Damn I love these headlines. You know I only started reading this blog after the conversion. Wonderful stuff.
BTW I don’t know if this is the appropriate post to bring this up, but I have a question for any Roman Catholics who post here: what is the consensus among laymen WRT justification? And is it different than official Church teaching? And is this issue ever likely to be put to rest once and for all between denominations?
Pikemann Urge, I suspect that much of it has more to do with differences in terminology than actual belief. We RCs have one definition for justification (as well as faith, prayer, and a host of other notions), and you have one that is pasta-on from a different tradition. (Sorry, had to work in the pun in some fashion.)
On other questions, the Catholic lay perspective differs depending on the orthodoxy of the regional diocese. There are legitmate variations in practice. Some prefer pesto with angel-hair; others marinara with linguine; and still others, ravioli and a meat sauce. When they start piling peanut butter and salsa on your rigotoni, you know it’s time to cry foul.
WRT justification, thanks to the two replies so far, they were helpful. It is a little puzzling for a non-Christian such as myself as to why the issue was so fought over for so long between denominations. After all, Pope Clement was adamant that faith alone justified man.
Yeah, I haven’t looked into the reformation as deeply as I should have…
Warren January 4th, 2009 @ 2:46 am
I’m a Christian, and I just ran into this Skeptics bible-bashing website:
I thought, hey, you’re fresh off the skeptic path. What are your thoughts on this website? Arrogant, yes. But do they have a point here? It would take I think, a good bit of explaining, though I do hope it is entirely possible to understand this. What I find most interesting is how little effort Skeptics in general put into trying to understand something before calling it all “BS” and giving up. Do you think there is a gene, or a chemical imbalance that causes scepticism? Is the BS-detector of the athiest/skeptic on permanent overload?
Warren
[Christian]
Beelzebub January 4th, 2009 @ 5:51 am
I’m still waiting for someone to tell me it TRT ever comments, and if so under what handle? Or is this blog supposed to be a metaphor for earth and God on high? If so, is there ever a supernatural manifestation? And who plays Satan? And is it theomachy when the server goes down? So many questions.
So far TRT hasn’t commented and I am not sure what his handle might be. As for some of your other questions. TRT is reading comments from on high but not playing God. The part of Satan will be played by Satan.
nkb January 4th, 2009 @ 8:45 am
Warren,
If you are presented a turd sandwich, how many bites do you take before becoming convinced that it doesn’t taste good?
.
In this analogy, atheists either take a look or a whiff, and determine this sandwich ain’t worth eating.
Warren: It is not skepticism that drives such Bible-bashing. It is a species of illiteracy. The sheer stupidity of the Skeptics Annotated Bible never fails to amaze me. Seriously. Those people have obviously never had (or never passed) a freshman course in any ancient, medieval or renaissance literature, although I don’t know if such a course would have done them any good. Those people are ignorant of the culture, the language and the literary context of the passages they pick out and are content to be so. To read that ignorantly is to be, in a very real sense, illiterate.
What is worse, they lack the intellectual curiosity to try to understand what is going on. It doesn’t occur to them that there is even a question. A number of really good commentaries on the Old Testament are available. It is easy to read up on any passage, event or person appearing in the Old Testament, if one is so inclined. It is incomprehensible to me that anyone would prefer to babble ignorantly, but so they do.
It has 5 sections:
I. Star Worship
II. Stars as Signs
III. The Host of Heaven
IV. Stars are symbols of the angels
V. Condemnations of Astrology
nkb January 7th, 2009 @ 10:31 pm
Those people are ignorant of the culture, the language and the literary context of the passages they pick out and are content to be so. .
And this perfectly describes the vast majority of Christians. I always have to laugh at your attempts to paint the common Christian as someone educated in ancient literature and civilizations.
.
Of course, your selective reading and interpretation is more of the same old apologetics. Yawn!
January 3rd, 2009 @ 8:47 pm
Ugh – macaroni. That’s so cheesy.
January 3rd, 2009 @ 8:48 pm
I am taking penne to hand to protest such punnery!
January 3rd, 2009 @ 8:58 pm
Rice suspects macaroni of being the antipasta.
January 3rd, 2009 @ 9:00 pm
Only Protestants believe that UVJ. Orzo I’m told.
January 3rd, 2009 @ 9:04 pm
Clearly, macaroni is hollow inside.
January 3rd, 2009 @ 9:32 pm
Sounds like your puns did not go over well. Your commenters may be staging a cous cous.
January 3rd, 2009 @ 9:43 pm
Converted rice is branless
January 3rd, 2009 @ 9:45 pm
UnspeakablyViolentJane, isn’t macaroni also branless?
January 3rd, 2009 @ 9:59 pm
LOL! Well, not if it’s whole wheat, but I’m sure you’re envisioning something more krafty.
January 3rd, 2009 @ 10:36 pm
Damn I love these headlines. You know I only started reading this blog after the conversion. Wonderful stuff.
BTW I don’t know if this is the appropriate post to bring this up, but I have a question for any Roman Catholics who post here: what is the consensus among laymen WRT justification? And is it different than official Church teaching? And is this issue ever likely to be put to rest once and for all between denominations?
