by Charles Kluepfel
8/13/. Defending the Church
Fundamentalists attack Catholic dogma ... sometimes rightly
Care for a Drink?
Summary
- In Times Square, there is a group of Christians who set up a table and a microphone, and yell at passers-by to follow Jesus. They target alcoholism, abortionists, Mohammedans and Catholics as the enemy. But most of all they believe in the Bible--as their own pastor interprets it.
- One day, I handed them a couple of leaflets explaining the contradictions in the Bible and the problems with Christianity.
- When they found out I had been Catholic, they said "no wonder you're all screwed up," and handed me a three-page Xeroxed leaflet showing how wrong the Catholic Church is Biblically. Below, I weigh their criticisms, showing that sometimes they are ridiculous (claiming that no one ever went to heaven directly, to counter Catholic belief in the Assumption of Mary, despite their own Bible's depiction of Enoch and Elijah as being so taken up), but sometimes showing the inconsistency of Catholic practice and the Bible's clear word.
- The ultimate gist of this is that no Christian religion can be fully consistent with the Bible, as the Bible is not consistent with itself. If one follows one part of the Bible, one has to ignore another part. But since the Bible is the foundation of Christianity, Christianity itself cannot stand.
Critics of religion usually have it easiest criticizing fundamentalist churches, as the Bible is always there to pin down to a given belief, and often, a contradictory set of beliefs. But my journey was away from the Catholic church. Trying to trap it in a contradiction is like trying to nail jelly to a wall. There is always the excuse that the Bible is only metaphorically true. Tradition also counts as part of the truth. But what is tradition? Toward the end of my sojourn as a Catholic I lived in a liberal parish in which gay masses were celebrated by the gay group Dignity. The Jesuits who run this parish were able to justify this despite the Bible's denunciation of homosexuality, and the long tradition of the Church's bashing gays.
But, with internecine bickering being what it is, criticisms of the Catholic Church can easily be found in the rantings of the fundamentalists. There is one group that has been bullhorning from one corner or another of Times Square for many years. It alternates damning abortionists, atheists, Catholics, Seventh Day Adventists, and other ne'er-do-wells to Hell. One day, after my loss of faith, I decided to hand them some of Dennis McKinsey's anti-Bible leaflets. In the ensuing discussions, when they found out I was a former Catholic, they said No wonder your head is all screwed up. They handed me a three-page Xeroxed list of thirty items which they considered wrong with the Catholic church. What a goldmine! Each point (as you see below), of course points out how Christianity can be different from Christianity, based on the ambiguous and contradictory nature of the Bible and Church tradition, but also is either a valid criticism of the Catholic Church, or a point which shows how fundamentalist Christianity is wrong. In the latter instances, I was in the curious position of defending the Catholic Church, which seemed incongruous to the fundamentalists, who used as an argument against my position that I was defending my former Church, but, of course, truth is where you find it.
I will call the group the Times Square Christians, as they claim only to be Christians, and not belong to a particular denomination. This is rather disingenuous, for, as we shall see, they do have a fixed set of doctrine, one peculiarity of which is the evil of all alcoholic beverages, even wine for communion.
Their list is titled:
Does Your Church Believe and Teach the Bible?
The above named set of three photocopied sheets contains mostly criticisms of the Catholic Church from a Christian point of view. It lists 30 points, to which some replies can be made. Some are valid criticisms. Some are less so, which is to be expected, since the Bible can be interpreted in different ways, and who is to say what is the correct way, or even whether there is a correct way, or that the Bible is worthy of belief, any more than any other human institution, such as the Catholic Church, or any other church.
Bible quotations below are from the New Revised Standard Version, not a Catholic version.
Priestly Celibacy and Fish on Fridays
Item 1 validly criticizes the Catholic Church for not permitting priests to marry, and for imposing abstinence rules on certain foods at certain times of the year and/or week. But the Bible quotation given (I Timothy 3:2: "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife") allows Bishops only one wife. Read in context, its implication is that more than one wife is allowed to ordinary priests and to laymen.
