| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/13/2009 01:50:53 PM · #626 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Ah, so if the witch hunt took longer, THEN those designated as such would be actual witches. Interesting. |
Oh, bullsh*t, Shannon! You do this just to be provocative. Or you're actually as dense as this makes you seem? LOL... I prefer the first theory...
mwah!
R. |
|
|
|
05/13/2009 02:16:27 PM · #627 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Nullix:
As a Catholic, we don't actually know who goes to hell. We only know if someone is in Heaven (they're called Saints). |
If you don't know the former, how can you possibly know the latter? |
Who cares? Only God can make that decision.
As for saints, there's a long drawn out process to figure them out. Just search around.
There's no process to figure out if someone's in hell. |
A rather lame reply to a bona fide question. As far a knowing that someone is a saint, the only source of information you have for that is provided by the church. (Nothing really gives confidence like sole source data)
With regards to the long drawn out process to figure out who is a saint and who isn't, do you ever wonder why it is that we have fewer canonizations lately? Could it be that the issue of miracles does not witstand close scrutiny?
Similarly, if there is no process to figure out if someone is in hell, what are your friends and relatives to think if you happen to be in Pergatory. Lemme see... he ain't in Heaven... I guess he must be in Hell.
Lastly, if Heaven is reserved for Saints, I pity all those poor mortal souls that closely followed the tenets of the Catholic church... God only knows where they will end up.
Ray |
|
|
|
05/13/2009 02:38:10 PM · #628 |
| I will point out that the term "saint" has two meanings. On one hand it is honorific for past christians (Catholics) whose life has stood out as extraordinary. On the other hand it is a term that merely means "believer". I think the two definitions are intermingling a bit in y'all's conversation which is leading to some poor interpretations of what the other person is saying. |
|
|
|
05/13/2009 02:53:45 PM · #629 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
A rather lame reply to a bona fide question. As far a knowing that someone is a saint, the only source of information you have for that is provided by the church. (Nothing really gives confidence like sole source data)
With regards to the long drawn out process to figure out who is a saint and who isn't, do you ever wonder why it is that we have fewer canonizations lately? Could it be that the issue of miracles does not witstand close scrutiny?
|
Miracles happen all the time. It's a long process to prove that a particular miracle can be attributed to one person.
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Similarly, if there is no process to figure out if someone is in hell, what are your friends and relatives to think if you happen to be in Pergatory. Lemme see... he ain't in Heaven... I guess he must be in Hell.
|
Purgatory is on the path to Heaven. That doesn't sound like Hell to me. Once you're in Hell, there's no getting out.
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Lastly, if Heaven is reserved for Saints, I pity all those poor mortal souls that closely followed the tenets of the Catholic church... God only knows where they will end up.
|
Heaven isn't reserved for Saints, it's there for people who accept God. It's there for all of us. Why would you pity Catholics? |
|
|
|
05/13/2009 03:18:20 PM · #630 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Ah, so if the witch hunt took longer, THEN those designated as such would be actual witches. Interesting. |
Oh, bullsh*t, Shannon! You do this just to be provocative. Or you're actually as dense as this makes you seem? |
Interesting response, too. The claim was that we "know" at least a few people who've made it to heaven because the church has declared them saints. However, process or not, that declaration is made by people according to criteria also drawn up by people... just as it was/is with witches, papal infallibility, which gospels are actually the word of God, or even the existence of a heaven or hell (Detroit notwithstanding). The only "knowledge" we have of each are the mere claims of people, and the time involved to make the determination does not change that underlying fact. Surely you recognize that? [Insert likewise question of density here.] |
|
|
|
05/13/2009 03:25:08 PM · #631 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I will point out that the term "saint" has two meanings. On one hand it is honorific for past christians (Catholics) whose life has stood out as extraordinary. On the other hand it is a term that merely means "believer". I think the two definitions are intermingling a bit in y'all's conversation which is leading to some poor interpretations of what the other person is saying. |
Don't know about you Doc, but me, I was raised a Catholic and the term "Saint" was reserved for those persons who had been canonized. The following definition was taken from Here
"In official Church procedures there are three steps to sainthood: one becomes Venerable, Blessed and then a Saint. Venerable is the title given to a deceased person recognized as having lived heroic virtues. To be recognized as a blessed, and therefore beatified, in addition to personal attributes of charity and heroic virtue, one miracle, acquired through the individual's intercession, is required. Canonization requires two, though a Pope may waive these requirements. Martyrdom does not usually require a miracle."
