God

[Bob Hubbard]

Folks, I'm a little late checking in on this party, but going with the intent of the original poster,

P.s Can we have no religeon bashing here.....I just want to here views etc

can we tone it down a bit? Everyone has their own opinions, and I doubt highly that anyone will change their opinions based on a few posts here. This has become a hot subject, and we'd just like to see it stay cool and friendly.

k?

Thanks all.

 

[Master of Blades]

Originally posted by Kaith Rustaz

can we tone it down a bit? Everyone has their own opinions, and I doubt highly that anyone will change their opinions based on a few posts here. This has become a hot subject, and we'd just like to see it stay cool and friendly.

k?

Thanks all.

Was about to say.......It would be very helpful and make it easier to read over :asian:

 

[Blindside]

Jesus!!

You know you just took the Lord's name in vain....

WRONG! You don't know what you are talking about, with such exaggerated simplification.

Well, OK, it was a simplification.

Please describe to me what the purpose of the Roman Catholic Church is. In terms that a layman could understand. Do you take communion or confess to a priest?

If so, why?

If only god can judge you, what need have you for the organized hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church?

Lamont

 

[fist of fury]

Religion and politics 2 subject that are hard to discuss without someone getting mad.

 

[fist of fury]

Ok how about discussing this

The Nine Satanic Statements

from The Satanic Bible, ©1969

by Anton Szandor LaVey



1. Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence!

2. Satan represents vital existence instead of spiritual pipe dreams!

3. Satan represents undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical self-deceit!

4. Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it instead of love wasted on ingrates!

5. Satan represents vengeance instead of turning the other cheek!

6. Satan represents responsibility to the responsible instead of concern for psychic vampires!

7. Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all-fours, who, because of his “divine spiritual and intellectual development,” has become the most vicious animal of all!

8. Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification!



9. Satan has been the best friend the Church has ever had, as He has kept it in business all these years!

 

[Cruentus]

Quizmodus: I think that when you first posted your beliefs, you started off fine, but since your logic has fallen short, I think.

“Given my history, I can absolutely state with all confidence that my lack of belief in a deity-concept is NOT based on ignorance. In my experience, the opposite is true.”

Your assumption is that people choose religion based on ignorance. Then you proceed to broadly generalize people in religion. You forgetting that ignorant people are everywhere, in the religious community as well as outside. If you look around you, it would appear that there is no real correlation between “ignorance” and “religious people.” There are many religious people who are ignorant; there are many atheists who are ignorant. There are also religious people who are not ignorant, and atheists who are no ignorant as well. So to say imply that “People choose religion out of ignorance” is faulty logic, because clearly ignorance and non-ignorance exists on both sides.

“I do believe that religion is generally a crutch for people, for whatever reason”

Could that reason be the same reason why you uphold your beliefs? Could your beliefs be a crutch? Could it be that by your desire to be “better” and “smarter” then the masses, you hold on to the idea that the masses are ignorant because they illogically believe in, as you put it…

“nonsensical thinking: Qi, John Edwards, the Pet Psychic, UFOs, Bigfoot, homeopathics, fortune-telling, Miss Cleo, etc. All of this can be directly traced to religious training.”

Your idea’s certainly place you as better and smarter then all of us, now doesn’t it? Is that your crutch? Are you fulfilling a need to be beyond everyone else?

Maybe an alternative solution might be that religious people aren’t all illogically using religion as a crutch, or as a reason to feel superior, but that they are merely trying to define their own values and beliefs while trying to logically find a purpose in the world, and logically trying to find out how this purpose fits in with an explanation of the world, and they use religion as a means to this. That would also leave you with an alternative; that you are attempting to do the same with your anti-religious beliefs. For the alternative to exist for you, then you would have to acknowledge that the same alternative is there for the religious. This would require you to step down from the pedistal, however, and play on the same field as the rest of us.

“Religion may occasionally benefit individuals, but such benefits are temporary. In the long run, religions can only do harm, both personally and on a global scale.”

