QuotePope Francis says atheists can be goodJust do good, and we'll find a meeting point, says Francis in marked departure from Benedict's line on non-Catholics
•The Guardian, Wednesday 22 May 2013 19.50 BST
Atheists should be seen as good people if they do good, Pope Francis has said in his latest urging that people of all religions, and none, work together.
The leader of the world's 1.2 billion Roman Catholics made his comments in the homily of his morning mass at his residence, a daily event at which he speaks without prepared comments.
He told the story of a Catholic who asked a priest if even atheists had been redeemed by Jesus.
"Even them, everyone," the pope answered, according to Vatican Radio. "We all have the duty to do good," he said.
"Just do good, and we'll find a meeting point," the pope said in a hypothetical reply to the hypothetical comment: "But I don't believe. I'm an atheist."
Francis's reaching out to atheists and people who belong to no religion is in marked contrast to the attitude of his predecessor, Benedict, who sometimes prompted complaints from non-Catholics that he seemed to see them as second-class believers.
And also from HuffPo, which is probably reading slightly more into the sermon than the Pope said:
QuotePope Francis Says Atheists Who Do Good Are Redeemed, Not Just Catholics
Posted: 05/22/2013 2:25 pm EDT | Updated: 05/23/2013 2:33 am EDT
Pope Francis rocked some religious and atheist minds today when he declared that everyone was redeemed through Jesus, including atheists.
During his homily at Wednesday Mass in Rome, Francis emphasized the importance of "doing good" as a principle that unites all humanity, and a "culture of encounter" to support peace.
Using scripture from the Gospel of Mark, Francis explained how upset Jesus' disciples were that someone outside their group was doing good, according to a report from Vatican Radio.
"They complain," the Pope said in his homily, because they say, "If he is not one of us, he cannot do good. If he is not of our party, he cannot do good." And Jesus corrects them: "Do not hinder him, he says, let him do good." The disciples, Pope Francis explains, "were a little intolerant," closed off by the idea of possessing the truth, convinced that "those who do not have the truth, cannot do good." "This was wrong . . . Jesus broadens the horizon." Pope Francis said, "The root of this possibility of doing good – that we all have – is in creation"
Pope Francis went further in his sermon to say:
"The Lord created us in His image and likeness, and we are the image of the Lord, and He does good and all of us have this commandment at heart: do good and do not do evil. All of us. 'But, Father, this is not Catholic! He cannot do good.' Yes, he can... "The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! 'Father, the atheists?' Even the atheists. Everyone!".. We must meet one another doing good. 'But I don't believe, Father, I am an atheist!' But do good: we will meet one another there."
Responding to the leader of the Roman Catholic church's homily, Father James Martin, S.J. wrote in an email to The Huffington Post:
"Pope Francis is saying, more clearly than ever before, that Christ offered himself as a sacrifice for everyone. That's always been a Christian belief. You can find St. Paul saying in the First Letter to Timothy that Jesus gave himself as a "ransom for all." But rarely do you hear it said by Catholics so forcefully, and with such evident joy. And in this era of religious controversies, it's a timely reminder that God cannot be confined to our narrow categories."
Of course, not all Christians believe that those who don't believe will be redeemed, and the Pope's words may spark memories of the deep divisions from the Protestant reformation over the belief in redemption through grace versus redemption through works.
The pope's comment has also struck a chord on Reddit, where it is the second most-shared piece.
More from Reuters:
Atheists should be seen as good people if they do good, Pope Francis said on Wednesday in his latest urging that people of all religions - or no religion - work together.
The leader of the world's 1.2 billion Roman Catholics made his comments in the homily of his morning Mass in his residence, a daily event where he speaks without prepared comments.
He told the story of a Catholic who asked a priest if even atheists had been redeemed by Jesus.
"Even them, everyone," the pope answered, according to Vatican Radio. "We all have the duty to do good," he said.
"Just do good and we'll find a meeting point," the pope said in a hypothetical conversation in which someone told a priest: "But I don't believe. I'm an atheist."
Francis's reaching out to atheists and people who belong to no religion is a marked contrast to the attitude of former Pope Benedict, who sometimes left non-Catholics feeling that he saw them as second-class believers.
Now, again, he is benefiting somewhat from the "blessing of low expectations" and he is not really saying that much here but the fact that every week or so he delivers a sermon that I cannot help but agree with is something. This Pope is really awesome, as Popes go.
What is the news here, Marty? Even Dante's Inferno says that those people who not sinned but were not Christian got into the terrace of whatever of Hell and not Hell itself.
BTW if we are on topic, before you start going to churches again on account of this dude, don't forget that your place in hell is guaranteed :contract:
I don't even feel like responding to your trolling.
:(
At this point one must wonder, if Atheists get to go to heaven, what point there is, if any, to having a catholic church?
Quote from: Viking on May 23, 2013, 06:50:24 AM
At this point one must wonder, if Atheists get to go to heaven, what point there is, if any, to having a catholic church?
keep pedophiles out of prison?
