This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
The Easter spirit - bringing discussion back into Randomness.
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Catholics believe that Christianity evolves and changes through the years.
I would agree with you, except I know you mean something completely different than I do.
Does the Truth change? No. Do the circumstances within which we receive and live the Truth change? Yes. The Church is a living instrument. It will always be centered around the unchanging Truth, but it must take into account the circumstances.
Secondly, don't try to invoke
sola scriptura
. Where in the Bible does it say that the Church can only teach from the Bible? It's one of the silliest things ever to assail Christianity.
Most Catholics I know have a painting, a photocopy, a statue, depicting the image of Mary, at their workplace, in their car, at their home.
And I've got pictures of Saint Michael, Saint Anthony, and Padre Pio right beside my computer. What does that have to do with anything? Images are an instrument used by the human psyche for contemplation. Do I worship the piece paper? No. Do I worship the saint? No. The icons are tools, aids for praying.
The issue of sainthood is that people are praying to the relevant saints for those saints to *provide a cure*, not for those saints to appeal to God to provide a cure. There is a subtle difference, but a difference, nonetheless. And again, this is likely to be an individual thing, rather than an institutional thing. The problem is that it's the institution's practices that result in the individuals having a... 'questionable' practice.
Here's a prayer I happen to have right beside me. It's on the back of a holy card from a rather popular collection.
Saint Peregrine, patron of cancer patients:
O great St. Peregrine, you have been called "The Mighty," "The Wonder-Worker," because of the numerous miracles which you have obtained from God for those who have had recourse to you.
For so many years you bore in your own flesh this cancerous disease that destroys the very fibre of our being, and who had recourse to the source of all grace when the power of man could do no more. You were favoured with the vision of Jesus coming down from His Cross to heal your affliction.
Ask of God and Our Lady, the cure of the sick whom we entrust to you.
(Pause here and silently recall the names of the sick for whom you are praying)
Aided in this way by your powerful intercession, we shall sing to God, now and for all eternity, a song of gratitude for His great goodness and mercy.
Amen.
If you want to come to certain conclusions about Catholics, fine. Just be mindful of the fact that you are seeing things from the outside. As a Catholic, I can say that idolatry is not a prevalent problem among Catholics.
Post by
Squishalot
This belief by Catholics that Christianity is defined, not by Christ, but by its followers, is evidenced:Go to a Christmas vigil mass at a Catholic church. Then tell me Christmas is not about Christ.
Now, ask a Catholic to point to where Christmas is taught in the Bible..... hmm... not so much. Now, I believe that followers of Christ have more important things to worry about than the secularization of an already secular holiday, but that's just me, aparantly.
I agree with MyTie, to an extent. The celebration of Christ's birth and death are things that the disciples and other followers institutionalised. While it may not be explicitly mentioned in the Bible, it would be fair to say that in following what the Bible says about what the disciples taught, you should reasonably follow what the disciples actually did.
I can honestly say that I've been to a couple of Christmas and Easter vigil masses at a Catholic church. Certainly, there is plenty to demonstrate that their celebration is about Christ. Just as certainly, however, there is little to demonstrate that their celebration is
required
in order to worship Christ.
One of my best friends is currently overseas. Her birthday is coming up. Should I throw a party in her honour and stream the well-wishes from partygoers live to her overseas via webcam, to show that we remember her and demonstrate that we want to celebrate her birthday? Or should I just give her a call, and tell her myself?
And I've got pictures of Saint Michael, Saint Anthony, and Padre Pio right beside my computer. What does that have to do with anything? Images are an instrument used by the human psyche for contemplation. Do I worship the piece paper? No. Do I worship the saint? No. The icons are tools, aids for praying.
Context, please. I already said that it doesn't have much to do with it, only that it encourages idolatry when people get carried away.
If you want to come to certain conclusions about Catholics, fine. Just be mindful of the fact that you are seeing things from the outside. As a Catholic, I can say that idolatry is not a prevalent problem among Catholics.
Hyper, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that it's necessarily a widespread problem. Several of my best friends are Catholic, my girlfriend and her family is Catholic, I've been to Catholic masses, gatherings. For the most part, and as far as any prayer led by a member of the Church, it's fine. But certainly, there are a number of people appealing to the saints directly, rather than to God through them. Just saying, is all.
Ask of God and Our Lady, the cure of the sick whom we entrust to you.
So with all that said, why is it being asked of Mary?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
One of my best friends is currently overseas. Her birthday is coming up. Should I throw a party in her honour and stream the well-wishes from partygoers live to her overseas via webcam, to show that we remember her and demonstrate that we want to celebrate her birthday? Or should I just give her a call, and tell her myself?
There's one problem with your analogy. Christ isn't "overseas." He with us, present at the mass, body, blood, soul, and divinity. So, would you throw a party for her if she lived next door? Or would you just phone her and say happy birthday?