This is what I was taught, and you may be right... my interpretation might differ substantially from that of Nullix.
Ray
|
|
|
|
05/13/2009 03:34:16 PM · #632 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I will point out that the term "saint" has two meanings. On one hand it is honorific for past christians (Catholics) whose life has stood out as extraordinary. On the other hand it is a term that merely means "believer". I think the two definitions are intermingling a bit in y'all's conversation which is leading to some poor interpretations of what the other person is saying. |
Don't know about you Doc, but me, I was raised a Catholic and the term "Saint" was reserved for those persons who had been canonized. The following definition was taken from Here |
You never heard anyone refer to his mother as a "saint"? When you were growing up, I mean? Or heard your mother say to her friends "Mabel's a saint to put up with that man."? This is the secular connotation Doc's referring to, essentially. Lord knows, I've been around a LOT of Catholics (married one, even) and it was pretty common coinage where I come from...
R. |
|
|
|
05/13/2009 03:38:01 PM · #633 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I agree there are things out of our control which steer us toward a certain faith. This is true in every aspect of our life. We have zero control over the time we were born, the place we were born, who our parents are, or what our genetic potential is. This probably shapes what faith we follow, yet it also likely shapes what job we go into, who we will marry, and our outlook on life. The argument, however, doesn't get used much when talking about the other aspects. Are we simply uncomfortable with the idea that likely 90% of our life is dictated from the moment we are born? It also ignores the fact that there are still many people who join a faith (or even drop away from one) in their adult life. This happens all the time. |
People don't generally claim to have found the one true profession and try to convince others to drop everything and convert from being an allergist to being an engineer. Well - at least not typically with the same fervor. I suspect some of that blind belief, mixed in with blind chance of birth is the root of the contention. A large part of our lives are dictated by the chance of where we are born, how we are raised, who we are raised by. Even the most strong willed or adversarial likely will be acting against their upbringing, which is still then, acting because of their upbringing. |
|
|
|
05/13/2009 03:41:04 PM · #634 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Ah, so if the witch hunt took longer, THEN those designated as such would be actual witches. Interesting. |
Oh, bullsh*t, Shannon! You do this just to be provocative. Or you're actually as dense as this makes you seem? |
Interesting response, too. The claim was that we "know" at least a few people who've made it to heaven because the church has declared them saints. However, process or not, that declaration is made by people according to criteria also drawn up by people... just as it was/is with witches, papal infallibility, which gospels are actually the word of God, or even the existence of a heaven or hell (Detroit notwithstanding). The only "knowledge" we have of each are the mere claims of people, and the time involved to make the determination does not change that underlying fact. Surely you recognize that? [Insert likewise question of density here.] |
But that's not the issue, Shannon: you imply that *I'M* the one making such claims (in fact nobody is, but nevermind that) despite that I was just poiting out that your comparison doesn't hold water. The issue is that you equated saint-making with witch-hunting as far as the timespan involved goes, and that simply isn't true. That's ALL I was saying, and you know it.
Here's what you said, that I was responding to: "The Catholic Church had a long, drawn out process for determining who was a witch, too."
This is not a fact. As I pointed out. To stretch my correction of your facts so far as to make it look like I (or anyone) is trying to prove your ridiculous (and mocking) statement that "Ah, so if the witch hunt took longer, THEN those designated as such would be actual witches." is essentially lowering the discussion to the point of buffoonery... But we're used to that, of course, when you wade into religious threads.
Why you bother is beyond me, friend. Why are you so determined to mock people of faith?
R.
|
|
|
|
05/13/2009 03:42:55 PM · #635 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Martyrdom does not usually require a miracle. |
"There are more than 100,000 Roman Catholic saints. The older term for saint is martyr, meaning someone who would rather die than give up their faith, or more specifically, witness for God. However, as the word martyr took on more and more the meaning of "one who died for the Faith," the term saint, meaning holy, became more common to describe the whole of Christian witnesses, both martyrs and confessors."
