> As to Catholicism, there was a lot of good stuff going on during the 60's
> and 70's, but that's been been taken care of. No more Vatican II
> evidently. As to protestantism, there is certainly an impressive
> intellectual tradition in its origins, but at this point, the average
> protestant where I'm from knows very little about the Bible (which is
> kinda depressing given the origins of protestantism) Although personally,
> I agree with Spinoza that the core kernel of Christianity is not terribly
> complicated at all, and that the general attempt to make religion into
> philosophy is an act of mystification. robert wood
>
>
There are plenty of folks who consider themselves "Vatican II" Catholics
(true that the church leaders are pushing away from that), myself & my wife
included. Thomas Merton, Daniel & Ted Berrigan, etc. figure largely. Folks
like Joan Chittester carry on that side of things. While I disagree w/ him
on lots of things, Andrew Sullivan is as good on Catholicism as anyone I
know of.
--peter keane
> > Chris on the superiority of Catholicism to Mormonism
> >
> >> There may be a Mormon equivalent to Thomas Aquinas or Duns Scotus
> >> out there, but if so I haven't heard of him.
> >
> > To which, Doug replies
> > 'They've been dead for 700 years! Today, we've got the cretinous Ratso. '
> >
> > But you could add James Connolly, Muriel Spark, Chico Mendes, Graham
> > Greene, who are more contemporaneous.
> >
> > Still, I think Protestantism is a definite social advance on Catholicism,
> > but Mormonism is definitely a slide back into worse mumbo-jumbo than
> > Catholicism, what with the burning salamanders, re-discovered metal books
> > and lost tribes of Israel and all.
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >
> >
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>