Various religions have imposed celibacy rules on their clergy or holy people. This is seen as a renunciation of worldly cares. However, as priests are called upon to counsel their flock, most of whom are married, there is bound to be a certain lack of first-hand experience in the problems of married life. Also, the knowledge that in order to be a priest, one must forego marriage, and presumably, given the morals of the Church, sexual expression, can create an imbalance in candidates for priesthood, in the sense that those persons with completely normal sexual appetites will be inhibited from becoming priests while those with less appetite, or with appetites to which the church forbids yielding even outside the priesthood, will not be so dissuaded.
Priestly Hypocrisy
Needless to say, various priests have been accused, mostly with cause, of child molestation. Undoubtedly, too, a higher proportion of gay Catholics, inhibited from practicing any way, enter the priesthood, than heterosexuals, whose taking up of priestly vows would be closing down the possibility of approved sexual outlet. Later, those entering the priesthood may or may not be able to live up to its chastity requirements, especially considering the close living quarters in Catholic rectories.
However, the hypocrisy to which I refer that comes to my mind is in a talk given by a priest visiting our parish, named "Father Val," who has an apparently substantial following. Recordings of his talks, and various booklets that he authored were on sale in the church vestibule. The particular talk to which I went was part of a week-long series. The schedule for the week had said that the topic for the night was "Faith," and in deference to my wife, who said I should keep an open mind to faith (at the time I had started my "falling away"), I attended. Lo and behold, when we got there, the subject had been changed to that of chastity and marital fidelity. As what I was looking for was some rationale to remaining a Catholic (perhaps of the nature of Küng's Why I Am Still a Christian) which I could examine on its merits, I asked what had happened to the Faith lecture? I was assured, by Father Val that "we'll deal with faith tonight; stay." I stayed, but the topic never got to why we should have faith.
The hypocrisy came in when Father Val justified his talking about sexual morality. With a wink he said he wasn't always a priest, and had some lively early years. If the Catholic Church teaches that any sex before marriage is a mortal sin, and Father Val believes in the Catholic Church's teachings, then one would assume he would as easily given a wink to rubbing out some enemy as to committing fornication. But maybe times have changed. I had been told that God's laws never change. Maybe God changed his mind and now it's OK to have unmarried sex.
Fish on Fridays
Speaking of changing God's mind: It used to be that each Friday was a "day of abstinence," on which no meat could be eaten by good Catholics, including prohibition of red meat and poultry, but allowing fish. Now it is only during Lent during which this rule applies. I recall a corporate breakfast at which a co-worker, an Irish Catholic, had ridiculed the idea of Kosher laws, and the idea that God would worry over what one ate. I asked if God minded eating meat on Fridays; the reply was that He used to mind, but not any more.
Is Divorce OK?
The Times Square Christians' item 2 is valid from a secular point of view, criticizing the Church's forbidding of divorce. We all know that some marriages need to be dissolved and that the Catholic Church disallows this. Technically, however, the Catholic Church does not forbid divorce, only remarriage of divorced persons. But the effect is the same, except for the Church's hypocritical jogs around the regulations by granting annulments.
Their criticism of the Catholic Church's excommunication of remarried divorcees points to the forgiving spirit that is claimed to be required, as they quote:
Gal 6:1 My friends, if anyone is detected in a transgression, you who have received the Spirit should restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness. Take care that you yourselves are not tempted.
Certainly, according to the Bible, Jesus forbade such remarriage, regardless of the actual morality involved. And, as for the harshness of the Church, how about comparing that with the quotation given by the fundamentalists in item 12 of the same leaflet:
John 2:14 In the temple he found people selling cattle, sheep, and doves, and the money changers seated at their tables.
John 2:15 Making a whip of cords, he drove all of them out of the temple, both the sheep and the cattle. He also poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.
I'll take excommunication over being whipped with cords any day.