It makes some sense to think of sainthood as a sort of Catholic Hall of Fame, and the club has become more selective over the centuries. Many of those 100,000 Saints were simply early martyrs, no real "process" involved. They died for their beliefs, and presto: insta-saint, yet Pope John Paul II and Mother Theresa are still pending. |
|
|
|
05/13/2009 03:52:48 PM · #636 |
hey Doc,
Thanks for your response, i feel however that my central question remains unanswered, and i take issue with the idea of overlap.
Sure, religions in the judeo-christian tradition have things in common, but is it not the differences that we war over? If they didn't matter, then why bother making distinctions in the first place.
It can't be at once okay to eat pork AND not okay to eat pork, it can't be at once good to martyr yourself and bad to martyr yourself - I don't get how you can reconcile the differences in prescribed behavior that keep people in and out of the good graces of God.
Also, how about non-monotheistic religions - I mean, you will find less and less 'overlap' the further removed you become from Christianity in geography and chronology, my question is on what basis can you claim your religion is 'better' than these 'primitive' ones, given that both are/were accepted on faith by their respective followers?
If the ONLY thing that is important & central is the idea of a God, then I could even be on board with that, though I would say at this point that evidence points against it, but that's not the question - we're talking about people believing in specific Gods with specific agendas and specific texts, I am wondering how you can reasonably differentiate amongst them, and if you can't (and rely on faith instead), then why bother with the dogma at all.
Thanks for the conversation this is interesting indeed. |
|
|
|
05/13/2009 04:18:53 PM · #637 |
Originally posted by AP:
hey Doc,
Thanks for your response, i feel however that my central question remains unanswered, and i take issue with the idea of overlap.
Sure, religions in the judeo-christian tradition have things in common, but is it not the differences that we war over? If they didn't matter, then why bother making distinctions in the first place.
It can't be at once okay to eat pork AND not okay to eat pork, it can't be at once good to martyr yourself and bad to martyr yourself - I don't get how you can reconcile the differences in prescribed behavior that keep people in and out of the good graces of God.
Also, how about non-monotheistic religions - I mean, you will find less and less 'overlap' the further removed you become from Christianity in geography and chronology, my question is on what basis can you claim your religion is 'better' than these 'primitive' ones, given that both are/were accepted on faith by their respective followers?
If the ONLY thing that is important & central is the idea of a God, then I could even be on board with that, though I would say at this point that evidence points against it, but that's not the question - we're talking about people believing in specific Gods with specific agendas and specific texts, I am wondering how you can reasonably differentiate amongst them, and if you can't (and rely on faith instead), then why bother with the dogma at all.
Thanks for the conversation this is interesting indeed. |
Glad you saw my answer in the noise. By "overlap" I was also considering issues of morality and ethics and not just salvation, but I agree with your point that you can't hold that eating pork is both right AND wrong. That is logically inconsistent. Most world religions, however, have a similar road to salvation. The pious life is rewarded. And while there are differences in what counts as "pious", they are more similar than different. Christianity, actually, stands alone in many regards by doing away with the pious=salvation equation. But that's getting off the point.
At the end of the day we find there are very smart people who fall into nearly every camp (various religions, atheism, and agnosticism). This seems to indicate to you that one cannot differentiate between them, but where does that leave us? All positions are equally flawed from this point of view. No position holds an exclusive hold on the wise of our race. Given that, I'd think agnosticism is the most intellectually pure option, but I view that option as of little use. What do we gain by holding this belief? Little other than the intellectual comfort of knowing your position is unassailable because you hold no position. So, in the end, you roll the dice and you take your chances. As mentioned before, in a variation of Pascal's Wager, I feel comfortable in the position I will find myself in nearly all scenarios. While that is not a very good reason to jump to a similar position, it offers some reason to not jump elsewhere. |
|
|
|
05/13/2009 04:25:05 PM · #638 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I will point out that the term "saint" has two meanings. On one hand it is honorific for past christians (Catholics) whose life has stood out as extraordinary. On the other hand it is a term that merely means "believer". I think the two definitions are intermingling a bit in y'all's conversation which is leading to some poor interpretations of what the other person is saying. |
Don't know about you Doc, but me, I was raised a Catholic and the term "Saint" was reserved for those persons who had been canonized. The following definition was taken from Here
|
I was using the term as it's used in the bible. The greek word "hagios" is used multiple times in the New Testament to mean simply "believer". In most (if not all) english translations (including both the KJV and NIV), the word is translated as "saint". An example:
Romans 15:26 (I'll use the KJV because Catholics tend to be more comfortable with it)
For it hath pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor saints (hagios) which are at Jerusalem. |
|
|
|
05/13/2009 04:29:33 PM · #639 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I was just poiting out that your comparison doesn't hold water. The issue is that you equated saint-making with witch-hunting as far as the timespan involved goes, and that simply isn't true. |
I equated the two because both involved a Church-declared (and human-authored) process of identification. Though you apparently seized upon the word "long" and ran with that, the amount of time involved is irrelevant (there's a longer process for sainthood NOW, but early martyrs were often declared Saints upon death, while witch trails could go on for weeks). Thus, my mocking post was simply to point out the absurdity of your response. It ain't the length or steps of the process: it's the fact that it's still just a human declaration. We a don't KNOW a Saint is in heaven for the same reason we don't KNOW if someone is a witch: it's pure belief, and neither may actually exist at all.