You can use bad examples of how evil people have done harm in the name of religion, but this fails to refute the idea’s presented in the religion’s themselves. You can bring up an example of an immoral cult leader who claimed to be a Christian, and I can bring up Mother Theresa. Either way, neither of us are are argueing for or against the religion. We would only be discussing individuals within that religion. And to say that religion only benefits people temporarily is a faulty assumption with no evidence to back the claim; just as is your argument on religion only doing harm on a global scale. You broadly generalize while failing to look at all of the facts (such as the potential good religion may have done). That my friend, is illogical.

“But then, it's much simpler and probably more self-validating to dismiss my beliefs and lack of belief as ignorance. That very neatly sidesteps the necessity to examine your own beliefs in order to understand mine. Examining one's closely-held beliefs is possibly the most psychologically painful process a person can experience, especially when those beliefs have been taught to you since before you you could speak.”

But, are you not doing the same to people are religious? You have clearly dismissed religious people as being ignorant. I wonder if this neatly sidesteps the necessity for you to examine your beliefs in order to understand someone elses. The argument applies to you just the same.

“I've tried to keep my writing as emotionless as possible, but this is such a touchy subject.”

It’s a touchy and emotional subject for you partially because, as you said, examining one’s closely held beliefs is possibly the most psychologically painful process a person can experience. Maybe that is why you “sidestep” other beliefs as well, maybe your just as afraid to lose your resolve or redefine your values just as much as the masses.

“Johnathan Napalm, you wish not to be sterotyped, yet you give a stereotypical reply. You failed to read and understand ANY point in my post, and instead of responding rationally, you counter-attacked with an emotional, baseless diatribe. I could have re-constructed your post almost verbatim from various discussions with other theists over the past few years.

That's why I don't usually engage in these debates. I cannot use reason to oppose emotion, and religions are entirely emotional.”

I’m sure you may consider your replies unique for most atheists, and Jonathans to be stereotypical. Does that make you better? Considering that it would appear that you are doing the exact same thing that you blame theists for doing (such as stereotyping, sidestepping arguments, using your arguments to put you on a pedistle above the masses, and using empty logic to base your arguments), I would hazard to guess that you are no better at all. Considering this, I also believe based on the structure of your argument that you use the ruse of “reason” to hide your underlying negative "emotion" towards the religious. If this is true then this is probably worse then argueing with emotion alone because you are lying to yourself. You see religion and religious arguements are not entirely emotional to me, but it certainly is to you, as you have proven with your own words.

“The word is actually "poisoner", but that didn't stop the religiously motivated murder of hundreds of thousands of innocents througout the middle ages.

But that is only part of the harm that I'm referring to. What I tend to be concerned about is the psychological harm that religious training inflicts, especially in early childhood. I was trained to take things on faith. Don't question. Doubting Thomas was the bad guy, because he didn't believe until shown the holes. The lesson, of course, is to accept what your told without question, without doubt, often in spite of evidence to the contrary. Another point of harm, and this is more tenuous, but still significant in my opinion, is the underlying lesson in most modern religions, and that is the lesson of unworthiness. Children are taught that they are evil by nature, unworthy to exist from birth, and can only be "saved" through the abrogation of self-responsibililty to an external, absolute "moral" authority. If anyone can explain to me how it is not psychologically harmful to constantly tell children that they are evil and unworthy, I'll send them a dollar.

Don't try to tell me it isn't this way. The unworthiness of the human condition is the very very basic tenet of christianity, as is unquestioning, unexamined faith.”

You are taking a scripture out of context, and a bad example of “bad people” and using it for an argument against religion. That logic is just as faulty as the people in the middle ages who did the same; taking scripture out of context, and using faulty examples. Luckily for you people haven’t been killed by your faulty logic, but I would hate to see you in a place of power.

It also sounds like your bringing up a bad example of how to expose children to religion. Is this something that you were exposed to? I know that I was, and it turned me away for quite some time. Hopefully your not using your personal bad experience to base your views on an entire religion. It would be one thing to say that you have difficulty with religion because of what you had been exposed to as a child. It’s entirely another to base your belief system on your personal difficulties while trying to find alternative arguments for it all the while. If that is the case then what you are doing is no better then those who blindly follow what the religious say. For purposely going against what the religious say just for the sake of not following them (then finding later justification for your actions) is just as blind.