Contrast this angry behavior of Jesus with his pronouncements:
Mat 5:22 But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment; and if you insult a brother or sister, you will be liable to the council; and if you say, 'You fool,' you will be liable to the hell of fire.
By the way, when Jesus forbade saying "You fool.", maybe he should have listened also, for he is said to have said (if one can trust the Bible):
Mat 23:17 You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold or the sanctuary that has made the gold sacred?
Luke 11:40 You fools! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also?
This is not the way to win converts, as the fundies must know from their own experience.
Sinfulness
Items 3 and 4 on their list validly criticize the Church's teaching that unbaptized infants do not get to heaven and requires confessing sins to a priest. The leaflet claims the Catholic Church condemns these innocents to Hell, but actually we had been told that the unbaptized babies will go to Limbo, a place of natural happiness, a veritable paradise, but without the beatific vision of God.
In any event, the Church does insist that a person's eternal future depends upon whether some ritual had been performed on him or her before death. This is plainly ludicrous, and though some modern theologians may try to distance themselves from this belief, it nevertheless has been the standard teaching of the Church, and we are told that we are bound by such teaching just as we are bound by the Bible.
Confession
Regarding confessing to a priest, the Church justifies this on the basis of
John 20:22 When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit.
John 20:23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."
Of course, this does not mention confession, and in fact Jesus is quoted in the Bible as having forgiven the sins of some of the people he encountered, and the Bible does not mention any confession in order to gain this absolution. The Church then allows the use of reason, in saying that, Well, Jesus, being God, knew those persons' sins even without the confession; a human priest will require confession in order to know what is being forgiven. So the Church does use reason when it suits its purpose.
By the way, if Jesus's divinity included omniscience, then I still do not know how it could be that
Luke 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and in years, and in divine and human favor.
Maybe instead of omniscience, Jesus just had a mind-reading ability. But then again, how does that figure in the argument from divinity?
Scripture vs. Tradition
However, the criticism in item 5 is a valid criticism for most Christian groups: It says that Church tradition supersedes the authority of the Bible. That this is true of all denominations is the reason that there are so many denominations. If each denomination merely said that the Bible is the answer, they would all be one. But they are not. See item 9 below. In particular, the Bible shows Jesus turning water into wine at a wedding feast, and sharing wine with his disciples at the Last Supper. Most denominations accept communion wine while the Times Square Christians interpret the Bible in a more unusual manner on this particular point.
Pointless Prayer, and the Priest's "Power"
Points 6 and 7 are valid criticisms of the Catholic Church from a Christian point of view:
6. Catholics pray the Rosary, despite
Mat 6:7 "When you are praying, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do; for they think that they will be heard because of their many words.
7. Priests are given the power to absolve sin, despite:
Mark 2:7 "Why does this fellow speak in this way? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?"
Will the Real "True Church" Please Stand Up?
The Times Square Christians' item 8 derides the Catholic Church for claiming to be the only true church on the earth. This is criticized because the Times Square Christians know that they constitute the only true church. In fact this is endemic in at least the Christian community. It applies not only to the Catholic Church, but also to the Christians who put the anti-Catholic sheets together, who claim that the Catholics, the 7th day Adventists, the Mormons are not true churches. In fact, each sect sees itself as the correct one, and the others as heretics. This is a scandal for all churches, as Christians cannot agree on doctrine. In particular, this sheet claims that the Catholic Church is wrong, the Mormons are wrong, the 7th day Adventists are wrong—only its church is right, even all the while claiming not even to be a denomination, just being Christians. This is just another way of saying their own is the only true church, which they are saying is an invalid claim. It's no more valid when they make it than when the Catholics make it.
And then the Muslims say that all Christians are wrong, etc.
Human Authority or Scriptural Authority
Item 9 quotes the old testament's
Mal 3:6 For I the LORD do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, have not perished.
to object to the power of popes and church councils to alter church doctrines and practices, and also quote Paul:
Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.
