RSS

Cardinal Christians

23 May

multi_cardinalVjack has written a couple of hard-hitting posts about the Roman Catholic Church’s coverup of nearly a century’s worth of child abuse in Ireland. All of you atheists can guess what happened – a Christian came along and tossed out the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. Yes, I know, it’s hard to believe anyone would say such a thing at an atheist blog. Nevertheless, it happened.

This Christian explained that the Church officials who abused the children and the Church officials who engaged in the coverup were Cardinal Christians. I howled with laughter. The word is “carnal,” not cardinal. In evangelical circles, the phrase “carnal Christian” describes a person who has been saved, but is not yet living a fully committed Christian life (as defined by holier-than-thou Christians, of course). A carnal Christian is one who is still too attached to worldly, fleshly things and not attached strongly enough to spiritual things. A carnal Christian is saved, but just barely. Consequently, the testimony of a carnal Christian is weak because his or her life is not filled and overflowing with the Holy Spirit’s power, and the carnal Christian’s life is frustrated because he or she has one foot in the world and one foot in heaven, so to speak. The carnal Christian needs to surrender completely to God in order to experience fully the presence of the Holy Spirit and the abundant joy of the Christian life. So they say. Hey, don’t look at me – I didn’t make up this stuff, I’m just passing it along.

In short, the problem is being carnal; it has nothing to do with cardinals (except, of course, for those Cardinals who are carnal).

It’s probably too much to ask that the fundogelicals who comment on atheist blogs master their own Christian-speak before hurling it at heathen heads. Those inclined to do so can stop in at the chapel if they need help learning their lingo.

– the chaplain

About these ads
 
25 Comments

Posted by on May 23, 2009 in humor, religion

 

25 responses to “Cardinal Christians

  1. PhillyChief

    May 23, 2009 at 9:44 am

    A carnal Christian is saved, but just barely.

    Well that sounds like the perfect deal then for them.

     
    • Postman

      May 26, 2009 at 11:19 am

      I’ve got to agree. Isn’t saved like horseshoes and hand-grenades? There’s no such thing as close.

       
  2. Lorena

    May 23, 2009 at 9:52 am

    The people who are committing these terrible acts and those who are in complete public denial are Cardinal Christians.

    Oh my gosh, Chappie! I read the first instance and thought, “spelling mistake.” Then I read it again….and was puzzled. The person seems articulate enough. Learning disabilities, maybe? In which case, perhaps the Christian hasn’t prayed enough for healing or God is testing his faith.

    Cute cardinal, BTW.

     
  3. the chaplain

    May 23, 2009 at 10:02 am

    Philly:
    One can hardly blame someone for taking the salvation and leaving behind the holy baggage. It may even be rather rational. :)

    Lorena:
    I wish I could take credit for the cardinal – I found it on the web. As for the Christian commenter, yeah, the first instance could have been a spelling mistake. But, since it occurred again in the same comment, one can only surmise that it was deliberate. Apparently, he really believes that the term is cardinal rather than carnal.

     
  4. vjack

    May 23, 2009 at 10:06 am

    Thanks for writing this and for your comment to the Christian who wrote this. I can refer anyone here who makes similar claims.

     
  5. ozatheist

    May 23, 2009 at 10:18 am

    Re your last paragraph:

    It amazes me how many religious people know less about their religion than the atheists whose sites they comment on.

     
  6. ArchangelChuck

    May 23, 2009 at 11:42 am

    “It amazes me how many religious people know less about their religion than the atheists whose sites they comment on.”

    The flock doesn’t care about their religion, they’re only paying lip service and jumping through the hoops to try and impress Geebus. It makes Geebus facepalm and lol, but he’s hardly impressed. I know this, of course, because he told me so.

     
    • Postman

      May 26, 2009 at 11:24 am

      Hey, that’s fortuitous. The next time you talk to Him, ask Him what happened to that bike I prayed for when I was 8 years old.

       
  7. cl

    May 23, 2009 at 1:32 pm

    I get the same reaction when atheists mangle science.

     
  8. quantum_flux

    May 23, 2009 at 3:25 pm

    Golly, carnal, that’s a scary word for a Christian and a sad word to describe the Christian’s state of mind. It is basically an ultimatum statement that Christians use that says “abide by the words of the holy crap or else lose social status among your insane peers”. This is peer pressure to live a life of delusion. I would much rather a carnal christian renounce christianity altogether than to become an extremist in the ways of bullshit.

     
  9. plum grenville

    May 23, 2009 at 5:45 pm

    Never having heard of carnal Christians, I read “Cardinal Christians” as an anti-Catholic jibe, implying that these “Christians” were more devoted to their Cardinal (it was capitalized after all) than to True Christianity – a variation on the idea that Catholics mindlessly do whatever the Pope tells them to.

     
  10. (((Billy)))

    May 23, 2009 at 5:54 pm

    Isn’t Augustine credited with: “Lord, give me virtue. But not yet”? (or a variation thereof)

     
  11. seantheblogonaut

    May 23, 2009 at 11:19 pm

    I get the same thing when cl mangles logical fallacies:p

     
    • PhillyChief

      May 24, 2009 at 1:29 pm

      I’ve never seen him mangle one. He commits them quite effectively. :)

       
      • Kagehi

        May 24, 2009 at 9:24 pm

        Yeah. To him, science implies god, somehow, so QED, anyone that doesn’t agree with such a position has the science wrong, and is probably an atheist. Only interpretations that support the premise are “valid” interpretations of science, just like the only *correct* interpretations of random lines taken from the Bible are those that support an all loving god. All other interpretations, especially in context, of the same lines/passages are “wrong”, by his own ex nihilo definition.