Quote from: Viking on May 23, 2013, 06:50:24 AM
At this point one must wonder, if Atheists get to go to heaven, what point there is, if any, to having a catholic church?
People like you make me want to stop being an Atheist.
It's a fair question altho the real danger isn't the catholic church. It's all those evengelical anglicans.
Quote from: Martinus on May 23, 2013, 06:54:40 AM
Quote from: Viking on May 23, 2013, 06:50:24 AM
At this point one must wonder, if Atheists get to go to heaven, what point there is, if any, to having a catholic church?
People like you make me want to stop being an Atheist.
He already stopped you from being an intellectual, and from being Western; why stop there?
The clearly ongoing drift of Martinus from outspoken anti-clergy to devout Catholic is in fact a fascinating process to witness in such detail. :)
Quote from: Tamas on May 23, 2013, 07:00:12 AM
The clearly ongoing drift of Martinus from outspoken anti-clergy to devout Catholic is in fact a fascinating process to witness in such detail. :)
The feet washing is bringing him back.
Quote from: Tamas on May 23, 2013, 06:42:08 AM
What is the news here, Marty? Even Dante's Inferno says that those people who not sinned but were not Christian got into the terrace of whatever of Hell and not Hell itself.
:bleeding:
I think you misunderstand what Dante was trying to do there. :)
Quote from: Viking on May 23, 2013, 06:50:24 AM
At this point one must wonder, if Atheists get to go to heaven, what point there is, if any, to having a catholic church?
Heh, in Judaism, it is explicit - there is no religious benefit to being a Jew. Anyone who follows the "Noahide laws" (don't kill, don't steal, etc.) is just as righteous as the most righteous Jew - according to Judaism. Thus, being a Jew conveys no religious benefit whatsoever, in the Christian sense. :D
Quote from: Malthus on May 23, 2013, 08:27:16 AM
Heh, in Judaism, it is explicit - there is no religious benefit to being a Jew. Anyone who follows the "Noahide laws" (don't kill, don't steal, etc.) is just as righteous as the most righteous Jew - according to Judaism. Thus, being a Jew conveys no religious benefit whatsoever, in the Christian sense. :D
The Jewish god is the kind of god whose rewards consist of leaving you alone... unless you are
too virtuous, in which case he fucks with you on a bet. It has never surprised me that so many people raised in the Jewish tradition had a bent for law-talking.
Quote from: grumbler on May 23, 2013, 08:32:14 AM
Quote from: Malthus on May 23, 2013, 08:27:16 AM
Heh, in Judaism, it is explicit - there is no religious benefit to being a Jew. Anyone who follows the "Noahide laws" (don't kill, don't steal, etc.) is just as righteous as the most righteous Jew - according to Judaism. Thus, being a Jew conveys no religious benefit whatsoever, in the Christian sense. :D
The Jewish god is the kind of god whose rewards consist of leaving you alone... unless you are too virtuous, in which case he fucks with you on a bet.
Hey, at least that's the kind of god that's somewhat believeable, based on observed reality. The all-powerful, all-compassionate kind never made any sense* - I mean, looking around. :D
QuoteIt has never surprised me that so many people raised in the Jewish tradition had a bent for law-talking.
Jewish tradition basically
consists of law-talking (that is, the Talmud). :lol:
*Assuming of course any god does.
Quote from: Tamas on May 23, 2013, 07:00:12 AM
The clearly ongoing drift of Martinus from outspoken anti-clergy to devout Catholic is in fact a fascinating process to witness in such detail. :)
Like watching the Anti-Fahdiz?
Quote from: Malthus on May 23, 2013, 08:27:16 AM
Quote from: Viking on May 23, 2013, 06:50:24 AM
At this point one must wonder, if Atheists get to go to heaven, what point there is, if any, to having a catholic church?
Heh, in Judaism, it is explicit - there is no religious benefit to being a Jew. Anyone who follows the "Noahide laws" (don't kill, don't steal, etc.) is just as righteous as the most righteous Jew - according to Judaism. Thus, being a Jew conveys no religious benefit whatsoever, in the Christian sense. :D
How's that working out?
Quote from: DGuller on May 23, 2013, 08:52:05 AM
Quote from: Malthus on May 23, 2013, 08:27:16 AM
Quote from: Viking on May 23, 2013, 06:50:24 AM
At this point one must wonder, if Atheists get to go to heaven, what point there is, if any, to having a catholic church?
Heh, in Judaism, it is explicit - there is no religious benefit to being a Jew. Anyone who follows the "Noahide laws" (don't kill, don't steal, etc.) is just as righteous as the most righteous Jew - according to Judaism. Thus, being a Jew conveys no religious benefit whatsoever, in the Christian sense. :D
How's that working out?
For some strange reason actively recruiting converts by promising people eternal life if they join your religion (and eternal damnation if they don't) is, apparently, a more successful strategy than actively
discouraging converts and saying that being a part of your religion makes no particular difference.
