Religion/Bible discussion

mewso

I just thought ye should move this discussion away from the "1984" topic. So the last two postings were:-

Lolth

long sermon.
some comments.

a. The catholic church has not 'lost it's way' by praying to saints etc. It always did.

b. extensively studying and practising are two completely seperate things. You say that priests don't uphold the Bible traditions and teachings, that does not mean that they haven't studied it.

c. 'Saints don't exist' : In a religion that holds the ideal of an afterlife at it's core, and in an organisation that supports that religion and recognises the sacrifices of it's more noteworthy supporters (whether justified or not, I'm not about to say that St. Francis should or should not have his title) by placing them 'closer to God' than the average man, then Saints, for them, DO exist and you are wrong to judge a Faith without stopping to understand WHY they believe and worship what they do. Instead you have blindly thrown away a central part of the churches teachings and the layman's belief as if it is unimportant because you don't agree with it. I'm sure a Catholic would reply to your statement with 'Prove it' and then quote the various miracles that are reported by the very book which you believe is inherently good but misused by the church.

d. Which is it? Study, Understand or Talk? Perhaps you should look up the word 'interpretation' and re-evaluate your argument.

e. "to be pro-life is wrong in our world"
Where did you pick that up? Or is this a 'conscience' judgement? Is this a personal opinion or have I missed a global announcement somewhere?
"Example: to be pro-life is wrong in our world. It infringes on the right to do with your body what you will. It is anti-choice, but Christians accept this, because the bible tells them. " - others might say that sometimes the price of choice is too great. I really don't think you or I have any right to criticise a person's own preference in this matter. Disagree, yes. State with certainty that they are wrong, no. Discuss, yes. Discard their opinion as just plain wrong because it doesn't happen to coincide with your own, no.

"In the same vein, if a priest were to study the bible the he would recognise the quandry the roman church puts him in. "

or maybe he will say that these moral dilemmas are the price of 'free will'.
A test of faith or something.

"as a minister he would have to take guidance only from the spirit of God. "
Which, according to the Roman Catholic Church speaks through the Pope. In reality, I agree that the election of Pope has, throughout the ages been influenced by politics instead of purely on merit, but the ideal is the same.

"fascist anti abortionists" , should you not have included the 'fascist pro-abortionists'? I've met them too.

"It prefers a strange stew of tribalism, tradition and superstition" -
you are actually quite close to the truth on that but you make it sound like a degeneration. Try reading Myth, Ritual and Religion (I forget the author). In it he compares the religions of the world and their origins. Some of the similarities are unusual to say the least. Another expression is "Religion is the attempt to explain irrational phenomena in a rational way, Faith is what's needed to succeed."

Preacher Lolth is back!

El Pres

I know this is only an answer to a small part of whats been said here but..
I believe the only people who should be allowed have an opinion on the pro-life movement are women who have had or are faced with an abortion.

Face it lads their the only ones whose opinions count.

El

mewso

I don't like discussing the thorny issue of Abortion but it's come up so. I would not want to abort a child. Others might and that's their decision. If my girlfriend got pregrant my response would be - I don't want to abort it but I will respect your choice.
As to that I think no matter how you feel on the issue it's deffinately time this Country faced up to facts. Women are leaving this country for abortions. We have to provide it for those who want it.
As I say - thorny issue and I don't think Excel even meant to raise it never mind the fact that this is the book forum. Anyway I'll leave it at that.