Just as certainly, however, there is little to demonstrate that their celebration is required in order to worship Christ.
Would you friend be very happy if you never went to see her on her birthday?
Post by
Squishalot
There's one problem with your analogy. Christ isn't "overseas." He with us, present at the mass, body, blood, soul, and divinity. So, would you throw a party for her if she lived next door? Or would you just phone her and say happy birthday?
You know my views on Holy Communion already, so I'll say that my analogy holds for my viewpoint (and for any others who believe that the flesh and blood of Christ is a metaphor, not a transformation).
If she lived with me (which would be more akin to your analogy), then why would I need to call her? I'd just tell her myself. Which would be analogous to praying. Why is a party necessary?
Would you friend be very happy if you never went to see her on her birthday?
According to your analogy, she's always around, so that'll never be an issue.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
There's one problem with your analogy. Christ isn't "overseas." He with us, present at the mass, body, blood, soul, and divinity. So, would you throw a party for her if she lived next door? Or would you just phone her and say happy birthday?
You know my views on Holy Communion already, so I'll say that my analogy holds for my viewpoint (and for any others who believe that the flesh and blood of Christ is a metaphor, not a transformation).
If she lived with me (which would be more akin to your analogy), then why would I need to call her? I'd just tell her myself. Which would be analogous to praying. Why is a party necessary?
Would you friend be very happy if you never went to see her on her birthday?
According to your analogy, she's always around, so that'll never be an issue.
I don't live a chapel. Neither do 99.99% of Catholics. I never said we lived with him and there's a reason I didn't change the analogy to say that :P
And, if you're going to judge a Catholic tradition, you can't just lop off any Catholic beliefs that you don't want to acknowledge.
Post by
Squishalot
I don't live a chapel. Neither do 99.99% of Catholics. I never said we lived with him and there's a reason I didn't change the analogy to say that :P
God is with you always, not just when you're in a chapel. I did consider that you would argue that specifically, but likewise, you could just make it a point to go to a chapel for private worship on Christmas. Just like any other day of the year.
I don't think my friend would love me any less for not attending her birthday party after I went over to her place to wish her a happy birthday beforehand. I don't think Christ would love you any less either.
And, if you're going to judge a Catholic tradition, you can't just lop off any Catholic beliefs that you don't want to acknowledge.
I judged a Christian tradition that Catholics also practice, unless you're suggesting that denominations that do not believe in the transformation of the blood and flesh of Christ do not practice Christmas. It's not my fault that you automatically assumed that I referred to Christmas from a Catholic viewpoint.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
It's not my fault that you automatically assumed that I referred to Christmas from a Catholic viewpoint.
The context was clear. The post you were replying to specifically said Catholic mass. Your post had a whole paragraph on Catholic mass and no mention of any other Christian celebration.
Am I suggesting that they aren't celebrating Christmas? Indirectly, yes. I think they have a nice prayer meet and they praise and honor God together in their own way. But Christ is not present physically. He's there in the minds and hearts of the people. There's your phone call.
Man is a social creature. We reach our highest in communion.
Post by
Squishalot
The context was clear. The post you were replying to specifically said Catholic mass. Your post had a whole paragraph on Catholic mass and no mention of any other Christian celebration.
I disagree. I had a whole paragraph without mentioning Catholic anything, including my first mention of Christ's death and birth, so it's hard to argue that I'm referring very specifically to a Catholic Christmas.
Hyper, one fact of the matter is that you still haven't demonstrated the necessity to celebrate Christmas at a vigil mass in the first place. Claiming that my analogy is bad is inherently a strawman argument.
Am I suggesting that they aren't celebrating Christmas? Indirectly, yes. I think they have a nice prayer meet and they praise and honor God together in their own way. But Christ is not present physically. He's there in the minds and hearts of the people. There's your phone call.
Man is a social creature. We reach our highest in communion.
Opinion. It may be an opinion (supposedly) shared by a billion Catholics worldwide, but it's an opinion nonetheless.
N.B. 'Supposedly' included because many so-called Catholics really don't understand what they claim their faith to be.
Post by
165617
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Queggy
1) The lists the Luke and Matthew give as to Jesus' family are completely different for the most part- in fact from David to Joseph they only share 2 names in common. I thought that God guided the hands of the people that wrote the Bible- you'd think that he'd get his lineage right.
I'd have to look to see what you're talking about, but maybe it's both sides of his family? His mother's side and fathers?
/shrug
I don't know because I never memorized the lineage.
2) The synoptic Gospels say that Jesus taught for 1 year whereas John has Jesus teach for two years and a couple of months (most people round it up and say that he died at the age of 33 based off this, he was most likely 32.) That is a wide discrepancy if I may so myself.