Who would have thought it? :hmm:
On the other hand, given that both Christianity and Islam are, essentially, heritical offshoots of Judaism, it is sometimes amazing to me the influence that this god of a second-rate Iron Age kingdom, quite unremarkable in its own day (and comprehensively flattened by the Romans, who trashed their temple), has had. It is like looking three thousand years into the future and finding out that half of the entire world considers New Jersey the holy land, and fight over access to Newark. :D
Quote from: Malthus on May 23, 2013, 09:01:18 AM
On the other hand, given that both Christianity and Islam are, essentially, heritical offshoots of Judaism, it is sometimes amazing to me the influence that this god of a second-rate Iron Age kingdom, quite unremarkable in its own day (and comprehensively flattened by the Romans, who trashed their temple), has had. It is like looking three thousand years into the future and finding out that half of the entire world considers New Jersey the holy land, and fight over access to Newark. :D
Sopranotology :cool:
"In da name of Tony Christ, peace be wit chew."
"You're not gonna believe this. The guy killed 16 Czechoslovakians. He was an interior decorator."
Quote from: Malthus on May 23, 2013, 09:01:18 AM
On the other hand, given that both Christianity and Islam are, essentially, heritical offshoots of Judaism, it is sometimes amazing to me the influence that this god of a second-rate Iron Age kingdom, quite unremarkable in its own day (and comprehensively flattened by the Romans, who trashed their temple), has had. It is like looking three thousand years into the future and finding out that half of the entire world considers New Jersey the holy land, and fight over access to Newark. :D
Only if one is taking the view that they are all worshiping the same immutable God. I think that's a stretch given the change in attitudes/opinions/perceptions/conceptualizations about god over that 3000 year period.
The Jewish God sure has run a successful regional franchise operation.
Quote from: garbon on May 23, 2013, 09:10:15 AM
Quote from: Malthus on May 23, 2013, 09:01:18 AM
On the other hand, given that both Christianity and Islam are, essentially, heritical offshoots of Judaism, it is sometimes amazing to me the influence that this god of a second-rate Iron Age kingdom, quite unremarkable in its own day (and comprehensively flattened by the Romans, who trashed their temple), has had. It is like looking three thousand years into the future and finding out that half of the entire world considers New Jersey the holy land, and fight over access to Newark. :D
Only if one is taking the view that they are all worshiping the same immutable God. I think that's a stretch given the change in attitudes/opinions/perceptions/conceptualizations about god over that 3000 year period.
Nope. It is simple fact. No matter what Christians and Muslims think of their version of god, they both acknowledge that their religions derived, historically, from Judaism - as do historians. Of course, they each believe that they received subsequent revelations that supercede Judaism, but it isn't like Muslims and Christians think (or historians think) that these religions did not derive from the Jewish notions of religion.
Quote from: garbon on May 23, 2013, 09:10:15 AM
Only if one is taking the view that they are all worshiping the same immutable God. I think that's a stretch given the change in attitudes/opinions/perceptions/conceptualizations about god over that 3000 year period.
I do not think this is required or relevent at all to what he is saying. Both Christians and Muslims claim to be worshipping the same god and that is his point. But you could just easily say different sorts of Jews are not worshipping the same god because their interpretations are so different so therefore they are not the same religion...but that would be silly yes?
Quote from: PDH on May 23, 2013, 09:24:45 AM
The Jewish God sure has run a successful regional franchise operation.
Some adjustments had to be made to make them viable for the Arab and Roman markets.
Quote from: Valmy on May 23, 2013, 09:27:55 AM
Quote from: PDH on May 23, 2013, 09:24:45 AM
The Jewish God sure has run a successful regional franchise operation.
Some adjustments had to be made to make them viable for the Arab and Roman markets.
McTransubstantiation?
Quote from: Martinus on May 23, 2013, 06:54:40 AM
Quote from: Viking on May 23, 2013, 06:50:24 AM
At this point one must wonder, if Atheists get to go to heaven, what point there is, if any, to having a catholic church?
People like you make me want to stop being an Atheist.
Because you want the certainty that you are going to hell?
Quote from: Valmy on May 23, 2013, 09:26:38 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 23, 2013, 09:10:15 AM
Only if one is taking the view that they are all worshiping the same immutable God. I think that's a stretch given the change in attitudes/opinions/perceptions/conceptualizations about god over that 3000 year period.
I do not think this is required or relevent at all to what he is saying. Both Christians and Muslims claim to be worshipping the same god and that is his point. But you could just easily say different sorts of Jews are not worshipping the same god because their interpretations are so different so therefore they are not the same religion...but that would be silly yes?
To add to this point (and here is something many Christians do not know, apparently) ... the religion we know of today as "Judaism" probably bears only a slight resemblence to the Judaism of the age of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel. Large parts of the OT are devoted to a priestly religion centred on a single Temple, which now no longer exists.