M

Excelsior

I thank you for opening a new topic.
I'll give you my opinions on these issues you raise.
Remember some things first:
I am not a catholic, but my favourite people are, I go to catholic mass every sunday because i get something from it. I respect the good they do, but there are inherent flaws that have appeared. Catholicism wont survive for another 100 years if they are not sorted.
I am a member of no religion.
Point a:The roman church hasnt always worshipped the saints, it has begun only in the past 1000 years, and gone turbo charged in John Paul 2's time.
Point C: Catholicism does not hold a saint as "closer to God." It holds them as representatives of God. As a Christian religion, it seems strange that Christ always said the only way to heaven was through him. He doesnt have secrataries, be they in the form of St Peter or Mary. They are a fallacy. To say that Francis dof Assisi was deserving of respect would be fine, to call him a Saint would rock, to sing songs in his rememberance would be fitting, but people, praying to him will do no good. He is not listening.
Point B: I addressed this idea with my PAisley comments. It is no good being able to quote the bible, to have extensively studied it. One must understand it and follow through on it. One must KNOW that its contents are the truth.
Point Connected to above. To be a Christian you need not ever have read the bible. You could hear of Christ and develop a relationshipo with him without knowing of the book's existence. Studying, understanding and talking are all requisites once you open the book however. To understand it requires at least a lil studying, and once you understand you are charged with talking about it.
Point E: Was neithe rmy opinion, nor an accepted fact. Our society's value however, when carried thru logically imply that personal choice, nay, empowerment is the most sacred of rights. Right and wrong is defined by group dynamics, my point was that on a personal level, within Christianity, personal concscience is paramount. I feel that I made no condemnation of either points in my statement, you should perhaps re-read it objectively.
Free will is the exact thing the roman church in its dogmatic structure takes from a man who has trained for at least 7 years and dedicated himself to God's work.
Lets face it folks, the pope is not God's mouth-piece, and there is no evidence to suggest it. However, Karol Wojita is an incredible man who has done much good in his "term of office" but when I see the figures for HIV in Catholic 3rd world I become very sad.
Fascist pro-abortionists also exist. I dont have to mention the opposite of everything I include do I? I was discussing the divergence catholicism has taken from the truth in the bible, pro-choice people dont come into it.
finally, as I have said in previous posts, organized religion of any sort is founded in insidious group dynamic, that much more often than not leads it into causing trouble. I don't like Big religion, of any type, no matter how similar their foundation because their message is so easily corrupted. The church however began life 2000 years ago, and in that shape was the perfect prototype for social faith. Since then the path has been pretty much downhill. Now its in a sorry state and I would llove to see a Catholic population who really embraced this point of view. Only thru that can you get back to the cell based, frugal and liberal church that the apostles founded.
K? What do you think?
Kevin

Excelsior

Now to answer Andy.
Andy, I know how much you value peace, and you want everything to be just fine and dandy, but you must take stands for what you see as right. 50% of irish people think abortion is wrong. A good minority would say that it is murder. A mirror % think that the lack of abnortion is an example of reliogious iunterference into politics at its worse. If they feel that strongly, if they allow others opinion, and if they are well up on the issue, then they have more than a right to coment.
ANd jsut a simple sexism problem in your post too. If Claire was "faced with an abortion," I would kind of demand a say aswell. Because it does take two to tango, equally it takes two to become preagnant.
****THINK***** That's all you have to do.
Kevin

Draco

Right - adding to LoLths comments:

"YOu will find nothing about masturbation or contraception being sinful"
Is there not something in Leviticus (where most of the old testemant teachings on what is/isn't allowed with regards to sex is) against masturbation? This is an old old memory being dregded up and I don't have a bible handy so I'm open to correction. As for contraception, the pill definitly didn't exist when the bible was written (the condom possibly did?) so there isn't going to be much in the bible on it.

As for ruling a country/seat on the UN etc., it is better to have the church independant of a state, rather than being under the thumb of an immoral Govermant and using the church for propaganda. (A sidenote: I think the Chinese are trying to do this by claiming they have the current incarnation of Budha)It is because of the political realities of this world that have resulted in this. The pope's infallibility was very much a political move. I can't remember what precipiated it though.

A quick word on abortion: I agree with El Pres. While I have my own opinion on the subject, at the end of the day, I'm never going to have an abortion myself.

On to the Spirt of God. A priest does follow the spirt of God - throught the teachings in the bible and through the Pope.