But how far back do they object to changes? If the church fathers changed a rule long enough ago, is that enough to remove the taint of being humanly inspired? These Times Square Christians agree with the change of the sabbath to Sunday. Regardless of what reason is given, it is still a change that someone made.
When the author of Acts wrote about
Acts 16:13 On the sabbath day we went outside the gate by the river, where we supposed there was a place of prayer; and we sat down and spoke to the women who had gathered there.
he was referring to the last day of the week, as in
Acts 17:2 And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three sabbath days argued with them from the scriptures,
Acts 17:3 explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Messiah to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, "This is the Messiah, Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you."
and
Heb 4:9 So then, a sabbath rest still remains for the people of God;
Acts 1:12 uses the phrase a sabbath day's journey, indicating the early Christian believers knew how far one could travel on what we would call a Saturday. Acts 13:14 ff relates to religious discussions on the seventh-day sabbath. Acts 13:42-44 attest to preaching the word of the Lord on this day.
The only reference to Sunday that is used to justify a switch to that day for a sabbath is
Acts 20:7 On the first day of the week, when we met to break bread, Paul was holding a discussion with them; since he intended to leave the next day, he continued speaking until midnight.
But this refers to one particular occasion. They probably broke bread together every day of the week, and on this particular occasion some particular occurrence happened to be on a Sunday. Why, even today, Baptists have church meetings on Wednesday; that doesn't make Wednesday their Sabbath. Besides, if only Jesus can change the rules, it also implies that not even Paul could do so, nor any of the Apostles.
If it is stated that the very occurrence of a resurrection on Sunday justifies a Sunday sabbath, that is applying human reasoning, such as the pope might do, not God's justification. You could say that since the Ascension was on a Thursday, the sabbath should be Thursday, or since the crucifixion, that purportedly saved mankind, was on a Friday, the sabbath should be Friday.
Why indeed is Sunday the Christian sabbath? The early church leaders, including Paul, wanted to gain converts among the Gentiles. As a result they no longer required circumcision, or abstinence from pork, or following other dietary laws. Also, as Sunday worship at the temples of Mithra was an ingrained custom, Christianity made it easy for the Gentiles: worship on Sunday just like you are used to doing, only now say it is to worship Jesus rather than Mithra. The very names we use relate to Sun worship (which, apparently, the ancients preferred to Saturn worship). On the other hand Spanish, not built in a Jewish setting, still retains the name Sabado for the last day of the week, harking back to before the human change was made.
The following words concerning dietary laws, etc., attest to the changing of law after the death and ascension of Jesus, by men:
Acts 15:19 Therefore I have reached the decision that we should not trouble those Gentiles who are turning to God,
Acts 15:20 but we should write to them to abstain only from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been strangled and from blood.
By the way, nothing in the Bible says that Jesus rose on a Sunday. The empty tomb was discovered on a Sunday morning, but how is one to determine the day of the supposed resurrection? It could have been any day from after the burial on Friday, through the entire sabbath (Saturday) when no one was around to notice, to the traditional Sunday. Traditionally it is a count of three days from Friday. But the quotation on this is
Mat 12:40 For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so for three days and three nights the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth.
If you check into a hotel on Friday afternoon, and out on Sunday morning, and are charged for three nights, you have been overcharged. This is NOT a fulfillment of ANY prophecy. If you were to count on this quotation to be true, the resurrection would have been on a Monday, giving you another choice for a sabbath day, under your interpretation. (Or do you agree with Armstrong's Worldwide Church of God in removing the crucifixion from Friday? In order to retain a Sunday resurrection, you would have to put the crucifixion on a Thursday; they put it on a Wednesday in order to get a Saturday resurrection. It's all very hypothetical anyway.)
Who Can Interpret the Bible?
We have gradually led into item 10, which criticizes Catholicism for teaching that only the priest can properly interpret the Bible. In that matter, many Christian groups state that their interpretation is the only correct one, including this group that puts forth its anti-Catholic, anti-etc. propaganda. If anyone can interpret the scriptures, this includes 7th Day Adventists, Mormons, Worldwide Church of God advocates, etc., etc. If anyone can interpret "the scriptures", then do not say that the others are wrong. It is inconsistent.