By the way, the unworthiness of human condition is an inherent Christian doctrine, but presenting it to Children in the manner you purpose is not. It does not and should not have to be presented in a manner that it scars the child. You also lump in “unquestioning, unexamined faith” which totally false in your pretense. It is definatily O.K. examine your faith, for open-minded doubt is the sibling of faith. Doubting Thomas wasn’t the bad guy; he was still an apostle and saint. He just needed more convincing then the average person. Judas was (one of the) bad guys, who knew the “truth” yet sold out anyways. Get it straight.

“Not once did I ever make judgements of believers in my posts. All I did was express my opinions of RELIGIONS. You chose to take those opinions are attacks on your person. Whose fault is that?”

It’s YOUR fault, quizmodus. You blantently said that religious people are ignorant. Read what you wrote, and don’t try to play it out like your posts haven’t been an attack to religious people, as well as religions in general. I am not offended by you, you are at least very cordial in your arguments, but that doesn’t change the fact that you have been attacking all along.

“It is true that "evil" isn't an attribute of the art, or of the weapon. But regardless of intent or attitude, if I hit you in the throat with a swordhand, you'll still die. And, in the same light, if a child is taught to be unworthy, he/she will fell unworthy.”

Just as you feel “unworthy” today. This is why you have designed your beliefs as they are, to place you in a more logical and comfortable place, above everyone else. This is just my perception. I am very sorry that your experiences have been what they have. Please understand, once again, that the doctrine you refer to wasn’t designed to make kids feel like crap. It was designed so that a person will have humility and recognize a higher power out there beyond himself, one that he must turn to for guidance. We turn to the higher power and other people because no one person has all the answers, and no one can survive completely by themselves. This doctrine needs to be presented to children when they are ready to hear it (not when they are too young), and with care so they don’t get the wrong idea.

Well, I think I have said enough. I don’t mean to slam you, and I am not angry at you, or anything like that. It’s just that you felt that the argument against you on this thread wasn’t logical enough. So, I felt compelled to give you some logic from a different perspective. I’m sure I haven’t convinced you to want to change your beliefs by refuting you, but I just hope that someone like yourself and others here who sound intelligent enough will keep looking for answers. You certainly don’t have them all, nor do I. Just keep searching, and don’t brush off ideas because of your predispostition against them due to bad experience, or because you’ve looked into it “before”.

And, keep writing them codes, and practicing in your office! I don’t write code, but I practice in my office just the same!

PAUL

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

Originally posted by qizmoduis
You said atheists were arrogant and narrow-minded, who rejected god-belief out of ignorance. I never claimed anything about YOU personally, nor did I have anything to say about how you live your life. It is not my fault that you took my explanations concerning MY beliefs as a personal attack on YOU.

WRONG! I said, atheists are ignorant and arrogant in their presumptuous condemnation of people they don't even know,based on these people's belief . I never have any problem with what your accept or reject for yourself. OTOH, your disparaging remark about the majority of people as being hateful, needing a crutch, incapable of independent thinking, subject to manipulation by religion. Now, how can any one take that as an insult?

You are putting words in my mouth (ok, on my monitor). But, I will say, that you cannot separate religion from the crimes, since it is the religion itself, and it's power structures, that enable it's misuse. In fact, I submit that the misuse of religion is actually part of what gives it such power as it has and has had in the past.

Does misuse of guns make guns evil? Does misuse of martial art make martial art evil? Heck. Neither can you separate these from the crimes. It is the inherent firepower of the firearms and the killing power of martial art that make them powerful too!

I saw you condemning atheists as ignorant and arrogant. I never condemned your way of life.

Oh, and you are absolutely incorrect about the church's teachings on original sin. Allowing the possibility that a person can escape their human heritage of "sin" is not any kind of a change in their teachings, just a modern waffling on the subject so they won't be viewed as bigotted against non-Catholics.

Allow me to clarify that one more time. Someone's denomination or religion is NEVER EVER a concern of mine. It is only important to me what kind of a person he/she is. I have zero problem with atheists. I only have problem with them making presumptuous comment about people they don't even know based on those peoples' religions.

As for your comment on the heritage of "sin", I'll pass on that one, as you already think you know so much about the institition whitewashing itself already. So it is pointless.

 

[Blindside]

I think I'll go ahead and take a break here, besides its lunchtime.