"You'll find little in the past 5000 years about sex outside of marraige"
Actually you probably will. Joseph *had to* marry Mary to cover up her pregnancy because sex outside of marriage was a definite no no to the Jews. You'll don't really see sex outside of marriage mentioned by cultures who approve. Any that don't approve though go on moral crusades.

I've to do some work now, so untill the next post,

Draco

Adendum:
While I writing this post, all those other post came up.
Another quick word on Abortion: Yes it take two to Tango, and the father should have a say, but it *is* the mother decision - you can't forcebly hold her until she has the child and conversely you can't force her to have an abortion. All we can to as men is be supportive and not run away.

[This message has been edited by Draco (edited 02-12-1999).]

LoLth

Good idea seperating the threads.

(sorry 1984 peeps!)

As for this being the Books board, yes it is. But What is the point in reading a book if you cannot discuss it. Books (and films, tv etc) influence thought and attitudes (I'm not saying that by reading aviolent book you WILL be violent, but you will be in some way desensetised to it.) This religion discussion is a prime example of books influencing thought, namely the Bible. My own view of religion has been influenced heavily by the Myth, Ritual and religion book, which prompted me to learn more and more diverse religious beliefs and practices. I would never have read the Koran (abridged), or several texts on Wiccan practices, the cult of Set and Isis, a bit about the Hindu and Japanese religious practices. all of which , while not in any way making me an expert or more 'insightful' than anyone else, have taught me to be ready to discuss rather than denounce.

Also, without discussion, how can people who read a recommendation on this board know whether the book being recommended is suited to them. With discussion, a person can think 'yeah, he doesn't think like me at all so I'll take his tastes with a pinch of salt' or 'OMG! we're twins!!!!' etc.

If this were simply a books board, it would comprise solely of lists of posts (ok, maybe not quite lists) saying 'this is good' , 'this is crap' etc.

But you are right, the threads should be seperate. People who want to find out about 1984 might not want to have to wade through what they see as a pile of pontificating drivel to get to the next relevant post.

LoLth

Saints:


in Christian theology, a person who shares in the holiness of God. To New Testament authors, the church was the community of saints, but the word came to be used for those who live in heaven. The Virgin MARY is the chief saint, and the ANGELS are counted as saints. The Roman Catholic and Orthodox LITURGIES commemorate the saints with special feast days. In East and West criteria for recognition of sainthood are martyrdom, holiness of life, miracles in life and after death, and a popular cult. The addition of a name to the official list of saints is called canonization. In 1969 the Roman Catholic Church dropped certain saints, including St. Christopher, from its liturgical calendar because of doubts about their historicity.

You were almost right again.

Canonization, the process the Church uses to name a saint, has only been used since the tenth century. For hundreds of years, starting with the first martyrs of the early Church, saints were chosen by public acclaim. Though this was a more democratic way to recognize saints, some saints' stories were distorted by legend and some never existed. Gradually, the bishops and finally the Vatican took over authority for approving saints.


When did the Church start honoring saints?

By the year 100 A.D., Christians were honoring other Christians who had died, and asking for their intercession. Many people think that honoring saints was something the Church set up later, but it was part of Christianity from the very beginning. As a matter of fact, this practice came from a long-standing tradition in the Jewish faith of honoring prophets and holy people with shrines. The first saints were martyrs, people who had given up their lives for the Faith in the persecution of Christians.


The Catholic Church canonizes or beatifies only those whose lives have been marked by the exercise of heroic virtue, and only after this has been proved by common repute for sanctity and by conclusive arguments. The chief difference, however, lies in the meaning of the term canonization, the Church seeing in the saints nothing more than friends and servants of God whose holy lives have made them worthy of His special love. She does not pretend to make gods (cf. Eusebius Emisenus, Serm. de S. Rom. M.; Augustine, De Civitate Dei, XXII, x; Cyrill. Alexandr., Contra Jul., lib. VI; Cyprian, De Exhortat. martyr.; Conc. Nic., II, act. 3).
St. Polycarp suffered martyrdom (23 February, 155); and the words of the passage exactly express the main purpose which the Church has in the celebration of such anniversaries:

We have at last gathered his bones, which are dearer to us than priceless gems and purer than gold, and laid them to rest where it was befitting they should lie. And if it be possible for us to assemble again, may God grant us to celebrate the birthday of his martyrdom with gladness, thus to recall the memory of those who fought in the glorious combat, and to teach and strengthen by his example, those who shall come after us.