The Judaism of today is much more based on the Talmud, which contains the "oral traditions" considered of equal value to the written laws contained in the OT - and which developed after the destruction of the Temple. "Judaism" in the modern sense is as much an offshoot of "Judaism" of OT times as Christianity or Islam! Of course it is closer to the original concept than they, but it is still a variant.
You really have to consider Rabbinical Judaism and Temple Judaism as different religions. They have very little to do with each other.
Quote from: Viking on May 23, 2013, 09:34:28 AM
You really have to consider Rabbinical Judaism and Temple Judaism as different religions. They have very little to do with each other.
Pretty well.
"Judaism" has gone through several phases, from what can be determined - it is difficult to make out the outlines of the earlier phases, because the Temple/Priestly Jews redacted the only written work we have to shoehorn the religion as they understood it back into the earlier references.
Quote from: Malthus on May 23, 2013, 09:38:00 AM
Quote from: Viking on May 23, 2013, 09:34:28 AM
You really have to consider Rabbinical Judaism and Temple Judaism as different religions. They have very little to do with each other.
Pretty well.
"Judaism" has gone through several phases, from what can be determined - it is difficult to make out the outlines of the earlier phases, because the Temple/Priestly Jews redacted the only written work we have to shoehorn the religion as they understood it back into the earlier references.
It is sort of humorous how many clues they left in the Torah by accident. Like when Elohim speaks to the other Gods for a moment...
The Priests needed better editors.
Quote from: Valmy on May 23, 2013, 09:41:08 AM
Quote from: Malthus on May 23, 2013, 09:38:00 AM
Quote from: Viking on May 23, 2013, 09:34:28 AM
You really have to consider Rabbinical Judaism and Temple Judaism as different religions. They have very little to do with each other.
Pretty well.
"Judaism" has gone through several phases, from what can be determined - it is difficult to make out the outlines of the earlier phases, because the Temple/Priestly Jews redacted the only written work we have to shoehorn the religion as they understood it back into the earlier references.
It is sort of humorous how many clues they left in the Torah by accident. Like when Elohim speaks to the other Gods for a moment...
The Priests needed better editors.
Or for that matter having two completely different (and incompatible) origin myths in Genesis, one right after the other. Or the bizzare reference to demi-gods. :D
Quote from: Malthus on May 23, 2013, 09:25:28 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 23, 2013, 09:10:15 AM
Quote from: Malthus on May 23, 2013, 09:01:18 AM
On the other hand, given that both Christianity and Islam are, essentially, heritical offshoots of Judaism, it is sometimes amazing to me the influence that this god of a second-rate Iron Age kingdom, quite unremarkable in its own day (and comprehensively flattened by the Romans, who trashed their temple), has had. It is like looking three thousand years into the future and finding out that half of the entire world considers New Jersey the holy land, and fight over access to Newark. :D
Only if one is taking the view that they are all worshiping the same immutable God. I think that's a stretch given the change in attitudes/opinions/perceptions/conceptualizations about god over that 3000 year period.
Nope. It is simple fact. No matter what Christians and Muslims think of their version of god, they both acknowledge that their religions derived, historically, from Judaism - as do historians. Of course, they each believe that they received subsequent revelations that supercede Judaism, but it isn't like Muslims and Christians think (or historians think) that these religions did not derive from the Jewish notions of religion.
I guess my point stems from the fact that I don't think it is particularly odd that a certain vague set of traditions could carry through millenia in different forms*. That isn't denying the fact that Judaism was the historical base from which those other two religions sprang - but that I think it would be an oversimplification to call them heretical offshots (at this point in time) as well as not really comparable to your NJ example as I don't think there is anyone who reveres NJ right now - not even people from NJ. :D
*I guess to me not anymore so for the various Greek traditions/thoughts that have carried through the West to today.
And that's just me having a different opinion from you - not arguing. :)
Quote from: garbon on May 23, 2013, 09:50:12 AM
I guess my point stems from the fact that I don't think it is particularly odd that a certain vague set of traditions could carry through millenia in different forms*.
That is not what is odd. The odd part is that the vague set of traditions were derived from this particular insignificant Iron Age Kingdom.
Quote from: garbon on May 23, 2013, 09:50:12 AM
And that's just me having a different opinion from you - not arguing. :)
I think you are just taking his obvious lighthearted jokes (like Islam and Christianity being heretical offshoots) way too seriously.
Quote from: garbon on May 23, 2013, 09:50:12 AM
Quote from: Malthus on May 23, 2013, 09:25:28 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 23, 2013, 09:10:15 AM
Quote from: Malthus on May 23, 2013, 09:01:18 AM
On the other hand, given that both Christianity and Islam are, essentially, heritical offshoots of Judaism, it is sometimes amazing to me the influence that this god of a second-rate Iron Age kingdom, quite unremarkable in its own day (and comprehensively flattened by the Romans, who trashed their temple), has had. It is like looking three thousand years into the future and finding out that half of the entire world considers New Jersey the holy land, and fight over access to Newark. :D
Only if one is taking the view that they are all worshiping the same immutable God. I think that's a stretch given the change in attitudes/opinions/perceptions/conceptualizations about god over that 3000 year period.