Point of fact: I mock ridiculous or groundless assertions regardless of who makes them. I'm not out to attack the people (note that I didn't respond to Achoo equating a choice of job or spouse from among millions of equally valid selections with a choice that supposedly has only one correct answer and determines a person's eternal fate). I don't begrudge anyone the right to believe whatever they want, but I'll still snicker at the ideas of talking snakes, people living alongside dinosaurs, and the need for a creator that didn't need to be created. That you routinely take offense to mockery of ridiculous claims is surprising, but hey, what good is a rant thread without ranting? |
|
|
|
05/13/2009 04:50:59 PM · #640 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
(note that I didn't respond to Achoo equating a choice of job or spouse from among millions of equally valid selections with a choice that supposedly has only one correct answer and determines a person's eternal fate). |
My point was really to just point out that we attribute people's vocation or spouse to personal choice but religion is often dismissed as, "well, that's because you were raised that way". Both likely have a great deal of preselection as well as some personal input. That's all I was saying. |
|
|
|
05/13/2009 04:54:05 PM · #641 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
That you routinely take offense to mockery of ridiculous claims is surprising, but hey, what good is a rant thread without ranting? |
You find it surprising that I take offense at mockery, wherever I see it?
R. |
|
|
|
05/13/2009 06:07:28 PM · #642 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
(note that I didn't respond to Achoo equating a choice of job or spouse from among millions of equally valid selections with a choice that supposedly has only one correct answer and determines a person's eternal fate). |
My point was really to just point out that we attribute people's vocation or spouse to personal choice but religion is often dismissed as, "well, that's because you were raised that way". Both likely have a great deal of preselection as well as some personal input. That's all I was saying. |
On the flip side, often people defend their religious-based notions with 'because I was raised that way' rather than defining it as some personal choice or reasoned personal decision. I don't know that I often hear that phrase used for choice of spouse or vocation (other than I suppose within religions and cultures that practice arranged marriages or religious callings.
Message edited by author 2009-05-13 18:08:17. |
|
|
|
05/13/2009 06:24:34 PM · #643 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
On the flip side, often people defend their religious-based notions with 'because I was raised that way' rather than defining it as some personal choice or reasoned personal decision. I don't know that I often hear that phrase used for choice of spouse or vocation (other than I suppose within religions and cultures that practice arranged marriages or religious callings. |
Good point. I just don't think a lot of people like to think that 90% of their life is out of their control... |
|
|
|
05/13/2009 07:11:58 PM · #644 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by scalvert:
That you routinely take offense to mockery of ridiculous claims is surprising, but hey, what good is a rant thread without ranting? |
You find it surprising that I take offense at mockery, wherever I see it? |
If it's ridicule of the ridiculous, yes.
