Well, fundamentalism is born around 1910-1920 in USA and it have mainly remain a US "problem"... fundamentalist from any religion are a minority... fundamentalist is only a soft word for speak about extremist, not really worth my time... like for statistic, i remove the extreme and keep the median... and participation of church in science have begin long time ago, long before these fundamentalist was born...

The term may have been coined in the U.S but it is certainly not mainly a US "problem". As far as extremism that is normally used in the political spectrum. Hard to differentiate these days because religion and politics often go hand in hand. About the only problem I see with it in the US is the Intelligent Design issue and a few remote instances such as Warren Jeffs and his little FLDS sect. Look elsewhere like the middle east for the "real" problems.

My point earlier in regards to an earlier comment is that Catholicism is not even close to fundamentalism. Most Catholics are more progressive than their church and the Church itself does progress even though it is at a slower pace than it followers, Fundamentalism in the US is usually more directed to specific sects of Protestantism.

Yes, evolution science teaches God does not exist. Darwin's theory is atheistic at its core. Its essence is that God had nothing to do with the creation of life. Organic matter came into being by pure chance and slowly evolved over eons of time into more complex living things through the process of natural selection and through a ceaseless battle for survival.  By teaching God is excluded from Creation, he created a dogma for the emerging new world religion, Atheism. His dogma is preached as true in every government school.

Darwinian Evolution Theory or macro-Evolution is considered sacrosanct in scientific circles today. Anyone who dares express doubt about it is regarded as unfit to be called a scientist.  If you doubt it, and want to open it to scientific criticism, it's a major sin in this up side down world today. 

But ...if Darwinian Evolution is true, and different species evolved from each other over millions of years, then we should have countless proofs, transitional forms showing how this new god, chance, operated. There shouldn't be any difficulty finding abundant evidence everywhere. And the evolutionary scientists went out to collect those transitional forms and found NONE. 

The search for the missing links has been excellently documented by A.N. Field in his book, "The Evolution Hoax Exposed."

You would think that finding no evidence would discourage the Darwin evolutionist scientists. but no...their motive wasn't to get closer to the truth. They were sent  to dig up whatever they wanted and they fabricated a few more ideas and the endless speculation began. They wanted to sow in the idea that Creation was not a Divine act. Voltaire can claim the merit for this since he ridiculted creation. Darwin's idea was so perfect becasue it suited the Atheistic line of thinking. 

So just to be clear, there would be no problem had Darwin left "evolution" as natural selection. That is indeed, true science called microevolution, a natural process. 

But once Darwin formulated his "Origin of the Species", he began to be called the high priest of Atheism. Darwinian Evolution theory has been moved into the ideological realm, a world view I've seen called Evolutionism. It isn't science when it become ideological.  

really? What true science directly contradicts such translations? 

I have some questions that have to do with reason.

Can one reasonable say the origin of man and of life can be explained only by material causes? 

Can matter create intelligence?

Can matter create conscience?

I say these questions cannot be answered sceintifically becasue the scientific method cannot grasp it. Here we can only argue philosophically, metaphysically, or religiously. 

Reason can recognize that matter cannot organize itself. Even young children know this. That it at least needs information and information is an expression of intelligence.  

 

Hey, we agree for a change!  (although I'm not certain about what you mean that most Catholics are more progessive than the Church).

The only thing I would tweak is the use of the term "progressive". 

The Church is progressing through time no doubt about that. The Catholic Church is progressing as in Exodus through time and history on its way to Eternal life. The Church is the New Jerusalem, the Bride, the wife of the Lamb. Christ is the Lamb who awaits His Bride at the end of time. The Book of the Apocalypse describes the Church "progressing" in this way.

Something else...

The CC teaches clearly that after the death of St.John there has been no objective increase in the deposit of Faith, but that there has been progress and development in our understanding of it.