Nope. It is simple fact. No matter what Christians and Muslims think of their version of god, they both acknowledge that their religions derived, historically, from Judaism - as do historians. Of course, they each believe that they received subsequent revelations that supercede Judaism, but it isn't like Muslims and Christians think (or historians think) that these religions did not derive from the Jewish notions of religion.
I guess my point stems from the fact that I don't think it is particularly odd that a certain vague set of traditions could carry through millenia in different forms*. That isn't denying the fact that Judaism was the historical base from which those other two religions sprang - but that I think it would be an oversimplification to call them heretical offshots (at this point in time) as well as not really comparable to your NJ example as I don't think there is anyone who reveres NJ right now - not even people from NJ. :D
*I guess to me not anymore so for the various Greek traditions/thoughts that have carried through the West to today.
And that's just me having a different opinion from you - not arguing. :)
They were heritical offshoots
when they first arose - it was by no means clear that they were "seperate religions" for some time. Of course,
over time they became quite seperate.
Quote from: Valmy on May 23, 2013, 09:53:30 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 23, 2013, 09:50:12 AM
I guess my point stems from the fact that I don't think it is particularly odd that a certain vague set of traditions could carry through millenia in different forms*.
That is not what is odd. The odd part is that the vague set of traditions were derived from this particular insignificant Iron Age Kingdom.
A lot of traditions that have come down to us had their origins in humble, insignificant places.
Quote from: Valmy on May 23, 2013, 09:53:30 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 23, 2013, 09:50:12 AM
I guess my point stems from the fact that I don't think it is particularly odd that a certain vague set of traditions could carry through millenia in different forms*.
That is not what is odd. The odd part is that the vague set of traditions were derived from this particular insignificant Iron Age Kingdom.
Yup.
Quote from: garbon on May 23, 2013, 09:56:56 AM
Quote from: Valmy on May 23, 2013, 09:53:30 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 23, 2013, 09:50:12 AM
I guess my point stems from the fact that I don't think it is particularly odd that a certain vague set of traditions could carry through millenia in different forms*.
That is not what is odd. The odd part is that the vague set of traditions were derived from this particular insignificant Iron Age Kingdom.
A lot of traditions that have come down to us had their origins in humble, insignificant places.
The point is how widespread the influence of this single humble place has been. It's remarkable, at least to me.
Quote from: Malthus on May 23, 2013, 09:56:22 AM
They were heritical offshoots when they first arose - it was by no means clear that they were "seperate religions" for some time. Of course, over time they became quite seperate.
Not to be grumbler-like but you said "they are" and that's what I was looking at. -_-
Quote from: garbon on May 23, 2013, 09:50:12 AM
... as well as not really comparable to your NJ example as I don't think there is anyone who reveres NJ right now - not even people from NJ. :D
Why do you hate DGuller so? :(
:P
Quote from: garbon on May 23, 2013, 09:56:56 AM
A lot of traditions that have come down to us had their origins in humble, insignificant places.
Traditions as big as the world's two biggest religions though? That is what makes it funny.
In any case we were just having fun I would think our tone would have made it obvious.
Quote from: Valmy on May 23, 2013, 09:26:38 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 23, 2013, 09:10:15 AM
Only if one is taking the view that they are all worshiping the same immutable God. I think that's a stretch given the change in attitudes/opinions/perceptions/conceptualizations about god over that 3000 year period.
I do not think this is required or relevent at all to what he is saying. Both Christians and Muslims claim to be worshipping the same god and that is his point. But you could just easily say different sorts of Jews are not worshipping the same god because their interpretations are so different so therefore they are not the same religion...but that would be silly yes?
I don't think I agree. Both Christians and Muslims recognize that their God is the God of Abraham, for example. This puts them squarely into "worshipping the same God as Jews".
It'd take a pretty fucking nice Chianti to make a Catholic good.
Quote from: The Brain on May 23, 2013, 10:25:13 AM
It'd take a pretty fucking nice Chianti to make a Catholic good.
Better put ice in it.
Word to your mother.
Quote from: Malthus on May 23, 2013, 09:32:37 AM
To add to this point (and here is something many Christians do not know, apparently) ... the religion we know of today as "Judaism" probably bears only a slight resemblence to the Judaism of the age of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel. Large parts of the OT are devoted to a priestly religion centred on a single Temple, which now no longer exists.
The Judaism of today is much more based on the Talmud, which contains the "oral traditions" considered of equal value to the written laws contained in the OT - and which developed after the destruction of the Temple. "Judaism" in the modern sense is as much an offshoot of "Judaism" of OT times as Christianity or Islam! Of course it is closer to the original concept than they, but it is still a variant.