Thanks for the debate all, I do wish we had more supporters of various other religions here. At times I felt sorry for Mr. Napalm because he was outnumbered and outgunned. To be fair to him his religion is one of the biggest and most obvious targets available so there is alot of ammo to throw downrange so to speak.

I would be interested in the perspective of other religions, particularly Judiasm, Buddhism, or Shinto(ism?) but that is because those were the religions that my parents were raised in.

Props to Fist and Qiz for being in this little match.

Lamont

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm
@ Qiz

No. I only state that you are wrong and ignorant in your attack on religion and religious people. I don't condemn atheists for their belief. Never did I once state that atheists are to be condemned for what they believe. I am only pissed that when atheists are telling me what I think, or what I believe, when they have no idea what I think or believe. I don't pound on you for how you want to live your life, rather you have no business in telling me how I am living my life.

I have been saying that you are wrong in generalizing religious people as mindless idiots who can't think for themselves. And you are wrong in condemning religion for the crimes committed by people who misused religion.

Did you see me condemning the atheist's way of life?

First, go back and read my original post for more information about me.

Second, In General Napalm, there are more people of faith / belief and religions that are condemning people for not believing their way, then there are non-believers who state that religion is . . . ,.

Why??? Well you see people believe because they were told to believe this way because their parents believed this way. This is not Faith by Choice as Paul as pointed out, but faith by guilt or blind ignorance. In my life I have seen more religious people / families / women who will tell me that " I AM WRONG!" for not being a "Fill in the Blank" and the go out and have un safe sex or get an abortion when their faith / religion does not allow this. You see us people on the fringe and the non-believers all try to just live our lives and some of us are good and some of are bad. Yet, almost every day we see priests and ministers in the news about driving drunk or an attack on a child, or know of some parishioner who is sleeping with another, yet they are not married to each other but to other people. Many times it is the people who scream the loudest about something that have the most to hide on that subject. The raving homophobe because he has some deep feeling he might be one, or the person who still is questioning their belief yet they scream down others so that they themselves do not get called into question. The people who accuse their spouses of cheating are many times felling guilty and accuse their spouse of this act to avoid the challenge to themselves.

Now, Napalm this is not an attack on you, nor is it a condemnation of all religions, it just a statement from what I have seen.

Now, let me look at history, in the Name of God the Copernicus was killed for his science about the world being round and that the earth rotated around the sun. Yes at one time this belief was a crime that the CHURCH required him to be imprisoned. He was slipped Hemlock to allow himself to kill himself and die and not live in jail for the rest of his life. Now, I know you are not going to jail me. Yet can you deny that there are people out there that would like to get rid of all of us sinners. Or how about getting rid of all of the Non-Christians in the USA for our own security. So, on the points that evolution was Crammed down your or other throats, I ask for you tolerance on this issue. As I gave tolerance on the issue of separation of Church and State In the US Constitution, when it came to being FORCED to recite the Pledge of allegiance with "UNDER GOD!", Which was added back around the turn of the 19th to 20th century by religious conservatives. The same was done to our money. Personally I believe the US Constitution give you and everyone else the right to belief the way you want, just do not tell me I am wrong and do not tell me I have to believe in GOD on my currency and in my pledge to my country which was based upon religious freedoms as one of the driving forces.

If you truly desire to have a state religion and to determine the correct belief system, then you need to get a referendum. Now, I am not saying you personally have stated this, I am just making an argument here (* Look up Argument in the Dictionary *). If you the Christian desires that Christianity be the national religion please get it passed as an amendment to the US Constitution. Just becareful, since the Muslim Belief is the largest concentrated belief system in the USA. WAIT WAIT!, yes there might be a few more Christians total of you count all Christians, I just do not see all the Christians getting together and deciding that a generic Christianity is what is required. I know that the Catholics would not allow this. (* Sorry Paul et al *), yet They do not allow their children to be members of things like Young Life a generic Christian group for children. And id the Catholics pull out, I am sure the rest will splinter as well. I made this argument on another post here in the Lock Room.


My Point is that there are more Religions people out there who tell other religious people and non-believers that they are wrong and or doing it incorrectly and or condemning them to hell then the non-believers and fringe questioning people who are telling people how to act or belief.