When the CC defines a doctrine, she does not create a new teaching. She simply declares infallibly that this belief is part of the original revelation taught by Jesus Christ and the Twelve Apostles. Before this official declaration the dogma was imp;licitly but not explicitly believed by all Christians.

I'll make this clear by using a comparison.

If by a new powerful telescope I discover a new planet I do not create the planet. I simply add a new fact to the general stock of astronomical knowledge. Whereas men may have questioned its existence before my discovery, they are now no longer free to deny it.

The doctrine of progression and development is taught by Our Lord in the parable of the mustard seed (St.Matt. 13:31) and in His teaching about the guidance of the Holy Spirit (St.John 14:26; 16:13). St.Paul elaborates it in his letter to the Ephesian Church. 4:11-16. He represents the Church as a living body, growing and developing, meeting every attack of heresy, yet continually progressing "in the knowledge of the Son of God."

So when you wrote that the Church itself does progress .... I agree yes we progress only as St.Paul says.. "in the knowledge of the Son of God.". 

So in this sense I'd have to say that most Catholics are not more progressive than the Church! No, no indeed! 

 

  

Not lately.  

Got this in my email today which tells the whole story. 

It is a rare moment indeed when faith denominations of all stripes unite together in common cause, and it is rarer still when that cause is a political one, with a sole piece of legislation as its principal target. But when that law eviscerates the very foundation of religious liberty in America as protected under the First Amendment, it should not be surprising that Catholics and Jews, charismatic evangelical Christians, and mainline Lutherans alike find common cause in defense of their liberties.

Such is the case with the firestorm of opposition to Obamacare and the Obama Administration's attack on religious liberty. Under a new Obamacare mandate issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the White House is mandating that many religious employers, with the exception of churches, provide health care coverage for contraception -- including abortion-inducing drugs -- thereby trampling upon their constitutionally guaranteed free exercise of religion. And it is this mandate that has caused a vehement response in churches and synagogues across the country.

Yesterday, the head of the Catholic League, Bill Donohue, warned that the nation's 70 million Catholics are ready to go to war with the Administration's dictates, saying "Never before, unprecedented in American history, for the federal government to line up against the Roman Catholic Church. This is going to be fought out with lawsuits, with court decisions, and, dare I say it, maybe even in the streets."

Donohue's remarks follow those of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and at least 153 Catholic bishops across the country who have weighed in with opposition to the mandate. "We Catholics will be compelled to either violate our consciences, or to drop health coverage for our employees and suffer the penalties for doing so," wrote Bishop Alexander Sample of Marquette, Michigan. Those penalties include fines imposed by the federal government that could cost larger organizations millions of dollars per year.

The Catholic Church is not alone in its opposition to Obamacare's onslaught against religious freedom. David Addington, The Heritage Foundation's vice president of Domestic and Economic Policy, details the growing ranks of the faithful  who say the Obama Administration has crossed a very dangerous line. The National Association of Evangelicals commented that "The HHS rules trample on our most cherished freedoms and set a dangerous precedent" and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America stated, "In declining to expand the religious exemption within the healthcare reform law, the Obama Administration has disappointingly failed to respect the needs of religious organizations such as hospitals, social welfare organizations and more." The Agudath Israel of America stated its opposition, as did the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod and the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of North and Central America.

The Obama Administration is beginning to feel the pressure. On Sunday, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius authored an op-ed in USA Today defending the Obama Administration's actions, claiming that a very narrow exemption to the mandate is evidence that the White House is "working to strike the right balance between respecting religious beliefs and increasing women's access to critical preventive health services." That exemption, though, does not apply to institutions like religious schools and hospitals. Sebelius might claim the Administration is offering grace to people of faith, but in fact it is not. In an editorial that ran the same day as Sebelius,' USA Today agreed with those standing on the side of religious liberty, writing that "in drawing up the rules that will govern health care reform" the Obama Administration "galloped over" the line and violated the "simple proposition that the government should steer away from meddling in church affairs."