The analogy I draw for my students is that of "football." "Foot ball" originated as the ball game for the foot soldiers (the mounted soldiers played "horse ball," which eventually became polo), and was apparently much more akin to rugby football (or maybe even Aussie Rules Football) than to anything else called "football" today. In the mid-19th Century, "foot ball" evolved into Rugby Football, Association Football, and American Football - each of which later spun off other variations. Each of these branches calles itself "football" and has fans who think that their game is the merely-cleaned-up pure game (confused or stupid association football fans often even mistakenly think that rugby and american football can't be
football, because they allow the use of the hands).
In fact, of course, none of the three main branches of football are "foot ball" as it was known in history, and none can claim to be the "pure version" of the sport. It's best not to make that point in front of certain kinds of fans, though - the ones for whom their version of the sport is, effectively, a religion.
Quote from: grumbler on May 23, 2013, 10:57:16 AM
Quote from: Malthus on May 23, 2013, 09:32:37 AM
To add to this point (and here is something many Christians do not know, apparently) ... the religion we know of today as "Judaism" probably bears only a slight resemblence to the Judaism of the age of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel. Large parts of the OT are devoted to a priestly religion centred on a single Temple, which now no longer exists.
The Judaism of today is much more based on the Talmud, which contains the "oral traditions" considered of equal value to the written laws contained in the OT - and which developed after the destruction of the Temple. "Judaism" in the modern sense is as much an offshoot of "Judaism" of OT times as Christianity or Islam! Of course it is closer to the original concept than they, but it is still a variant.
The analogy I draw for my students is that of "football." "Foot ball" originated as the ball game for the foot soldiers (the mounted soldiers played "horse ball," which eventually became polo), and was apparently much more akin to rugby football (or maybe even Aussie Rules Football) than to anything else called "football" today. In the mid-19th Century, "foot ball" evolved into Rugby Football, Association Football, and American Football - each of which later spun off other variations. Each of these branches calles itself "football" and has fans who think that their game is the merely-cleaned-up pure game (confused or stupid association football fans often even mistakenly think that rugby and american football can't be football, because they allow the use of the hands).
In fact, of course, none of the three main branches of football are "foot ball" as it was known in history, and none can claim to be the "pure version" of the sport. It's best not to make that point in front of certain kinds of fans, though - the ones for whom their version of the sport is, effectively, a religion.
I love it. I am so stealing that. :lol:
The odd part (in the religion case) is that practitioners of certain fundamentalist forms of Christianity are, as you know, OT Biblical literalists - when the vast majority of Jews, aside from some odd sects like the Karaites, of course hold to the OT as interpreted through the Talmud, which fundamentally changes the meaning of it (example: the OT proscribes death for numerous offences such as adultery; the Talmud adds so many requirements for imposing that penalty - such as having multiple witnesses warning the adulterers in set warning language during the act - for every death penalty offence is, practically speaking, impossible to ever impose).
In short, there are some Christians who attempt to be more "original Jew" than the Jews.
Quote from: Malthus on May 23, 2013, 09:56:22 AM
They were heritical offshoots when they first arose - it was by no means clear that they were "seperate religions" for some time. Of course, over time they became quite seperate.
Well no.
Christianity doesn't consider itself an off-shoot, but rather a replacement for Judaism.
Islam doesn't consider itself an off-shoot, but rather the original religion while Judaism and Christianity are corruptions either by corrupt men or the devil.
The issue isn't how Christians, Muslims, etc see *themselves* - because they've constructed a narrative for themselves which obviously doesn't cast them as heretics - the issue is what actually happened.
Quote from: Viking on May 23, 2013, 11:39:56 AM
Quote from: Malthus on May 23, 2013, 09:56:22 AM
They were heritical offshoots when they first arose - it was by no means clear that they were "seperate religions" for some time. Of course, over time they became quite seperate.
Well no.
Christianity doesn't consider itself an off-shoot, but rather a replacement for Judaism.
Islam doesn't consider itself an off-shoot, but rather the original religion while Judaism and Christianity are corruptions either by corrupt men or the devil.
Christianity did originally consider itself Jewish though. It only became the new better Judaism once it fell out with the Jews.
Quote from: fahdiz on May 23, 2013, 11:42:48 AM
The issue isn't how Christians, Muslims, etc see *themselves* - because they've constructed a narrative for themselves which obviously doesn't cast them as heretics - the issue is what actually happened.
I haven't read enough vis-a-vis reactions to the formulation of Islam. Was Mohammed every viewed as a heretic of Judaism (and/or Christianity)?
Certainly what Valm said regarding Christianity is true but I don't know if that holds true for Islam.
Quote from: garbon on May 23, 2013, 11:53:12 AM
Quote from: fahdiz on May 23, 2013, 11:42:48 AM
The issue isn't how Christians, Muslims, etc see *themselves* - because they've constructed a narrative for themselves which obviously doesn't cast them as heretics - the issue is what actually happened.
I haven't read enough vis-a-vis reactions to the formulation of Islam. Was Mohammed every viewed as a heretic of Judaism (and/or Christianity)?
Certainly what Valm said regarding Christianity is true but I don't know if that holds true for Islam.