The true origin of canonization and beatification must be sought in the Catholic doctrine of the worship (cultus), invocation, and intercession of the saints. As was taught by St. Augustine (Quaest. in Heptateuch., lib. II, n. 94; Contra Faustum, lib. XX, xxi), Catholics, while giving to God alone adoration strictly so-called, honour the saints because of the Divine supernatural gifts which have earned them eternal life, and through which they reign with God in the heavenly fatherland as His chosen friends and faithful servants. In other words, Catholics honour God in His saints as the loving distributor of supernatural gifts. The worship of latria (latreia), or strict adoration, is given to God alone; the worship of dulia (douleia), or honour and humble reverence, is paid the saints; the worship of hyperdulia (hyperdouleia), a higher form of dulia, belongs, on account of her greater excellence, to the Blessed Virgin Mary. The Church (Aug., Contra Faustum, XX, xxi, 21; cf. De Civit. Dei, XXII, x) erects her altars to God alone, though in honour and memory of the saints and martyrs. There is Scriptural warrant for such worship in the passages where we are bidden to venerate angels (Ex., xxiii, 20 sqq.; Jos., v, 13 sqq.; Dan., viii, 15 sqq.; x, 4 sqq.; Luke, ii, 9 sqq.; Acts, xii, 7 sqq.; Apoc., v, 11 sqq.; vii, 1 sqq.; Matt., xviii, 10; etc.), whom holy men are not unlike, as sharers of the friendship of God. And if St. Paul beseeches the brethren (Rom., xv, 30; II Cor., i, 11; Col., iv, 3; Ephes., vi, 18, 19) to help him by their prayers for him to God, we must with even greater reason maintain that we can be helped by the prayers of the saints, and ask their intercession with humility. If we may beseech those who still live on earth, why not those who live in heaven?


taken from the Catholic Encyclopedia at the Catholic Information Center on the Internet.

summary:

People have venerated the dead long before the Catholic church was founded. they prayed WITH them to God. The example above is from 155 a.d. , and while not worshipped he was venerated. There's even reference quotes there (the numbers to whoever). Enjoy.

Canaboid

R.e. ****ing
God saw some dude at it and struck him down saying "he who spills his seed on the earth shall be struck down" or some such.

The bible is undoubtedly a work of fiction (in its present incarnation).

As L. Ron Hubbard is famously quoted as saying "If you want to make money, start a religion"
And he did, and he did.

All organised religion historically has its roots in the subjugation/control of the masses (no pun intended). Draw a comparitive graph and you will see a decline in faith as education increases.

Sorry for lowering the theological tone of this thread but I can't type as pretty as the rest of you.

God is an alien and yes he will come again.
Hallejeulah.

Excelsior

Wow! Lolth I am damn impressed. That was excellent writing. Excelsior to you good fellow, excelsior. Youre comments on the opening of the new thread saved me a lot of typing too, and were written better than I could do it.
I think I said in my post that saints were great, rememberence and respect of saints is just fine, but I have a problem with praying to saints. The catholic church use them as a propoganda tool. Praying to saints can't help within the teaching of the bible.
Canaboid, you truly are a genius.
Draco, leviticus does say if your right hand spites your body you should cut it off with your left, but that is a little vague. Shakespeare used a similar analogy in Macbeth for murder I think. All in all I think that you're safe with a quick **** or two, it won't result in (Quote Canaboid) you being "struck down"
As for the mary and joseph thing, well that wasnt discussed in the bible, and it was society and not God which forced that. Subtle difference, but important, no?
i've talked to all my friends, especially the ones who think, about the abortion thing. Only one guy disagreed with you and Andy. ALL the girls said that they would see abortion as something that two people had. I would not like to have my child aborted without my input, on the same subject, it would annoy me greatly if my girlfriend had my son or daughter without input from me.
The pill wasn't invented, but if God exists he knew that the pill would come.
Kevin.