Now Napalm thank you for being such a good sport and allowing me to direct this Diatribe at you, even though it most certainly was not a direct attack on you, only a response to many of your posts and the posts of others.

 

[Cruentus]

I just want to clarify a few things about Catholicism...

#1. The church judges what is a sin and what is not based on traditional teachings and scripture. It is not and has never been the job of the church to judge individuals. Humans cannot judge who is going to heaven or hell, that is Gods job. Many people, including some practicing Catholics, are confused by this and often make the mistake of judging. You will not, however, find an ounce of Catholic doctrine that says it is O.K. to judge people, this is one major reason why I chose to be Catholic.

#2 The heiarchy of the Church is there to protect the doctrine and the teachings of the church, teachings which have been around since the churches existance. This goes back to the time of the apostles when St. Peter (who we claim as the first "pope") was trying to establish the Christian Church in Rome, St. Paul was evangelizing and "correcting" incorrect teachings that were being taught in the name of christianity in other far off lands (letters of Paul). This was a small example of "church heiarchy".

With a the heeiarchy, it is not so easy for someone to misinterprete scripture, or change doctrine to suit their needs, at least not within the church. This is why the heiarchy exists, it is the attempt by the Catholic Church to keep the teachings as pure as possible, and as close to those of Jesus.

Now that I have clarified, blindside don't tell me "that's not what the Catholic Church does." I'm a Catholic, for crying out loud. That would be like you saying that your church believes God, and I say "no it doesn't because blah blah blah." You would be annoyed if I did that I'm sure, and you've done that more then once to Johnathan Napalm.

Everyone else....it was nice talkin to yea, but I'm out. It's almost 3 o'clock, and I haven't gotton a lick of work done. It will be interesting to see where this post has gone by tomorrow.

 

[qizmoduis]

I'm out too, for now. I think I've said (and mis-said) enough for today, and I've got work to do too. This kind of debate is just too darned enticing!

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

@ Rich Parson
I have equal contempt for fanatics on both sides and in any religion, including Catholicsm. You won't see me defending the recalcitrant religious nuts throwing Bible at people's face. You won't see me following everything Vatican says. Heck, you won't see that many Catholics following everything Vatican says neither.

On religions, the biggest problem is people all too often mistakenly ignore the human factor as the culprit and blame the religion itself. To me that is like blaming guns for murder, and blaming cars for accidents, or blaming martial art for assault. Missing the point totally. It is the morons and idiots and crooks and criminals and power hungry political hacks that hijack the legitimate tools for criminal activities.

In your post, you listed all these so called "religious people" , they are nothing more than "judgemental people hiding behind the Bible". They interpret the Bible their own way and label it as Christianity. Just because these people who call themselves Christian, make assertion and proclaimation in the name of Christianity, does not make it the Gospel truth (no pun intended). You have to ask yourself "Is this the way God really is, as these people claim?" "Would God disown you because you don't believe him?" "Would you parents disown you because you hate them?" Heck I am sure they wouldn't be thrilled about it, but they wouldn't put a contract out on your head! Would God be less than your parents?

It goes back to separating Christianity from the human frailty that has distorted its teaching.

As for the separation of Church and State, that is worthy of another thread on its own lol

I just want to state that when I disagree with someone's views, it has nothing to do with the person himself/herself. Reasonable people can and often do disagree on issues.

 

[qizmoduis]

Originally posted by qizmoduis
That IS the New Testament.

Referring to "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"

D'oh! Sorry, this actually is the OT. Exodus, to be exact. My apologies. Doesn't change this little phrase's place in history, however.

 

[fringe_dweller]

Damn the time difference!!!! Just got into work and look what I find - six pages of thread.

Just to add my 1c to this debate (australian currency being what it is) I find a lot of parallels between religion and martial arts.
There are people from both systems who just go along and have a good time, there are those who are active recruiters (or religious/ma nuts if you prefer).
With ma/religion there are many different types and only some people within those types who seek to claim that their style is the best and only true style. Splinter groups have formed within styles, you have "mcdojos" and money grabbing churches (and just as not all kma's are mcdojos not all churches are after your money).

What does that have to do with anything? Not a lot really - just dawned on me how similar things are and thought it might provide something new to the thread.

