Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Virgin Mary

1…5681011…17

Comments

  • #212
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 28,207 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Safehands wrote: »
    I would have no argument with anyone who wants to present original sin as a symbolic story about man's ability to do wrong. It is not though.
    Why not?


  • #213
    Safehands
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,348 ✭✭✭Safehands


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Why not?

    Well, if it is symbolic, it is clearly not being presented as being true, a bit like St Patrick and the shamrock. Original sin would not then be a real affliction.
    Symbolism can be a good way of explaining a point of view.


  • #214
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 28,207 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Safehands wrote: »
    Well, if it is symbolic, it is clearly not being presented as being true, a bit like St Patrick and the shamrock. Original sin would not then be a real affliction.
    Symbolism can be a good way of explaining a point of view.
    No, no. Adam, Eve, the Garden, the Fruit, the Tree, etc can all be symbolic. But the concept of orginal sin as an aspect of the human condition which the story illustrates could still be entirely true/valid, not symbolic at all.

    By way of parallel, the popular story of the boy George Washington chopping down the cherry tree with his axe, and then acknowledging the act to his father, is completely non-factual from beginning to end. But the assertion the story is told to illustrate, about certain aspects of the American national character (forthrightness, honesty, straight dealing, etc) may or may not be true. It's certainly not established as false by point out that the story is non-factual.

    Or, by the same token, St Patrick may or may not have waved a shamrock about to illustrate Christian claims about the Trinity. But, one way or another, this tells us nothing about the truth or validity of those claims.


  • #215
    Safehands
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,348 ✭✭✭Safehands


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    No, no. Adam, Eve, the Garden, the Fruit, the Tree, etc can all be symbolic. But the concept of orginal sin as an aspect of the human condition which the story illustrates could still be entirely true/valid, not symbolic at all.

    By way of parallel, the popular story of the boy George Washington chopping down the cherry tree with his axe, and then acknowledging the act to his father, is completely non-factual from beginning to end. But the assertion the story is told to illustrate, about certain aspects of the American national character (forthrightness, honesty, straight dealing, etc) may or may not be true. It's certainly not established as false by point out that the story is non-factual.

    Or, by the same token, St Patrick may or may not have waved a shamrock about to illustrate Christian claims about the Trinity. But, one way or another, this tells us nothing about the truth or validity of those claims.
    If Original sin is, as you suggest, as aspect of the human condition, a basic flaw in our human nature perhaps, then the concept is made up by the church. How then, will being baptised get rid of that flaw?


  • #216
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Safehands wrote: »
    If Original sin is, as you suggest, as aspect of the human condition, a basic flaw in our human nature perhaps, then the concept is made up by the church. How then, will being baptised get rid of that flaw?

    Baptism is the initiation of a person in to the Church, and Baptism is a rejection of the spiritual state that is Original Sin.

    One fundamental teaching throughout Christianity is that no one can be saved without the help - grace - of God.

    Baptism is the initial point at which a person can be in receipt of God's grace. Without Baptism, according to Christian teaching, one can't receive God's grace and therefore that person cannot be saved.


  • Advertisement
  • #217
    Safehands
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,348 ✭✭✭Safehands


    hinault wrote: »
    Baptism is the initiation of a person in to the Church, and Baptism is a rejection of the spiritual state that is Original Sin.

    You said that the concept of orginal sin is an aspect of the human condition. That is not a spiritual state.
    I can fully accept an initiation ceremony to join any club. I do not accept for a second that any baby has any sin on its soul, metaphysical or otherwise. There is no basis for it other than to satisfy an ancient nonsensical religious teaching. This particular belief can also cause great distress among fervent believers.


  • #218
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Safehands wrote: »
    You said that the concept of orginal sin is an aspect of the human condition. That is not a spiritual state.
    I can fully accept an initiation ceremony to join any club. I do not accept for a second that any baby has any sin on its soul, metaphysical or otherwise. There is no basis for it other than to satisfy an ancient nonsensical religious teaching. This particular belief can also cause great distress among fervent believers.

    Original Sin is not a personal sin. In other words the newborn baby didn't play any part in the commission of his/her Original Sin.

    Original Sin is a spiritual state that comes with the human condition.

    I do take the point that you make about distress for believers who lose an unbaptised child.
    It is extremely important that parents get their children baptised as soon as possible.


  • #219
    RikuoAmero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    hinault wrote: »
    Original Sin is not a personal sin. In other words the newborn baby didn't play any part in the commission of his/her Original Sin.

    Original Sin is a spiritual state that comes with the human condition.

    I do take the point that you make about distress for believers who lose an unbaptised child.
    It is extremely important that parents get their children baptised as soon as possible.