The Obama Administration's actions, though entirely counter to the freedom of religion, should not be surprising given the nature of the President's health care law. Obamacare has given the federal government broad power over one-sixth of the American economy and thereby purports to grant Washington the power to force religious institutions to take actions contrary to their faith. Addington writes  that this kind of concentration of power "has proved to be a drastic and dangerous experiment." America's religious leaders and the faithful have awoken to this wolf at their door and are lashing out in defense of their freedoms. Congress, too, should act now by repealing Obamacare and restoring the religious liberty that is so central to our way of life.

Everything is progressive. We are not going back in time and although religion is usually considered conservative overall it is simply resistance towards faster progress. The most conservative religious sects are either losing membership or not keeping up with population growth. The most conservative religious sects disappear over time if they do not change. The RCC responds to losses in membership and is forced to changed because of this. They resist as much as they can but they do progress because above everything else their driving force is wealth and power which is controlled by membership.

If you want to find true conservatism you are best to look outside the borders of the US. Conservatism in America is a joke. It's not much more than a touchy feely Brand-name. I would probably consider the Amish conservative but not many others than that.

 

Just look at polls. Most Catholics pick and choose what they want to believe is right and wrong.

Its actually a perfect example of politics mixed with religion. The timing of the HHS announcement is all about politics and done purposely to deflate Romney and prolong the fights in the primary since Romney has no legs to stand on with the issue. Romneycare mandated the exact same thing in Massachusetts so in the end all he can do is pull the old Republican standby excuse of states rights. Once they load up on some clips of the candidates stating their opposition to the use of contraceptives the Democratic PACS will unload them on them public.

I am called Bruno because my parents give me these name... if the Christ shall be called Emmanuel, it is because their parents choice the name... after all, people think that the Christ is the son of God and these God father have decide to call it Emmanuel...

But is God really the father of the Christ? In the text, it is wrote that the father will be a descendent of David... it is say that Joseph was from the David house... if joseph is the father, the Christ is not the son of God... in the same time, it explain why the "virgin" translation is wrong since sexual relation is needed between human for make a baby...

I can accept a few mistake in a book big like the bible but there is plenty of scientific mistake, historical error, etc... People like you seek scientific truth in a spiritual book... you fully miss the true spiritual message from the bible... it is because of people like you that i ( and other ) renounce to the christianity...

I am done with these topic... it is not possible to build a serious discussion with someone who use a stupid argument like these that i have quoted in these post...

Because something made by the Gov don't please christian, they react like spoiled baby...

Nobody have complain when the Pledge of Allegiance was modified in 1954 from "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,and to the republic for which it stands; one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all." to "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God,indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."... or when in 1957, the ""In God We Trust" was added on banknote...

A gov is not only there to please christian but other people too... if you are so much again gov, try to build your own politic party... it have happen in europe... there was communist party but they are exctint now, there is christian party but they are dying...

As for the "ready to go to war", it seem like the old crusade... why not restore the inquisition too... well, extremist Christian are not better that extremist Muslim... ready to go to war when somebody don't agree with them... if abortus is bad, God will send these people to hell... christian are not God and are not allowed to judge other... you have the right to prohibith people from your communauty to use abortus but you have no right to limit the freedom from other group...

By the way, why will 70 million Catholics people dictate their own choice to a population of 313 million of people... Democratie is about  the choice of the majority...

I know what you mean, but I was referring to fundamental advocates like Lula who just don’t seem to want to discuss anything besides fundamental Christianity. I have known many some too … and that makes this absurd ‘debate’ even more ridiculous and frustrating.