         
  12. Spanish Inquisitor

    May 24, 2009 at 2:45 pm

    And I thought Carnal Christians were the ones who simply liked sex. As opposed to those whose lineage will soon die out.

     
    • (((Billy)))

      May 25, 2009 at 7:27 am

      They don’t like sex, but the guys do it to prove that they aren’t teh gay, and the women do it because the Bible says that they are supposed to. So no, that lineage doesn’t die out. Even the priests and monks occasionally impregnate women just to show they can (and to prove that, despite all we read about the altar boys, they aren’t gay, either).

      I think the worst quote that I heard from this whole thing (and there have been lots of unbelievable ones) (and, of course, I can’t find the exact quote, so I will paraphrase): we knew it was sinful, but we didn’t think it was illegal.

       
      • The Ridger

        May 25, 2009 at 9:08 pm

        Actually, this was a different abusive priest entirely.

        In the early years of the sex abuse scandal in Milwaukee, retired Archbishop Rembert G. Weakland says in his soon-to-be released memoir, he did not comprehend the potential harm to victims or understand that what the priests had done constituted a crime.

        “We all considered sexual abuse of minors as a moral evil, but had no understanding of its criminal nature,” Weakland says in the book, “A Pilgrim in a Pilgrim Church,” due out in June.

        Weakland said he initially “accepted naively the common view that it was not necessary to worry about the effects on the youngsters: either they would not remember or they would ‘grow out of it.’ ”

        (source: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel)

        The Irish priests were far more likely to come out with the “if we do it it’s not illegal” line…)

         
        • (((Billy)))

          May 26, 2009 at 5:14 pm

          Sorry. You are, of course, correct. I conflated two of the abuse stories. Hard to keep them all straight.

           
  13. Eshu

    May 25, 2009 at 3:55 am

    Is this “carnal” definition one that’s usually made after they’ve done something bad? It seems to me that the people who turn out not to be “true” Christians leads me to wonder if there are any true Christians at all.

     
    • Kagehi

      May 25, 2009 at 4:51 pm

      Sure there are, you prove it the same way as Eward Current proved that his “cat” was saved. Hand a baby a Bible, and if he/she chews on it, they “recognize god”, and are, “true Christians”. Its just terribly unfortunate that 100% of them “fall from grace”, even when read to from it for years, preached to, brainwashed, and possibly beaten, to prevent them later rejecting it, or doing ungodly things. lol

       
  14. athinkingman

    May 28, 2009 at 2:54 am

    Even if we allow (and I won’t) that they were ‘carnal’ Christians, it still ought to be worrying for the Roman Catholic Church that so many of its spiritual leaders are ‘carnal’. And, of course, the carnality continues – not only I suspect in continued sexual abuse, but in the abuse of the refusal to bring the guilty to justice and to expect the Irish taxpayer to pay for most of the compensation.

     
  15. Eric Richardville

    May 29, 2009 at 3:39 am

    A least they weren’t blue jay Christians.

     
  16. Acidri

    February 17, 2010 at 8:56 am

    You will find the article by Craige Lewis on the Carnal Church rather tongue in cheek but interesting.http://7drizzles7.wordpress.com/2010/02/17/10-signs-of-a-carnal-church/

     
  17. the chaplain

    February 17, 2010 at 9:45 am

    Acidri:
    Thanks for guiding me to an entertaining post.

    Lewis hit the target squarely with # 10 & 9, but they’re at the wrong end of his list. #10 = “Cash Money Evangelists” and #9 = “Financial Focus.” Most of the remainder of his list is hilarious, absolutely side-splitting stuff:

    # 8 = Bad language – a warning not to heed a pastor who cusses
    # 7 = Divorce rate – a warning not to attend a church with a high divorce rate among its members; he should be careful with this one, as it eliminates an awful lot of fundogelical churches.
    # 6 = Sinful alliances – ah, judge the pastor by his associates. Guilt by association is a logical fallacy, not to mention that Jesus allegedly hung out with sinners and castigated Pharisaical saints.
    # 5 = Homosexuals and lesbians – can’t have them in the churches – they’ll contaminate the straights.
    # 4 = Club attire “If the pastor wears an earring, don’t get out of the car!” says it all.
    # 3 = Secular remakes – can’t corrupt church with contemporary songs, media, etc.
    # 2 = Obamania – “If you hear about the president every week and your pastor has gone off the deep end trying to weave him into every sermon on a weekly basis, then you know it’s time to go!” I assume this rule applied to Bushmania too?
    # 1 = God said stay – this is a warning against allowing a pastor to browbeat one into submission. I agree with this one.

    Overall, # 1, 9 & 10 made some sense – if one is inclined to grace a church with one’s presence (and money – god always needs money). Fortunately, most of my readers and I ignore lists like these and celebrate our Sunday mornings with leisurely brunches, golf, etc. We’re looking forward to the day when more people will join us in our faithfree pursuits.

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 106 other followers

%d bloggers like this: