a narrow band which I and I alone will define. That means that I want to tell you about Jesus Christ, and Satanism, Wiccanism, Jehova Witness, Mormonism… they don't count, because I don't want them to.
Sadly for you, the *dictionary* defines religion thusly:
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
Satanism: Yup, fits.
Mormons: Yup, fit.
Wiccans: Yup, fit.
Shinto: Yup, fits.
Minority, cultish belief systems, new age or alternative religions have always sprung up in the wake of the majors in all parts of the world, we can't be expected to eveluate the impacts of all of them.
You can't even stay with Catholocism. So good luck with the whole evaluating those “minorities.”
blah blah blah blah blah some sort of wrap-up that makes me sound scholarly.
Wow, and *thank you* for your insightful input. So are you ready to explain, finally, how old you think the world is? And do you think Jesus wore a western saddle on his brotosaurus steed, or an english saddle?
You might want to hold off responding until you have answers, points and facts, rather than feelings and assertions that are not backed by history. There's plenty of revisionism going around without at least having *some* scholarly source. At least check out http://www.catholic.org/clife/prayers/beliefs.php
. At least then we could have some sort of *real* discussion, rather than having to wade through your demagoguery.