I know what it says on Wiki … but It is my contention that the Catholic god represented today by the RCC began as a fundamentalist movement to cleans the world of the infidels. And I believe they were still a fundamental majority until the Italian Renaissance where they had to start toning down their rhetoric out of necessity. It took secularism out of the religious dominated medieval period and into the modern age. But the roots of fundamental Christianity seem to be ingrained in the minds of much of the uninformed modern masses which makes communication with them all but impossible. Most of the fundamentalists either ignore the ever slow progressive view of the RCC … or they just make excuses to brush that stuff aside. Lula is a perfect extreme example of how much information can be manipulated to try and prove the improvable. They don’t do this in any logical or ‘common sense’ way … they don’t even try and build a case of their own … they just try to diamante your arguments as invalid with the assumption that they HAVE to be right. I took an interest in Lula a year ago or so not with the idea of changing her beliefs … but to try and open her eyes to the rest of the world, the real world. She just doesn’t want to open her mind … so I officially give up on her (mostly) and I recommend others do likewise unless they are into pain and frustration or are themselves a fundamentalist. You can teach an old dog some new tricks … but you can teach a rock anything and there will be no communicating going on either.

Quoting Lula, “Those penalties include fines imposed by the federal government that could cost larger organizations millions of dollars per year.”  Spot on Smooth, and it goes to show the true value of religious fundamentalism whenever the coffers are threatened.

"Religion" knows what the Holy Bible is. (And I'll get into that later.) It is irreligion and non religion that has to get a grip of what the Bible is.

We have just discussed Isaias 40:22, "Is it he that sitteth on the globe (circle) of the earth?" and we see scientific truth embedded in Sacred Scripture. There are plenty of other texts that reveal historical truth as well.  And with all due respect, I disagree with your assertion that it is "stupid" that Christians point that out.

Yet, the Holy Bible is not a science book and not a history book; it is a religious book that contains religious truths.

We know the Bible contains religious truth (and science and historical truth) becasue God is the principal Author of all 73 Books of the Old and New Testaments. The Vatican Council, after declaring that God's revelation to mankind is contained in the Bible and Tradition and that the canon or list of Sacred Scriptures is complete in the authentic Latin Vulgate translation, plainly taught the doctrine of inspiration.

"The Church holds these books as sacred and canonical, not becasue composed by merely human industry, they were thereupon approved by her authority; nor alone becasue they contain revelation without error; but becasue, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God for their Author, and as such were delivered to the Church herself."

Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical on the HOly Bible, Providentissimus Deus,  explains this divine authorship. He writes:

"God by His supernatural power in such a way incited and moved them (the sacred writers) to write, in sucha way assisted them in writing, that they should rightly  conceive in the mind, and should to write faithfully, and should express fitly with infallible truth, all those things and only those things which He Himself should order; otherwise He would not Himself be the Author of all Sacred Scripture."

So, the inspired writers were not mere passive instruments in their writings, but under the divine action are intelligent, active and free agents. They need not know the fact of their inpsiration, nor do they need in every instatnce a direct revelation from God. For example we know that the author of 2Machabees 2:27 abridged the five books of Jason of Cyrene and athat St.Luke consulted documents and gathered facts from "eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word". Their literary style and wording may be their own so that we find verbal differences among them in the Gospels.

Catholics believe that the divine testimony regarding the inspiration of the Bible was revealed by God to the Church in the days of the Apostles; that it has been preserved always from error by the promises of Jesus Christ; that it has been handed down to us, not merely by human tradition, but by the divine Tradition of the Church, which alone can infallibly interpret it.  

 

   

Perhaps you can understand it better this way. Do you have two names? Bruno and your last name? Well so does Jesus the Christ, "Emmanuel, God with us."

What's more Sacred Scripture tells us God Himself did the naming. God told us through His prophet Isaias that the virgin's child shall be called "Emmanuel, God with us". This was the prophecy.  

The prophecy was fulfilled by the birth of Jesus, the Christ, Emmanuel with us. In St.Luke 1:27-31 we read that God sent His Angel Gabriel to the Virgin Mary and he told her that she would conceive and bring forth a Son and the Angelof God told her to name Him Jesus. But the Virgin Mary was confused as to how that  would be done becasue she was a virgin. Verse 35, the ANgel told her that the Holy Spirit would come upon her and the power of the MOST HIGH would overshadow her and the HOLY that shall be born of her shall be called the Son of God.