I’m the curious type!
January 3rd, 2009 @ 11:51 pm
ROTFL!! My favorite headline so far!!
Margaret Catherine, brilliant comment. 
January 3rd, 2009 @ 11:57 pm
Really PikeMann-icotti up, for the facts read the nutritional information.
Scroll to Paragraph 422.
January 4th, 2009 @ 12:00 am
“godless” has unfortunately progressed to pejorative, thanks to Coulter and others. Nonbeliever, disbeliever, irreligious, etc. are better.
January 4th, 2009 @ 1:00 am
Pikemann Urge, I suspect that much of it has more to do with differences in terminology than actual belief. We RCs have one definition for justification (as well as faith, prayer, and a host of other notions), and you have one that is pasta-on from a different tradition. (Sorry, had to work in the pun in some fashion.)
On other questions, the Catholic lay perspective differs depending on the orthodoxy of the regional diocese. There are legitmate variations in practice. Some prefer pesto with angel-hair; others marinara with linguine; and still others, ravioli and a meat sauce. When they start piling peanut butter and salsa on your rigotoni, you know it’s time to cry foul.
January 4th, 2009 @ 1:24 am
WRT justification, thanks to the two replies so far, they were helpful. It is a little puzzling for a non-Christian such as myself as to why the issue was so fought over for so long between denominations. After all, Pope Clement was adamant that faith alone justified man.
Yeah, I haven’t looked into the reformation as deeply as I should have…
January 4th, 2009 @ 2:46 am
I’m a Christian, and I just ran into this Skeptics bible-bashing website:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/interp/astrology.html
I thought, hey, you’re fresh off the skeptic path. What are your thoughts on this website? Arrogant, yes. But do they have a point here? It would take I think, a good bit of explaining, though I do hope it is entirely possible to understand this. What I find most interesting is how little effort Skeptics in general put into trying to understand something before calling it all “BS” and giving up. Do you think there is a gene, or a chemical imbalance that causes scepticism? Is the BS-detector of the athiest/skeptic on permanent overload?
Warren
[Christian]
January 4th, 2009 @ 5:51 am
I’m still waiting for someone to tell me it TRT ever comments, and if so under what handle? Or is this blog supposed to be a metaphor for earth and God on high? If so, is there ever a supernatural manifestation? And who plays Satan? And is it theomachy when the server goes down? So many questions.
January 4th, 2009 @ 7:00 am
So far TRT hasn’t commented and I am not sure what his handle might be. As for some of your other questions. TRT is reading comments from on high but not playing God. The part of Satan will be played by Satan.
January 4th, 2009 @ 8:45 am
Warren,
If you are presented a turd sandwich, how many bites do you take before becoming convinced that it doesn’t taste good?
.
In this analogy, atheists either take a look or a whiff, and determine this sandwich ain’t worth eating.
January 4th, 2009 @ 9:45 am
Hilarious!
January 4th, 2009 @ 10:26 am
Warren: It is not skepticism that drives such Bible-bashing. It is a species of illiteracy. The sheer stupidity of the Skeptics Annotated Bible never fails to amaze me. Seriously. Those people have obviously never had (or never passed) a freshman course in any ancient, medieval or renaissance literature, although I don’t know if such a course would have done them any good. Those people are ignorant of the culture, the language and the literary context of the passages they pick out and are content to be so. To read that ignorantly is to be, in a very real sense, illiterate.
What is worse, they lack the intellectual curiosity to try to understand what is going on. It doesn’t occur to them that there is even a question. A number of really good commentaries on the Old Testament are available. It is easy to read up on any passage, event or person appearing in the Old Testament, if one is so inclined. It is incomprehensible to me that anyone would prefer to babble ignorantly, but so they do.
January 4th, 2009 @ 11:18 am
RT, thanks for the best laugh I’ve had in a while.
And forgive my own strained puns.
January 4th, 2009 @ 12:58 pm
I look forward to worshiping with Rice on the feast of his patron saint.
That would be St. Paddy’s Day.
January 4th, 2009 @ 2:25 pm
Oh, Dawn (groan)! No one can hold a candele to you when it comes to punning.
January 4th, 2009 @ 11:01 pm
fusilli
January 5th, 2009 @ 8:29 am
Warren,
I’ve put together a 2 page PDF file response to the apparent contradictions presented in the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible section on astrology:
http://download.yousendit.com/bVlCeVd1dzg4NVhIRGc9PQ (Link should work for the next 7 days).
It has 5 sections:
I. Star Worship
II. Stars as Signs
III. The Host of Heaven
IV. Stars are symbols of the angels
V. Condemnations of Astrology
January 7th, 2009 @ 10:31 pm
Those people are ignorant of the culture, the language and the literary context of the passages they pick out and are content to be so.
.
And this perfectly describes the vast majority of Christians. I always have to laugh at your attempts to paint the common Christian as someone educated in ancient literature and civilizations.
.
Of course, your selective reading and interpretation is more of the same old apologetics. Yawn!