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." - Thomas Jefferson |
|
|
|
05/13/2009 07:40:49 PM · #645 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Gordon:
On the flip side, often people defend their religious-based notions with 'because I was raised that way' rather than defining it as some personal choice or reasoned personal decision. I don't know that I often hear that phrase used for choice of spouse or vocation (other than I suppose within religions and cultures that practice arranged marriages or religious callings. |
Good point. I just don't think a lot of people like to think that 90% of their life is out of their control... |
But isn't "because I was raised that way" pushing responsibility off on one's parents the decision which ought to be an informed and reasoned choice? If you worship with blinkers on because that worship is familiar and comfortable, rather than finding a personal faith, you are giving up control of what ought to be one of life's most important decisions.
When some criminal blames "society" for making him a thug, most of us scoff at his unwillingness to take responsibility for his actions. In his mind he is not to blame, he was raised that way. |
|
|
|
05/13/2009 07:56:32 PM · #646 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
But isn't "because I was raised that way" pushing responsibility off on one's parents the decision which ought to be an informed and reasoned choice? If you worship with blinkers on because that worship is familiar and comfortable, rather than finding a personal faith, you are giving up control of what ought to be one of life's most important decisions.
When some criminal blames "society" for making him a thug, most of us scoff at his unwillingness to take responsibility for his actions. In his mind he is not to blame, he was raised that way. |
Perhaps. The original issue was people who contend most religious people are only that way because that's the way they were brought up. It, likewise, is a poor characterization of what could easily be a complicated process. |
|
|
|
05/13/2009 09:16:16 PM · #647 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Gordon:
On the flip side, often people defend their religious-based notions with 'because I was raised that way' rather than defining it as some personal choice or reasoned personal decision. I don't know that I often hear that phrase used for choice of spouse or vocation (other than I suppose within religions and cultures that practice arranged marriages or religious callings. |
Good point. I just don't think a lot of people like to think |
I cut a few superfluous words from the end of what you said. |
|
|
|
05/13/2009 10:35:21 PM · #648 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Martyrdom does not usually require a miracle. |
"There are more than 100,000 Roman Catholic saints. The older term for saint is martyr, meaning someone who would rather die than give up their faith, or more specifically, witness for God. However, as the word martyr took on more and more the meaning of "one who died for the Faith," the term saint, meaning holy, became more common to describe the whole of Christian witnesses, both martyrs and confessors."
It makes some sense to think of sainthood as a sort of Catholic Hall of Fame, and the club has become more selective over the centuries. Many of those 100,000 Saints were simply early martyrs, no real "process" involved. They died for their beliefs, and presto: insta-saint, yet Pope John Paul II and Mother Theresa are still pending. |
One must admit that canonization has undergone some serious changes of late and that miracles are subjected to much closer scrutiny now than in the past. Things that might have been perceived as being miraculous 100 years ago can and are explained as odd natural phenomena or perhaps a misinterpretation of events.
Perhaps that might explain the relative penury of "Saints" in recent decades.
Just a thought,
Ray |
|
|
|
02/09/2010 04:53:28 PM · #649 |
I'm mainly plopping this here for future reference. From time to time the topic comes up on what the core beliefs of Christianity are. I've been studying the Apostle's Creed, a very early statement of faith and think it safely represents a core of beliefs. It's amazing how relevant it has remained over nearly 2,000 years. Most Christians today would have no problem with any of the statements found in the creed (although other creeds such as the Nicene Creed were wrought to clarify some ideas that seem ambiguous in this creed (ie. the divinity of Christ)).
I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth.
And in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
and born of the virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
who was crucified, died and was buried.
He descended into hell.
and on the third day He rose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of the Father.
From thence He will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.
I find this stuff very interesting and encourage Christians to understand it even if your church does not recite it (as most evangelical churches do not recite creeds in service). |
|
|
|
02/19/2010 01:30:54 PM · #650 |
Here's what I want to know (and I'm a Christian of the Quaker persuasion): I do telephone surveys at my part-time job. We call nationwide. Something I've observed over the last two years is that different states have different personalities. Example: Virginia is a very paranoid state.
So, here's my question: Why is it that the meanest/nastiest people in the country seem to be concentrated in the so-called Bible belt, but the nicest people (with the best answering machine messages) are the ones in the supposedly most godless part of the country - The Pacific Northwest?
Seriously - my full time job is facing serious budget cuts, and I've already decided if I get laid off I'm going to Oregon. I read somewhere that Eugene was laid out with getting around on bicycle in mind as opposed to getting around in a cage car. I'd love to live somewhere like that. |
|