Respectfully,

 

[Abbax8]

Well, OK, it was a simplification.

Please describe to me what the purpose of the Roman Catholic Church is. In terms that a layman could understand. Do you take communion or confess to a priest?

If so, why?

If only god can judge you, what need have you for the organized hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church?

Lamont


__________________
If I may enter the discussion. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that Communion, The Holy Eucharist, is the True Body and Blood of Christ, and that HE instituted the Eucharist at the Last Supper. This has been a teaching of the church since Apostolic Times. Confession also is ancient although it has gone through some changes over the milleniums. Basically it comes from Christ telling the Apostles "whoever sins you forgive are forgiven them. Whoevers sins you held bound, are held bound."By the way, if anyone trully wishes to know waht the Church teaches and WHY, read the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Peace
Dennis

 

[arnisador]

Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm
WRONG! I said, atheists are ignorant and arrogant in their presumptuous condemnation of people they don't even know,based on these people's belief .

Anyone else see the irony in this statement?

 

[TLH3rdDan]

wow! damn work lol i missed all this... well im not chiming in here for much but i think that one of the main points that someone brought up was missed back when this discussion... which is what does faith give you? why is faith important to your life?

p.s. this is just out of curiousity and not meant to single out any one person or religious sect

 

[Nate_Hoopes]

Heres what i know about the whole religion thing... No one not one of us in the whole world can PROVE either side of the coin. However that being said, I dont believe in a god because one simply dosent make any sense to me, too far fetched, and i can equate all the bible stories or whatever you would like to call them as being simply stories of fairy tales.




That being said
I saw a comic a couple weeks ago, bizzaro to be more specific. I tired to find it but perhaps a description will do.

It showed two cave men running one carrying a spear, the other yells to him "No, Wait, first we have to invent religion to justify our actions.... Then we invent war."

Just something to think about.

 

[Blindside]

the biggest problem is people all too often mistakenly ignore the human factor as the culprit and blame the religion itself. To me that is like blaming guns for murder, and blaming cars for accidents, or blaming martial art for assault. Missing the point totally.

Your analogy of religion to guns or martial arts is flawed. The problem with that statement is that a religion is made up of people, and it sets itself up to have some sort of morality or ethic. So when said religion is twisted into violating those ethics it is a huge transgression. A gun is ianimate, martial arts are a skill, religion is represents morality. If a religion has a significant number of events in its history that transgress the bounds of its own self-described morality, then people had better start questioning it.

To blame the flawed humans for being guilty of the bad things that were done in the name of the religion is a cop out. If fifteen of my martial arts students go out and start randomly beating people up and maiming them, I will be looked on as a poor teacher at the very least. Maybe I won't be found guilty in a court of law, but certainly in the eyes of the public. And the counter argument of "but the art is pure" is feeble at best.

A religion that has numerous atrocities commited in its name had better admit that its teachings have several problems. But instead those organizations cannot admit they were wrong, because then they admit that they aren't a good interpretation of the word of god.

Lamont

 

[Dennis_Mahon]

Rich Parsons:

Now, let me look at history, in the Name of God the Copernicus was killed for his science about the world being round and that the earth rotated around the sun. Yes at one time this belief was a crime that the CHURCH required him to be imprisoned. He was slipped Hemlock to allow himself to kill himself and die and not live in jail for the rest of his life.

What exactly is your source for that statement? History records that Nicolaus Copernicus (also known as "Rheticus", due to his familial origins in Feldkirch, in ancient Rhaetia, Switzerland) died at Frauenburg, 24 May, 1543, from what appeared to be complications from a stroke. He was at no time imprisoned by the Church, nor forced to recant his position on the heliocentric system; indeed, if it were not for the entreaties of Cardinal Schonberg, of Bishop Giese of Clum, and other leaders of the Church, the "Six Books on the Revolutions of the Celestial Orbits" might never have been writen, his theory instead being transmitted secretly to his students as the Pythagoreans did. Heilocentric theory only came to criticism seventy-three years later, when Galileo broke his agreement with the Church. It was forbidden by the Congregation of the Index on 5 March, 1616, and reinstated in 1620 after editing. The original manuscript was dedicated to Pope Paul III, and is in the family library of the Counts Nostitz in Prague.