the celtic tiger

ORGANISED RELIGION.....
I mean, does it really exist?
Personally, I don't even believe that we are all right here, right now...and you expect me to believe that people lived before me?
If you ask me, it's all a show, put on for my "benefit". I mean come on...you know it's true.
THE MATRIX>>>>>>COULD HAPPEN!!!
tct

Excelsior

That actually is a good point Rory! One for another thread some other time. How do we know we arent all just the components of a cell of a kidney inside a small fish inside a large ocean on anothe rplanet in another universe?
Not for now though.

Canaboid

Excel, my superfriend

"genius eh?
like ernest hemmingway or stephen jay gould or graham greene?
or like someone you like alot.
which isnt really a genius now is it?"

See I do pay attention in class.

Canaboid

Doh.

[This message has been edited by Canaboid (edited 03-12-1999).]

Canaboid

Doh, Anyone else having trouble posting lately ?

[This message has been edited by Canaboid (edited 03-12-1999).]

El_Presidente

But I shouldn't have to think, im too pretty.

As for your post.

Intersting point. I would say that the father should also have a say in an posible abortion situation.

So I shall rephrase...

I dont believe that anyone who is not faced with an abortion or faced with a loved one having an abortion should really have a valid opinion on the subject. They are the only people who truly understand the situation and hence the only people who should be able to make a discision.


El

El_Presidente

But I shouldn't have to think, im too pretty.

As for your post.

Intersting point. I would say that the father should also have a say in an posible abortion situation.

So I shall rephrase...

I dont believe that anyone who is not faced with an abortion or faced with a loved one having an abortion should really have a valid opinion on the subject. They are the only people who truly understand the situation and hence the only people who should be able to make a discision.


El

Excelsior

Gift one Canaboid, gift one.
hemmingway- nothing but a drunken manic depressive
greene- what would he know about the queen's english?
gould- that guy is FAT!!! and he talks about mollusks too much.

Shinji

I always find these discussions on religion fascinating, if a little long-winded....

At the end of the day, for me, it boils down to two very basic (and pretty unarguable) facts.

(1) The Bible, on which Christians base all of their faith, is dubious with regards to its source, and has been so heavily edited in the past 1500 years that it cannot be regarded as reliable on anything - take for example the meeting of Bishops c. 1200 which is thought to have edited out almost 50% of the text of the bible because it did not agree with their (politicially motivated) teaching at the time. Even the original texts for the Bible were probably flawed, as they were written to pander to a roman audience - hence the depiction of Pilate as a fairly benevolent character (history records him as anything but) and of Herod, the Jewish "puppet" king, as evil and corrupt (there are no records which suggest any such thing).

(2) I, and most of the people I know, find it very odd to argue about minutiae of religion when at the core, religion demands that you believe in an ancient and omnipotent being who created the world and actually still gives a damn about what happens on it. Now, THAT I have issues with.

Ja,
Rob

Gerry

text: it has so many
levels. The subtext is not too hard to find
even for me a mere buffoon who does
not "think" in any "real" sense of the word.

And then the wise one spoke again;
And one day, my child you shall be granted
membership of this, the highest state of being. YOU SHALL ASCEND.

then a pause followed by:

AAAAAAAHHHHH

I appear to be falling off my high horse

excuse my bad grammar

[This message has been edited by Gerry (edited 08-12-1999).]

El_Presidente

Back to the quake board with ya, your kind aint welcome here!

Where my shot-gun ma?!

WhiteWashMan

its a shame ppl mix up philosophy and religion and theology.