The Bible is so amazingly full of ambiguities and contradictions that anyone can make a good point in favor of any position by quoting appropriate sections.
Whose Strange Doctrines?
Item 11 criticizes the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and perpetual sinlessness of Mary, emphasizing that ALL HAVE SINNED:
Rom 3:23 since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God;
Does this include Jesus? ... do you make an exception? What about Noah:
Gen 6:9 These are the descendants of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God.
and David:
1 Sam 29:9 Achish replied to David, "I know that you are as blameless in my sight as an angel of God; nevertheless, the commanders of the Philistines have said, 'He shall not go up with us to the battle.'
Psa 18:23 I was blameless before him, and I kept myself from guilt.
and Job:
Job 1:1 There was once a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job. That man was blameless and upright, one who feared God and turned away from evil.
and Daniel:
Dan 6:22 My God sent his angel and shut the lions' mouths so that they would not hurt me, because I was found blameless before him; and also before you, O king, I have done no wrong."
Of course all of these therefore contradict the scriptures quoted in the leaflet:
Rom 3:23 since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God;
and
Eccl 7:20 Surely there is no one on earth so righteous as to do good without ever sinning.
Gambling; Purgatory — UnChristian Ideas
Items 12 and 13 validly criticize the Catholic Church from a Christian point of view, for holding Bingo sessions, Las Vegas nights, lotteries, etc. and specifying Purgatory as a place of cleansing from sin.
These are examples of rationalization and rationalism:
The church needs money, and therefore it runs gambling sessions. It's the same as what state governments have started doing, much to the detriment of the poorer segments of our society. Perhaps government was looking to the Church as a moral guide. It might have been the wrong place to look.
And the rationalism of the teaching on Purgatory is that some punishment has to be found for venial sins. By their use of reason, the theologians came up with this doctrine, to save face in the light of the fact that people do many times get away with immoral acts, ... even more so if we consider as immoral everything the Church says is wrong.
Faith or Good Works — the Bible Goes Either Way
Item 14 supports the idea of salvation through faith and not good works by quoting Eph 2:8, 9:
Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God--
Eph 2:9 not the result of works, so that no one may boast.
But other Christians might like to quote:
1 Tim 6:18 They are to do good, to be rich in good works, generous, and ready to share,
1 Tim 6:19 thus storing up for themselves the treasure of a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of the life that really is life.
The Times Square Christians may say that this does not constitute being saved, but others would. Would the Times Square Christians deny them the claim to be able to properly interpret the Bible? Times Square Christians says in item 10 that the Catholic Church is wrong in denying people this ability. Now they are saying only those who agree with them are properly interpreting the Bible.
Catholicism as UnBiblical and UnChristian
Items 15 - 17 validly criticize the Catholic Church:
Against Mary's perpetual virginity:
Mat 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?
Mat 13:56 And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all this?"
The Church used to say that "brothers" meant kinsmen. Now it doesn't talk much about it at all.
Against priestly absolution of sins:
Heb 10:11 And every priest stands day after day at his service, offering again and again the same sacrifices that can never take away sins.
Heb 10:12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, "he sat down at the right hand of God,"
Against calling priests "Father":
Mat 23:9 And call no one your father on earth, for you have one Father--the one in heaven.
One wonders how Catholics can call themselves Christian.
How Many Get to Heaven?
In item 18 the Times Square Christians criticize the Catholic Church for stating that no one can know 100% sure they are going to heaven, quoting
1 John 5:13 I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.
But that is of little comfort knowing only 144,000 will make it, according to Revelations. Of course the Times Square Christians may not interpret the book of Revelations the way that the Jehovah's Witnesses do, and thus may not limit salvation to 144,000 people. Why do they bother to preach, as both groups do, if that number is set, and that's the way it is going to be?
