The modern skeptic

Originally posted by Suzianne
See, this is why I can't get behind the Catholic Church.

All the rites and rules, meanwhile priests molest the altar boys.

Apparently, rites and rules are not enough. Christ is not with the modern Catholic Church.

It is what I think of when some here decry "organized religion". The Reformation was a good thing.

Agreed. It was skepticism that led to the Reformation. Anyone who agrees that the Church was in need of it should have reservations about Chesterton's attitude toward skeptics. "At heart, Chesterton was a controversalist, or, better, an apologist. What he really wanted to achieve was to bring his contemporaries (and us!) back to sanity by showing the truth of classic Christian orthodoxy." (http://www.bethinking.org/apologetics/chesterton-the-apologist).

I believe that most of the religious posters here identify themselves as non-Catholic Christians. They should appreciate the fact that it took skepticism and courage - among other things - to make the freedom to form their own religious views possible.

Originally posted by JS357
Agreed. It was skepticism that led to the Reformation. Anyone who agrees that the Church was in need of it should have reservations about Chesterton's attitude toward skeptics. "At heart, Chesterton was a controversalist, or, better, an apologist. What he really wanted to achieve was to bring his contemporaries (and us!) back to sanity by showing the truth of ...[text shortened]... d courage - among other things - to make the freedom to form their own religious views possible.

His book 'orthodoxy' is a must read.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/16769/16769-h/16769-h.htm

Originally posted by JS357
Agreed. It was skepticism that led to the Reformation. Anyone who agrees that the Church was in need of it should have reservations about Chesterton's attitude toward skeptics. "At heart, Chesterton was a controversalist, or, better, an apologist. What he really wanted to achieve was to bring his contemporaries (and us!) back to sanity by showing the truth of ...[text shortened]... d courage - among other things - to make the freedom to form their own religious views possible.

Scepticism or Henry's desire to get a divorce?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Scepticism or Henry's desire to get a divorce?

That is "among other things". It benefitted the princes of Europe to have the Papacy brought down a notch or two.

In the document that I cited, the Church is elevated above the secular state in terms of the control it should have over everyday life. We are seeing a parallel today in efforts to create exceptions to say, provision of contraceptives based on religious liberty. Of course these efforts are not really man against God, they are man against man, one faction clothed in the vestments of religion and exploiting it for political purposes. The conflict continues, not between church and state but between church-state and secular-stare.

"By rebelling against everything" he is pointing to a trend we see towards post-Christian, existentialism. The proving grounds for atheism, man becoming his own master, the modern with faith in anything e.g. in fellow humans, those who give them something of an illusion to compliment their shallow understanding of truth. An illusion of fraternity, of care and concern and exemption from any divine inducement. They are informed and refined no less, priding themselves on coming from an intellectual class whose been granted this privilege to choose.

In not acknowledging the supernatural, what follows is an ungrateful man, often divorced from the realm of emotions, disposed to holding onto rights, pronouncing legal judgements over moral judgement, ideas based on relative and subjective, utilitarian principles, momentary is all that matters, unable to recognize that life is a free gift and existence itself is gratuitously sustained by a Force.

For all the believer's faults, they also complain and act miserably, perhaps not as much as for attaining the highest social skills, because they are given to a higher code of glory.

Originally posted by Of Ants and Imps
"By rebelling against everything" he is pointing to a trend we see towards post-Christian, existentialism. The proving grounds for atheism, man becoming his own master, the modern with faith in anything e.g. in fellow humans, those who give them something of an illusion to compliment their shallow understanding of truth. An illusion of fraternity, o ...[text shortened]... ch as for attaining the highest social skills, because they are given to a higher code of glory.

"In not acknowledging the supernatural, what follows is an ungrateful man, often divorced from the realm of emotions, disposed to holding onto rights, pronouncing legal judgements over moral judgement, ideas based on relative and subjective, utilitarian principles, momentary is all that matters, unable to recognize that life is a free gift and existence itself is gratuitously sustained by a Force. "

A couple points to be made:

In the time of Galileo, a deal with the Church was struck. Scientists would not draw conclusions on the supernatural, and the Church would not burn them. So not acknowledging the supernatural was a bargain that allowed science to be done without smoke and flames.

The struggle between theocrats and secularists is at an uneasy truce in the West, with skirmishes at such places as Texas, and is a battleground elsewhere. The combatants' behavior should show us who is on the higher moral plane (it is neither).

Originally posted by JS357
That is "among other things". It benefitted the princes of Europe to have the Papacy brought down a notch or two.

In the document that I cited, the Church is elevated above the secular state in terms of the control it should have over everyday life. We are seeing a parallel today in efforts to create exceptions to say, provision of contraceptives based on r ...[text shortened]... The conflict continues, not between church and state but between church-state and secular-stare.

Fair enough, although Henry was the catalyst, rather than just another contributor to the reformation. (Would it still have happened if he'd been content in his first marriage?)

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Fair enough, although Henry was the catalyst, rather than just another contributor to the reformation. (Would it still have happened if he'd been content in his first marriage?)

Possibly not in England, or possibly differently. The site I referenced has some background for comparison to such as Ireland.

Originally posted by JS357
Possibly not in England, or possibly differently. The site I referenced has some background for comparison to such as Ireland.

Sorry, yes, I was talking specifically about the English Reformation.