    So if a baby doesn't get water sprinkled over it's head...that somehow stops the God Grace (tm) from working? Is this or is this not sounding just like a magic spell from a fantasy novel?
    Also...why should people listen to you about it being extremely important. Billions of other people say different.


  • #220
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    So if a baby doesn't get water sprinkled over it's head...that somehow stops the God Grace (tm) from working? Is this or is this not sounding just like a magic spell from a fantasy novel?
    Also...why should people listen to you about it being extremely important. Billions of other people say different.

    The rite of Baptism involves far more than the anointing of the person with water.

    The person being baptised is anointed with water and oils (catechumen and chrism). And readings and prayers are offered and vows are also taken (vows are taken on behalf of a baby being baptised by the baby's parent/guardian and godparents)

    The baptismal rite includes the following:

    Reception of the child

    Readings and Homily

    Intercessions prayers.

    Invocation of the Saints

    Prayer of Exorcism

    Anointing before Baptism

    CELEBRATION OF THE SACRAMENT

    Blessing and Invocation of God over Baptismal Water

    Renunciation of Sin and Profession of Faith

    Baptism

    EXPLANATORY RITES

    Anointing after Baptism

    Clothing with the White Garment

    Lighted Candle

    Ephphetha or Prayer over ears and mouth

    CONCLUSION OF THE RITE

    Lord’s Prayer

    Blessing


  • #221
    RikuoAmero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    hinault wrote: »
    The rite of Baptism involves far more than the anointing of the person with water.

    The person being baptised is anointed with water and oils (catechumen and chrism). And readings and prayers are offered and vows are also taken (vows are taken on behalf of a baby being baptised by the baby's parent/guardian and godparents)

    The baptismal rite includes the following: <snip>

    I of course know all of that. I was baptised myself, and have been to other ceremonies. Again, all of that reads just like a magic spell from a fantasy novel.


  • Advertisement
  • #222
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    I of course know all of that. I was baptised myself, and have been to other ceremonies. Again, all of that reads just like a magic spell from a fantasy novel.

    You're free to accept or reject what Baptism is.

    If you conclude that Baptism is simply a magic spell from a fantasy novel, why attend baptismal ceremonies?


  • #223
    RikuoAmero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    hinault wrote: »
    You're free to accept or reject what Baptism is.

    If you conclude that Baptism is simply a magic spell from a fantasy novel, why attend baptismal ceremonies?

    I don't, not now, but in the past, I did go. What I'm saying is that as an avid reader of fantasy novels in my youth, I read of countless similar ceremonies to what you say of baptism. There are waters, oils and other liquids involved; prayers and chanting; invoking of this higher power or another, all to achieve a stated goal. However, not once were these rituals claimed to be true (well, apart from the scare in the US during the 1970s and 80s when people playing Dungeons and Dragons were said to be Satan worshippers and summoning real demons).
    Basically, baptism sounds just like a fantasy novel magic spell, but unlike them, this one is real? It actually accomplishes a stated goal? How do you determine that?


  • #224
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    I don't, not now, but in the past, I did go. What I'm saying is that as an avid reader of fantasy novels in my youth, I read of countless similar ceremonies to what you say of baptism. There are waters, oils and other liquids involved; prayers and chanting; invoking of this higher power or another, all to achieve a stated goal. However, not once were these rituals claimed to be true (well, apart from the scare in the US during the 1970s and 80s when people playing Dungeons and Dragons were said to be Satan worshippers and summoning real demons).
    Basically, baptism sounds just like a fantasy novel magic spell, but unlike them, this one is real? It actually accomplishes a stated goal? How do you determine that?

    It sounds to me that you're trying to question the faith of others here, including me.

    Maybe these fantasy books that you read took the protocols that pertain to Baptism rites and other Christian rites, and adapted them to their fiction?

    You're entirely free to accept or to reject what Christianity advocates.
    It is your own choice and you have full remit to exercise your free will in that regard. That choice is given to you by God.

    Your choice is also exercised in the full realisation that you, Rik and others here, have been afforded the option to accept or reject as you see fit.
    But in accepting or rejecting each choice, you are also fully aware of the consequences of the option that you decide upon.

    The person who believes is fully cognisant of the consequences of the choice made by others who choose to reject Christianity.
    The Bible teaches that those who believe cannot compel those who refuse to believe, to believe.

    It's those who have never heard about Christianity, who believers should be concerned for, and they should have no concern for those who have heard of Christianity but choose instead to reject Christianity.


  • #225
    RikuoAmero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    It sounds to me that you're trying to question the faith of others here, including me.