Times Square Christians object to Mary's assumption into Heaven without tasting death by quoting Rom 5:12 and Heb 9:27,
Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned--
Heb 9:27 And just as it is appointed for mortals to die once, and after that the judgment,
But this not only conflicts with Catholic dogma on Mary; it conflicts with other parts of the Bible:
Did not the Bible claim that Elijah ascended directly to Heaven without dying?:
2 Ki 2:11 As they continued walking and talking, a chariot of fire and horses of fire separated the two of them, and Elijah ascended in a whirlwind into heaven.
Also,
Heb 11:5 By faith Enoch was taken so that he did not experience death; and "he was not found, because God had taken him." For it was attested before he was taken away that "he had pleased God."
Baptism?
Re item 20, which questions the Catholic doctrine that baptism is necessary for eternal life: while Paul himself may not have baptized per I Cor 1:17, and Jesus did not according to John 4:2, we are told that he did direct:
Mat 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, ...
Infallible Pope and the Intercession of Saints
Items 21 and 22 validly criticize the ideas of papal infallibility and praying to saints:
Papal infallibility rests upon the decision of a fallible church council. The very leadership of the Church by the Pope is dependent upon support from the Bible, in:
Mat 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.
while even the Church does not believe in the inerrancy of all of the Bible, and an independent person surely knows that the Bible contains only incidental truths here and there, similar to any of the world's literature.
Praying to saints is a holdover from pagan worship of many Gods. Gods had their bailiwicks in the various aspects of nature and daily life. One God did not seem to cover all the people's needs. The Church, in its seeking the membership of as many as possible, was willing to accept many dubious practices, including the substitution of Saints for pagan gods. Mainstream Christians and Jews will want to pray only to God. Skeptics question prayer altogether: If God answers prayers only in a way that facilitates what is "really" good for the person who prays, and God watches over all of us anyway, then why pray? ... God knows what you need and will do what is best for you regardless of what you ask for.
Temperance: Is It Abstinence or Moderation?
Item 23 complains about condoning liquor drinking by priests. It quotes the Bible on bishops:
For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God: not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine ...
(Titus 1:7)
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife ... not given to wine ...
(I Timothy 3:2-3)
Maybe it's only the higher-ups who should refrain. Also, more accurate translations of the two verses show the emphasis, even for bishops, is on avoiding addiction to wine, and being temperate, not abstinent:
Titus 1:7 For a bishop, as God's steward, must be blameless; he must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or addicted to wine or violent or greedy for gain;
1 Tim 3:2 Now a bishop must be above reproach, married only once, temperate, sensible, respectable, hospitable, an apt teacher,
1 Tim 3:3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and not a lover of money.
The Bible reports Jesus's first miracle as turning water into wine at the wedding feast in Cana. Apparently Jesus drank enough so that there were accusations against his drinking:
Mat 11:18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, 'He has a demon';
Mat 11:19 the Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Look, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!' Yet wisdom is vindicated by her deeds."
Drinking in moderation has been shown to be quite likely good for you. The Times Square Christians should not be so against it. This is one area where "Situation Ethics" provides easier answers than the Bible (see the chapter "But What About Morality"): if liquor is no problem for a given person there is nothing wrong with it; if liquor is a problem, then there needs to be some restraint on the person from abusing alcohol.
Needless to Say
Item 24 is certainly true in denying the need for the sacrament of mass to avoid damnation. But then, neither is the Bible nor Jesus necessary.
What is Baptism?
According to item 25 only immersion is good for baptism. But how does one know how closely the act must follow Jesus's baptism? If one insists on immersion, another might insist that it be in a river rather than in a pool or a tub. Others might say that it in fact would have to be in the Jordan river at that. The Times Square Christians must be applying some sort of human reasoning here to determine how literally one must follow the letter of the Bible.
The worry about matching the events of the Bible brings up another point: all 12 of Jesus's disciples listed in the Bible were men. This is seen as a precedent for an all-male priesthood, despite the lack explicit support for this in the Bible. ... And despite the fact that some of the most faithful and caring Christians are women.