This is the "sign" that God Himself promised in His prophecy through Isaias. This is the miraculous Virgin Birth of Our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and true Man. ..Jesus, the Christ, "Emmanuel, God with us" is the fulfillment of that prophecy.

You thought process as indicated in this post makes me wonder if you have every actually read the Bible. Scripture explains that St.Joseph was Jesus' foster father.

 

Well that's mighty big of you accepting a few mistakes ..and scientific mistakes...and historical mistakes in the Holy Bible!!!!  

I think if you will critically examine it, the mistakes come from what you are finding on Wiki.

 

I've already addressed this in my post # 417.

I know that the Bible cannot clash with empirical science. Some hold that empirical science has contradicted the Bible, but this conclusion is wrong. It must be wrong by definition, for God who is the principal Author of the Bible is Omniscient, Truth Itself and free from all error. Since God is both Creator of the universe and all that's in it, including space and time, and since I have faith that God is a trust worthy eye-witness to Creation, and is the principal Author of Scripture, I know the Bible cannot contradict Science.

Yes, i have read it... but it seem that the difference between you and me is that you have only read the bible and nothing other...

I will demonstrate that you are wrong in your previous post about the name thing because you don't know about the hebrew naming convention ( who is not explain in the bible )...

Well, i have a first name ( given name ) who is Bruno and a familly name who is Thoumsin... some local tradition make that i have several middle name too : Alain, Georges, Ghislain...

Well, for keep it simple, because i am called "Bruno Thoumsin", you think that the full name of the Christ is "Jesus Immanuel"... it seem almost good for a 21 century point of view... only problem is that Immanuel is a hebrew given name and not a family name... buti will ignore these little mistake...

Where it is really wrong is that you assume that ancien hebrew have the same naming convention that us...

Family names began to gain popularity among Sephardic Jews in Spain, Portugal and Italy as early as the 10th or 11th century, but did not catch on among the Ashkenazic Jews of Germany or Eastern Europe until much later...

The practice of taking familly names became so common, in fact, that by the 12th century, the rabbis found it necessary to make a takkanah (rabbinical ruling) requiring Jews to have a Hebrew name... so, as today, jews have a name sililar to ours but have a Hebrw name too...

Hebrew names are used in prayer in and out of synagogue and for other religious rituals. When a person is called up in synagogue for an aliyah (the honor of reciting a blessing over a Torah reading), he is called up by his Hebrew name. The names that appear on a ketubah (marriage contract) or on a get (writ of divorce) are Hebrew names. When a people are ill and mi shebeirakh prayers are recited for their well-being, they are identified by Hebrew names. When a deceased person is remembered through the Yizkor prayers recited on certain holidays, the Hebrew name is used. Jewish tombstones sometimes carry the Hebrew name instead of or side-by-side with the secular name.

So let see how was named Hebrew people before the 10th century...

Historically, Hebrew did not have permanent family surnames at all. Within the Hebrew community, they used patronymics, such as David ben (son of) Joseph or Miriam bat (daughter of) Aaron. Names in that form are still used in synagogue and in Jewish legal documents such as the ketubah (marriage contract), but are rare outside of the religious context...

There are really only three surnames that are specifically Hebrew in nature: variations on Cohen, Levy and Israel. These names are derived from tribal ancestry that were recorded by the Jewish people and recognized in synagogue with various distinctions...

The surname Cohen comes from kohein, the Hebrew word for priest, and refers to patrilineal descendants of Aaron. Variations on this surname include Cohn, Cahn, Cone, Kohn, Kahn and more... The surname Levy comes from the biblical tribe of Levi, whose descendants the Levites had distinctive duties in the Temple period. Variations on this surname include Levin, Levine, Levitt and many others. Another specifically Hebrew surname is Israel, which is much less common. Israel basically means the rest of us. Variations on this surname include Israeli, Yisrael, Yisroel, Disraeli and more...