According to the Hadith Mohammed went to the local jews and told them that he was their final prophet, they laughed at him so he stopped praying towards Jerusalem (the first qibla) and started praying towards Mecca (the second qibla). Then he went on a killing spree.
Quote from: Malthus on May 23, 2013, 09:01:18 AM
second-rate Iron Age kingdom
Nothing to be ashamed about there. Plenty of very impressive civilizations never even made it out of the Bronze Age.
Quote from: Malthus on May 23, 2013, 09:32:37 AM
To add to this point (and here is something many Christians do not know, apparently) ... the religion we know of today as "Judaism" probably bears only a slight resemblence to the Judaism of the age of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel. Large parts of the OT are devoted to a priestly religion centred on a single Temple, which now no longer exists.
The Jerusalem-centric faith, with its monotheistic tinge, was itself in innovation, post-Assyrian conquest. The Israel and Judah of the Davidic and Omride periods probably looked very much like their Canaanite and Levantine neighbors in terms of religious practice.
Quote from: Tamas on May 23, 2013, 06:42:08 AM
What is the news here, Marty? Even Dante's Inferno says that those people who not sinned but were not Christian got into the terrace of whatever of Hell and not Hell itself.
So either Heaven, or Hell, but with a terrace.
Tough real estate choice.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 23, 2013, 12:18:04 PM
Quote from: Tamas on May 23, 2013, 06:42:08 AM
What is the news here, Marty? Even Dante's Inferno says that those people who not sinned but were not Christian got into the terrace of whatever of Hell and not Hell itself.
So either Heaven, or Hell, but with a terrace.
Tough real estate choice.
I hear the terrace view can't compete with the one from Heaven.
Quote from: Viking on May 23, 2013, 11:39:56 AM
Quote from: Malthus on May 23, 2013, 09:56:22 AM
They were heritical offshoots when they first arose - it was by no means clear that they were "seperate religions" for some time. Of course, over time they became quite seperate.
Well no.
Christianity doesn't consider itself an off-shoot, but rather a replacement for Judaism.
Islam doesn't consider itself an off-shoot, but rather the original religion while Judaism and Christianity are corruptions either by corrupt men or the devil.
You are missing the point. Obviously, both Christianity and Islam consider themselves the only valid religion. Historically, though, both were offshoots of Judaism - indeed, early Christians *were* Jews, and thought of themselves as such; it was only after some controversy that they ditched the markers of Jewish ritual.
For Islam, the latest (somewhat controversial) view is that early Muslims essentially considered themselves (and were considered) a variant of Judaism - only with the gloss that they themselves believed that the Jews got it wrong. In fact, Islam remains much more similar to Judaism than either are to Christianity - note for example that originally, Muslims prayed facing
Jerusalem, a city Mohammed only visited (it is said) in a vision.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 23, 2013, 12:16:24 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 23, 2013, 09:32:37 AM
To add to this point (and here is something many Christians do not know, apparently) ... the religion we know of today as "Judaism" probably bears only a slight resemblence to the Judaism of the age of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel. Large parts of the OT are devoted to a priestly religion centred on a single Temple, which now no longer exists.
The Jerusalem-centric faith, with its monotheistic tinge, was itself in innovation, post-Assyrian conquest. The Israel and Judah of the Davidic and Omride periods probably looked very much like their Canaanite and Levantine neighbors in terms of religious practice.
Yup, I reference this in later posts. "Judaism" has gone through many variants over the millenia, although the traces of the earlier varieties are somewhat obscured. It is pretty clear, though, that monotheism was not a necessary part of the package in the earlier variants.
Here's a recent book on early Islam - interesting if somewhat disjointed reading:
http://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Sword-Birth-Global-Empire/dp/0307473651/ref=la_B000APEALK_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1369331774&sr=1-2
Quote from: Malthus on May 23, 2013, 12:57:57 PM
Here's a recent book on early Islam - interesting if somewhat disjointed reading:
http://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Sword-Birth-Global-Empire/dp/0307473651/ref=la_B000APEALK_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1369331774&sr=1-2
I didn't read that book, but did read another on the birth of Islam.
The problem is a distinct lack of sources for that time period.
Quote from: Barrister on May 23, 2013, 01:11:54 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 23, 2013, 12:57:57 PM
Here's a recent book on early Islam - interesting if somewhat disjointed reading:
http://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Sword-Birth-Global-Empire/dp/0307473651/ref=la_B000APEALK_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1369331774&sr=1-2
I didn't read that book, but did read another on the birth of Islam.
The problem is a distinct lack of sources for that time period.
Yup. According to this author, that's no accident - allegedly, most of the religion was more or less invented a century or so later; the original Muslims were nowhere near as distinct from Jews and Christians as they were later to become, making their ability to appeal to both Jews and Christian minorities like monophysites as a viable alternative to Byzantium a lot more explicable.
Quote from: Malthus on May 23, 2013, 12:57:57 PM
Here's a recent book on early Islam - interesting if somewhat disjointed reading:
http://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Sword-Birth-Global-Empire/dp/0307473651/ref=la_B000APEALK_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1369331774&sr=1-2
hey, thanks!