Black and White — Or Shades of Gray?
Item 26 criticizes the Church for differentiating mortal from venial sins. I can't imagine that the Times Square Christians think that a hungry man's stealing an apple off an apple cart is as bad as a political leader sending millions of innocent people to gas chambers and crematoria. Of course these are extreme ends of a graded scale, and admittedly, rationally speaking, there is no sharp boundary between venial and mortal, but I don't think that was what the fundamentalists have in mind, and the Times Square Christians would condemn the hungry scavenger along with Hitler.
Communion Wine Evil?
Item 27 is very surprising, in that it objects to using "spiritous" wine for communion services. Not many sects forbid communion wine, although Christian censure of liquor is a strong tradition. But to the points raised, note that the criticism relies on Lev 10:8-9, part of the old law, which Christians say is no longer valid when they are considering Saturday sabbaths and kosher laws, but now all of a sudden Times Square Christians say this old law applies in this particular aspect. There is some faulty human reasoning going on here.
Lev 10:8 And the LORD spoke to Aaron:
Lev 10:9 Drink no wine or strong drink, neither you nor your sons, when you enter the tent of meeting, that you may not die; it is a statute forever throughout your generations.
Hab 2:15 "Alas for you who make your neighbors drink, pouring out your wrath until they are drunk, in order to gaze on their nakedness!"
I do not think Christians of any denomination "pour out wrath until they are drunk, in order to gaze on their nakedness" during what they call the Lord's supper. This is just religious bigotry.
What do the Times Square Christians think was the "fruit of the vine" at the Passover meal at which Jesus is reported to have said:
Mat 26:27 Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you;
Mat 26:28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
Mat 26:29 I tell you, I will never again drink of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom."
?
Blind Obedience
Item 28 criticizes Catholic blind obedience to dogma: Blind obedience to any dogma is wrong, whether it be Catholic dogma, Mormon dogma, or Christian Biblicist dogma.
Wealth: Evil, or a Public Trust?
In objecting to the Catholic Church's wealth, item 29 quotes
Mat 19:21 Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me."
But without money, one cannot mount a mission. If you sell everything to give to the poor you won't even have a Bible. ... Nor equipment to place on street corners. The Catholic Church does things in a bigger way, but who can say that the treasures of the Vatican, such as the Sistine chapel, and its works of art would be better off in private hands rather than on public display. If a Christian were in charge of what the city owns, would he sell off the library to feed the poor? What about the art museums? Governments and established religions both serve a useful function in preserving art works that feed the mind of the population, and selling them off to feed stomachs will provide only temporary relief to hunger, with a permanent loss of historical and beautiful artwork from public view. (Presumably, if money were obtained from selling the artwork, some non-Christians would have to buy it, as no Christian could own it; therefore you would be depending on the money from non-Christians, and therefore evil-doers, to feed the poor.)
How To Get To Heaven
Item 30 again validly criticizes the Catholic Church for its claim that sacraments are a means to eternal life. But again, the fundies also make invalid claims, such as that faith in Jesus is needed to get to Heaven. So what else is new?
Christianity In Sum
In summary, there are valid criticisms of all Christian denominations, including the fundamentalists' own, as each focuses on certain areas of scripture, and applies valid human reasoning to determine what logically follows. But this conflicts with other areas of scripture, and that is what we skeptics say when we say that the Bible contradicts itself.
Mat 7:3 Why do you see the speck in your neighbor's eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye?
The fundies may also direct this at me, but I don't necessarily agree with everything Jesus is alleged to have said, and I think my position is more defensible than that of the Times Square Christians. Nobody's perfect, nor is any book or collection of books perfect.
But Mat 7:3 shows that religious dissension has been around a long time. It is with us today in the Middle East, Bosnia, Ireland, Pakistan, Algeria, ... . All by people with what they see as good motives, including those who preach, or rant, in Times Square.