    It's this notion of "questions are bad" that has me so uncomfortable with the concept of being religious.
    Maybe these fantasy books that you read took the protocols that pertain to Baptism rites and other Christian rites, and adapted them to their fiction?
    Entirely possible, yes, and it is true that Christianity took parts of its rituals from earlier cultures and religions (for example, the eating of communion wafer and the teaching that this wafer is the body of God is not unique to Christianity). Theophagy, or God-eating, was used by the cults of Dionysus, for just one example.
    Your choice is also exercised in the full realisation that you, Rik and others here, have been afforded the option to accept or reject as you see fit.
    But in accepting or rejecting each choice, you are also fully aware of the consequences of the option that you decide upon.
    First...why does everyone call me Rik? Why does no-one add the -uo at least?
    Second, I presume you're familiar with the argument of the "Loaded Gun Pointed at Head"? I direct you to the Existence of God thread where this has come up a few times (to put it short, this supposed choice is not like other choices we face the consequences of in real life. In real life, if my daughter chooses to run off with a drug user for example, I have no power or responsibility over the guy being a drug user. There is nothing I can do to stop the guy being what he is. This is not at all the same situation with God, who is described as being all-powerful, omni-benevolent and ultimately responsible for creating the world).


  • #226
    Safehands
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,348 ✭✭✭Safehands


    hinault wrote: »
    Original Sin is not a personal sin. In other words the newborn baby didn't play any part in the commission of his/her Original Sin.

    Original Sin is a spiritual state that comes with the human condition.

    I do take the point that you make about distress for believers who lose an unbaptised child.
    It is extremely important that parents get their children baptised as soon as possible.

    Original sin is a sin made up by the Catholic church, with zero foundation for it. It was supposed to be based on the sin of Adam, but when we realised that Adam was just a fairy tale, original sin was made to look like it was something far deeper, with a metaphysical explanation. It is made up, not real.

    As for the distress for those believers, it would be far more effective if the church admitted that their gorgeous little baby went to "Heaven", whether it was baptised or not. The parents who believe, want to know their baby is with God, not languishing in some corner of Hell, again made up by those same people who made up Original sin. That whole aspect to this "sin" is nasty and unchristian.


  • #227
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    I presume you're familiar with the argument of the "Loaded Gun Pointed at Head"? I direct you to the Existence of God thread where this has come up a few times (to put it short, this supposed choice is not like other choices we face the consequences of in real life. In real life, if my daughter chooses to run off with a drug user for example, I have no power or responsibility over the guy being a drug user. There is nothing I can do to stop the guy being what he is. This is not at all the same situation with God, who is described as being all-powerful, omni-benevolent and ultimately responsible for creating the world).

    This nicely sums up your "blindspot", rikuoamero.

    Your focus in the example should be on the choice exercised by your daughter.


  • #228
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Safehands wrote: »
    Original sin is a sin made up by the Catholic church, with zero foundation for it. It was supposed to be based on the sin of Adam, but when we realised that Adam was just a fairy tale, original sin was made to look like it was something far deeper, with a metaphysical explanation. It is made up, not real.

    You're entirely free to accept or to reject that teaching, or any other teaching for that matter.


  • #229
    Harika
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,616 ✭✭✭Harika


    Some weeks ago I attended a baptism and the baby was crying through all the procedure. Does that mean that it does not agree with it? Is it to small to understand? Then why would it count as initiation of a person in to the Church? Whatever the baby wants is ignored by the parents and when we talk about the Baptism as rejection of the spiritual state that is Original Sin, then again it was not a conscious decision made by the baby. It was done for it by the parents. How can this have a meaning? If I would jump out behind a tree, speak some magic words and throw noodles at you, would that mean you suddenly became touched by His Noodly Appendage?
    Edit: Doing some research it looks like baptism of infants has anyway no meaning http://www.gotquestions.org/infant-baptism.html


  • #230
    RikuoAmero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    Harika wrote: »
    Some weeks ago I attended a baptism and the baby was crying through all the procedure. Does that mean that it does not agree with it? Is it to small to understand? Then why would it count as initiation of a person in to the Church? Whatever the baby wants is ignored by the parents and when we talk about the Baptism as rejection of the spiritual state that is Original Sin, then again it was not a conscious decision made by the baby. It was done for it by the parents. How can this have a meaning? If I would jump out behind a tree, speak some magic words and throw noodles at you, would that mean you suddenly became touched by His Noodly Appendage?
    Edit: Doing some research it looks like baptism of infants has anyway no meaning http://www.gotquestions.org/infant-baptism.html

    That's the part that annoyed me the most by hinault's answers. The fact that he kept going on about free will and being able to choose to reject God...all the while talking about a ceremony that has some sort of magical effect being done on a baby who is not yet capable of making those choices.