John may have considered it that Jesus started teaching at a different period. For example, the synoptic may have viewed one miracle as the defining starting point in his ministry, and John may have views a different point as the starting one.
3) Many scholars think that the Gospels never had any intention to be used a history book, so why then do some many people use them as such, especially major religious branches?
The first chapter of Luke says:
1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
Post by
374287
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Patty
I don't think they are. I'm just pointing out that it is a Sacrament (in the eyes of Catholics), and that it was probably where Patty was coming from. I fully appreciate that not all Christians believe that the Sacraments are necessary, and that's one of my personal criticisms of Catholicism.
Yes, that was where I was coming from; as my nephew's Catholic Christening and my R.E studies aligned with the idea that Catholicism states that baptism is to atone for the original sin. But, I digress, Christianity has so many contradictions that I don't think it's worth trying to find something which actually lines up.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Hyper, one fact of the matter is that you still haven't demonstrated the necessity to celebrate Christmas at a vigil mass in the first place. Claiming that my analogy is bad is inherently a strawman argument.
Your whole argument is a strawman, so don't talk to me about them. No one has said anything about "needing" to celebrate anything.
Opinion. It may be an opinion (supposedly) shared by a billion Catholics worldwide, but it's an opinion nonetheless.
So Catholics cannot build their own traditions around their own beliefs because some non-Catholics disagree with those beliefs?
1) The lists the Luke and Matthew give as to Jesus' family are completely different for the most part- in fact from David to Joseph they only share 2 names in common. I thought that God guided the hands of the people that wrote the Bible- you'd think that he'd get his lineage right.
Luke's is actually through Mary, even though it doesn't mention her.
2) The synoptic Gospels say that Jesus taught for 1 year whereas John has Jesus teach for two years and a couple of months (most people round it up and say that he died at the age of 33 based off this, he was most likely 32.) That is a wide discrepancy if I may so myself.
You've got your facts wrong. Everything in the New Testament plus what we know of History points at a ministry of 3 and a half years.
3) Many scholars think that the Gospels never had any intention to be used a history book, so why then do some many people use them as such, especially major religious branches?
I don't really care what scholars think the intention of the Gospels was. But you can be sure that they are in line with what we know.
Post by
pezz
Just for fun, I'll go back to Squish's original questions. Largely because I have no idea where the discussion has been going for the last three pages and I don't think I'm entirely alone.
Note that I'm coming at this from a Christian then atheist then agnostic point of view. I actually went back to agnostic because of philosophical arguments for God's existence. When you see brilliant people spread across four or five faiths all demonstrating the existence of some ill-defined necessary being, you take notice, but you're hardly going to arbitrarily pick one of the faiths that offered these proofs. I'll try to be ecumenical though. The go-to answer for me to all of these questions would be 'it's irrelevant because I don't think any of this stuff exists' but I think a lot of them, frankly, don't make good arguments for contradictions in religion.
1) It could imply a mistranslation, a pantheon, the trinity, or a glaring error in a book full of them, depending on your point of view. That the trinity is not later mentioned in the old testament doesn't really matter, if you want to take that view point. God is not thought to be a temporal being in Catholic doctrine. Hence, as far as we can understand, God and therefore the trinity would have 'always existed.' The fact that later authors don't belabor the point doesn't mean it isn't true.
2) Not if the angel convinced Abraham that he was sent with a message from God, which would not be hard to do, considering Abraham probably wouldn't assume an angel was lying to him. The fact that an exchange where Abraham initially doubted the angel's word is not present in the bible isn't really an argument against this. The bible, especially the old testament, can be extremely lyrical at times. I don't want to say it's made up or lies or anything like that, here, because I don't need to. Even assuming it gives a more or less true picture of events, I think we can all safely agree an exact account of the dialogue is not present.
3) In this case. Nowhere does it say God cannot refrain from using this power, nor that the Egyptians did not have a little asterisk next to their name in the book of life or whatever, saying that they were not responsible for their actions at this time.
4) I think non-issue versus arrest would have more to do with going through the correct legal channels before protesting than who was doing the protesting.
5) I vaguely remember the Nicene Creed (the origins of which are something to Google if you think religion lifts everything directly from the bible without thought or discussion) the word 'begotten' playing a role somehow. Regardless, I think we can agree that Jesus is God's son in a way the rest of us are not, and plead the bible and subsequent religious authors offering the lyrical language I mentioned earlier.
6) No, because that does not mirror the relationship of Jesus to God at all. The puppeteer is not the same as his sock.
Post by
Orranis
Ah, speaking of the pantheon thing, there is an interpretation that God holds a court of sorts among himself and his angels. You can see another example of this in Numbers, where God says to Moses, Aaron, and Miriam "My servant Moses is not so; he is trusted in all My house." (Numbers, Chap. 12).