A Hebrew name begins with a given name, followed by ben (son of) or bat (daughter of), followed by the person's father's Hebrew name. If the person is a kohein (descendant of Aaron), the name is followed by "ha-Kohein." If the person is a Levite (descendant of the tribe of Levi), the name is followed by "ha-Levi." If the person or his father is a rabbi, some follow the name with "ha-Rav." This format of naming is seen as early as the Torah where, for example, Moses' successor Joshua is repeatedly referred to as Yehoshua ben Nun (Joshua, son of Nun). Note that the surname is not the same from generation to generation: Abraham's son Isaac is Yitzchak ben Avraham; Isaac's son Jacob is Ya'akov ben Yitzchak, and so forth. Moses' Hebrew name would be Moshe ben Amram ha-Levi (because he is a member of the tribe of Levi but not a descendant of Aaron), while his brother Aaron would be Aharon ben Amram ha-Kohein (because Aaron was a priest).

So, let return to Jesus... well, the real name is not Jesus but Joshua... the hebrew Yehoshua was translated Iesous in Greek... and the Greek Iesous was translated Iesus... in English from the Latin, it become Jesus in place of Joshua if it was directly translated from Hebrew to English... Joshua ( Jesus ) mean "Yahweh ( God ) delivers" or "Yahweh ( God ) rescues"...

So, the real name of Jesus will have be something like "Joshua ben Yosef"... "Joshua ben Yosef ah-kohein" for a descendant of Aaron... "Joshua ben Yosef ah-levi"  for a member of the Levi tribe...

Your impossible "Jesus Immanuel" will have mean "god delivers god with us" or "god rescue god with us"...

Sure that you will find a strange way around the traditional Hebrew naming convention for argument that you are right but i think that other will see that you was wrong about your "Jesus Immanuel"... you cannot compare actual naming convention with the old hebrew one for correct one of the mistake of the bible...

Well, there is plenty of example in the bible that God is not Omniscient...

When God is preparing to go on another murdering spree, he tells the people of Israel to smear blood on their doors so that he’ll know which homes are occupied by his chosen people (Exodus 12:13). With this directive completed, he’s free to kill all the Egyptian firstborn male children without accidentally harming an Israelite, but why does he need blood on the doors to serve as a reminder if he knows everything?

After the creation, God asks Adam to look over the animals and find one “suitable” for him (Genesis 2:18-20). The all-knowing god is absolutely clueless as to what kind of partner Adam might desire. Did he not already realize that he was going to make a woman for him? Isn’t it also disgusting for God to propose that Adam should find an animal to be his sexual companion?

During Noah’s flood, God kills almost the entire world population of humans and animals because the people are evil. Why would an omniscient god lack the common sense to get his creation right the first time so that he isn’t required to redo everything?

Jonah, like Cain before him, was able to leave the presence of God (Jonah 1:3). According to Zephaniah, God will search through Jerusalem with candles and find people who scoff at him (1:12). Why would God need candles to see in the dark?

Judges 1:19 says that God was with the men of Judah in a battle, yet they couldn’t drive out the enemies because the other side was riding upon chariots of iron. Is the super hero "Iron man" more powerful that God !!!

if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you can literally cause a mountain to jump into the sea by telling it to do so (Matthew 17:20 and 21:21).

Lulapilgrim, you seem to have a lot of ( blind ) faith... please, try to move some mountain from a few inch before coming back in these topic... since all who is writen in the bible is true, it will not be a problem for you... since i am not a believer, please use a camera for record the power of your faith... i will not believe what you wrote without serious real evidence...

 

Wrong! Or how would you call the formation of Crystals, snowflakes or other patterns that happen because of molecular properties of anorganic matter? Organisation is not proof of intelligence and intelligence is no proof of organisation.