  • #231
    Safehands
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,348 ✭✭✭Safehands


    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    That's the part that annoyed me the most by hinault's answers. The fact that he kept going on about free will and being able to choose to reject God...all the while talking about a ceremony that has some sort of magical effect being done on a baby who is not yet capable of making those choices.

    He obviously believes the whole "original sin" aspect of the baptism, which is his right. But original sin is tied up with so many other Catholic teachings including the virgin birth.
    The one thing I don't like about Hinault's answers is the implied threat, 'there are consequences to not being baptised'!
    Oh, yeah, Limbo is not gone away you know!


  • Advertisement
  • #232
    Patrickof
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 669 ✭✭✭Patrickof


    Festus wrote: »
    The Devil is an angel who chose evil, apparently because of Pride.

    Before that he was good and existed in the presence of God and with all the other angels and evil did not exist.

    Hmm, but doesn't the devil punish bad people? Isn't that good?

    Surely for him to be evil, bad people in hell should be living in their own paradise.....


  • #233
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    Safehands wrote: »
    He obviously believes the whole "original sin" aspect of the baptism, which is his right. But original sin is tied up with so many other Catholic teachings including the virgin birth.
    The one thing I don't like about Hinault's answers is the implied threat, 'there are consequences to not being baptised'!
    Oh, yeah, Limbo is not gone away you know!

    Neither has hell


  • #234
    Safehands
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,348 ✭✭✭Safehands


    Festus wrote: »
    Neither has hell

    Yes, so obey the church or you'll end up in one or other of these places. DON'T question! And most of all DO NOT think for yourself. Let the church do that for you!


  • #235
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    Safehands wrote: »
    Original sin is a sin made up by the Catholic church, with zero foundation for it. It was supposed to be based on the sin of Adam, but when we realised that Adam was just a fairy tale, original sin was made to look like it was something far deeper, with a metaphysical explanation. It is made up, not real.

    Can you prove your assertions?
    Safehands wrote: »
    As for the distress for those believers, it would be far more effective if the church admitted that their gorgeous little baby went to "Heaven", whether it was baptised or not. The parents who believe, want to know their baby is with God, not languishing in some corner of Hell, again made up by those same people who made up Original sin. That whole aspect to this "sin" is nasty and unchristian.

    The position of the Church on babies who die before being baptised or are killed in abortions is that they are at the mercy of God and many take this to believe that they are happy and not in Hell.

    As for Hell being made up - Jesus spoke about it many many times.

    SafeHands, what is your motive on this thread - is it just anti-Catholicism or do you have an issue with the whole God exists thing?


  • #236
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    Safehands wrote: »
    Yes, so obey the church or you'll end up in one or other of these places. DON'T question! And most of all DO NOT think for yourself. Let the church do that for you!

    Actually it's do question and do think for yourself but ultimately obey God, and do His will, not yours.


  • #237
    RikuoAmero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    Festus wrote: »
    Actually it's do question and do think for yourself but ultimately obey God, and do His will, not yours.

    Never has a greater contradiction been said than that.


  • #238
    Safehands
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,348 ✭✭✭Safehands


    Festus wrote: »
    Can you prove your assertions?
    I made the point in an earlier posting that the Genesis account is obviously not true. Light and day and night and seeds / fruit all came before the sun was made. So its a nice story but no basis in fact really. But hey, Festus, prove me wrong, by all means.


  • #239
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    Safehands wrote: »
    Festus, prove me wrong, by all means.


    Sure, why not

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-l-wolper/genesis-and-science_b_500201.html


  • #240
    Safehands
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,348 ✭✭✭Safehands


    Festus wrote: »
    Actually it's do question and do think for yourself but ultimately obey God, and do His will, not yours.

    Sounds familiar Festus. China maybe, or even the USSR in the good old days.


  • Advertisement
  • #241
    RikuoAmero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    Festus wrote: »
    Sure, why not

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-l-wolper/genesis-and-science_b_500201.html

    I love that link. It tries to use the "7 days are not literal" line. However, they're going about it all wrong. For one thing, the time scales are different from day to day.
    Genesis: (Second day) -- 4.5 billion to 3.75 billion years ago
    0.75 billion years long 'Day'
    Genesis: (Fifth day) -- 3.5 billion years to 635 million years ago
    Now a day is multiple billions of years?

    Not to mention that towards the end it acknowledges that the account of the creation of man is scientifically false, but it continues on anyway, saying "Eh, later on, we might find some scientific evidence to support the biblical account" (fat chance of that happening, extremely improbable).
    Basic confirmation bias.


Advertisement