Post by
Adamsm
Ah, speaking of the pantheon thing, there is an interpretation that God holds a court of sorts among himself and his angels. You can see another example of this in Numbers, where God says to Moses, Aaron, and Miriam "My servant Moses is not so; he is trusted in all My house." (Numbers, Chap. 12).
....Um, duh? The Seraphim are at the top with their bound eyes as none can look on God, with the lesser angels below them, then us poor unfortunate souls heh.
Post by
Squishalot
Your whole argument is a strawman, so don't talk to me about them. No one has said anything about "needing" to celebrate anything.
Certainly, there is plenty to demonstrate that their celebration is about Christ. Just as certainly, however, there is
little to demonstrate that their celebration is required
in order to worship Christ.
My analogy was in relation to this point. Your reponse was in relation to my analogy. So, uhh, no?
So Catholics cannot build their own traditions around their own beliefs because some non-Catholics disagree with those beliefs?
You can! Good for you. But it's still an opinion, nonetheless. You presented the following as facts:
1) But Christ is not present physically.
2) He's there in the minds and hearts of the people.
3) Man is a social creature.
4) We reach our highest in communion.
Individually or collectively, in or out of context, each of those are opinions. So I have no obligation to treat them as facts. So for the purposes of this discussion, I will still consider Christmas, as celebrated by non-Catholics, as a celebration of Christmas, whether you like it or not, because you have not presented a reasonable argument to demonstrate why I should not.
Anyway, I'm still waiting for the reason why you pray to a saint to ask Mary to cure. And just in case you forgot why I'm bringing this up:
Ask of God and
Our Lady
, the cure of the sick whom we entrust to you.
When you see brilliant people spread across four or five faiths all demonstrating the existence of some ill-defined necessary being, you take notice, but you're hardly going to arbitrarily pick one of the faiths that offered these proofs.
Nice of you to join the debate. And yes, I agree entirely with you on this point. I'm not convinced that the demonstration stands to scientific scrutiny, but neither am I convinced that anyone can prove that the ill-defined being
doesn't
exist either.
3) In this case. Nowhere does it say God cannot refrain from using this power, nor that the Egyptians did not have a little asterisk next to their name in the book of life or whatever, saying that they were not responsible for their actions at this time.
God granted us free will to choose our paths. How can we have free will if God directly influences people to undertake actions that they might not otherwise have taken? I mean, the fundamental issue of sin is that we can do whatever we like, and God will sit back and look down on us sadly.
6) No, because that does not mirror the relationship of Jesus to God at all. The puppeteer is not the same as his sock.
Disagree, look from the other way around. The puppet is the puppeteer, in sock form, just as Jesus is God, in human form.
Post by
Queggy
God granted us free will to choose our paths. How can we have free will if God directly influences people to undertake actions that they might not otherwise have taken? I mean, the fundamental issue of sin is that we can do whatever we like, and God will sit back and look down on us sadly.
If God is omniscient, then doesn't he already know your future? He knows what choices you will make with your free will and can work with said choices.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Your whole argument is a strawman, so don't talk to me about them. No one has said anything about "needing" to celebrate anything.
Certainly, there is plenty to demonstrate that their celebration is about Christ. Just as certainly, however, there is
little to demonstrate that their celebration is required
in order to worship Christ.
My analogy was in relation to this point. Your reponse was in relation to my analogy. So, uhh, no?
You're still the only person to make any claim about it being necessary, so unless you're making an argument against yourself, it's still a strawman.
You can! Good for you. But it's still an opinion, nonetheless. You presented the following as facts:
1) But Christ is not present physically.
2) He's there in the minds and hearts of the people.
3) Man is a social creature.
4) We reach our highest in communion.
Individually or collectively, in or out of context, each of those are opinions. So I have no obligation to treat them as facts. So for the purposes of this discussion, I will still consider Christmas, as celebrated by non-Catholics, as a celebration of Christmas, whether you like it or not, because you have not presented a reasonable argument to demonstrate why I should not.
You continue to judge from your standpoint. From your standpoint yes maybe they are "opinions." From mine they're revealed
truths
.
That is, except for 3. That a sociological fact.
Anyway, I'm still waiting for the reason why you pray to a saint to ask Mary to cure. And just in case you forgot why I'm bringing this up:
Ask of God and
Our Lady
, the cure of the sick whom we entrust to you.
Asking something
of
Mary is not the same as asking her to do it herself. It's just an entrusting of the matter to her. She is the closest human to Christ, there is no reason not to ask the Saint to intercede with her as while.
Post by
Queggy
Asking something
of
Mary is not the same as asking her to do it herself. It's just an entrusting of the matter to her. She is the closest human to Christ, there is no reason not to ask the Saint to intercede with her as while.
The whole point is that with Jesus' sacrifice on the cross, we no longer need anyone to intercede on our behalves except Him. We don't need Mary to do it for us.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.