Quote from: Malthus on May 23, 2013, 12:57:57 PM
Here's a recent book on early Islam -
Wouldn't an old book be better?
A thread about the Pope being cool gets derailed by Jews. Figures. <_<
Quote from: Malthus on May 23, 2013, 12:57:57 PM
Here's a recent book on early Islam - interesting if somewhat disjointed reading:
http://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Sword-Birth-Global-Empire/dp/0307473651/ref=la_B000APEALK_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1369331774&sr=1-2
This http://www.amazon.com/Muhammad-Believers-At-Origins-Islam/dp/0674064143 (http://www.amazon.com/Muhammad-Believers-At-Origins-Islam/dp/0674064143) is another good one. It basically says that the early Muslims were a little hazy on whether they were a distinct religion or if Jews and Christians could also be Muslims.
I agree with garbon in part, it isn't really surprising that something very small and obscure 2,000 years ago was the source for some stuff that's global and important today. That's just sort of how history works, and we can think of a lot of stuff like that and then usually pick out a lot of other things that have fallen to the wayside just by quirks of history. If the Persians had successfully invaded Greece for example it's hard to say if guys like Aristotle and others of the great philosophers would be celebrated in the West today. The Persians themselves were a highly educated/learned people and maybe the Renaissance (if we would have ever had a dark ages in this timeline) would celebrate rediscovery in the West of ancient Persian thinkers, who knows.
I do think the old religions that were replaced by Christianity and Islam were not well set up to succeed. I think one of the key reasons both Christianity and Islam "worked" so well is they are naturally evangelizing, and create an strong impetus in the believer to care about converting others, it becomes a mission. The religions themselves are also fundamentally "stronger" precisely because they are basically codes for being "good men" while promising only reward in the afterlife. The pagan religions promised rewards and gifts from random Gods in exchange for rituals and sacrifices and that stuff is easy to lose faith in when it doesn't work a few times and the guys with crosses are kicking your ass.
It's actually interesting to see the development of American Protestantism, which in many ways undermines much of that. American Protestants regularly believe God takes frequent, direct personal action in their lives. They believe prayers are akin to spells that work miracles on demand and all kinds of things that really were not part of early Christianity or even Christianity aside from the weird vein of American Protestantism. Now, that's not to say Christians weren't stupid and superstitious before American Protestantism, but they tended instead to be easily convinced by deceptive monks and such that "miracles" were being worked and there was a framework for this concept of miracles. Further, periodically the higher up authorities in the Church would preach out against that sort of superstitious bullshit, so while it was happening it was never fully accepted doctrine. For many branches of American Protestantism it's basically widely understood and part of doctrine that prayers can work miracles and do pretty much constantly and that any random event in life is 100% ascribable to God's direct hand.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 23, 2013, 02:12:39 PM
I agree with garbon in part, it isn't really surprising that something very small and obscure 2,000 years ago was the source for some stuff that's global and important today. That's just sort of how history works, and we can think of a lot of stuff like that and then usually pick out a lot of other things that have fallen to the wayside just by quirks of history. If the Persians had successfully invaded Greece for example it's hard to say if guys like Aristotle and others of the great philosophers would be celebrated in the West today. The Persians themselves were a highly educated/learned people and maybe the Renaissance (if we would have ever had a dark ages in this timeline) would celebrate rediscovery in the West of ancient Persian thinkers, who knows.
I do think the old religions that were replaced by Christianity and Islam were not well set up to succeed. I think one of the key reasons both Christianity and Islam "worked" so well is they are naturally evangelizing, and create an strong impetus in the believer to care about converting others, it becomes a mission. The religions themselves are also fundamentally "stronger" precisely because they are basically codes for being "good men" while promising only reward in the afterlife. The pagan religions promised rewards and gifts from random Gods in exchange for rituals and sacrifices and that stuff is easy to lose faith in when it doesn't work a few times and the guys with crosses are kicking your ass.
It's actually interesting to see the development of American Protestantism, which in many ways undermines much of that. American Protestants regularly believe God takes frequent, direct personal action in their lives. They believe prayers are akin to spells that work miracles on demand and all kinds of things that really were not part of early Christianity or even Christianity aside from the weird vein of American Protestantism. Now, that's not to say Christians weren't stupid and superstitious before American Protestantism, but they tended instead to be easily convinced by deceptive monks and such that "miracles" were being worked and there was a framework for this concept of miracles. Further, periodically the higher up authorities in the Church would preach out against that sort of superstitious bullshit, so while it was happening it was never fully accepted doctrine. For many branches of American Protestantism it's basically widely understood and part of doctrine that prayers can work miracles and do pretty much constantly and that any random event in life is 100% ascribable to God's direct hand.
A Catholic is claiming that Protestantism is flawed because it believes in prayer and miracles?
:rolleyes:
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 23, 2013, 02:12:39 PM
It's actually interesting to see the development of American Protestantism, which in many ways undermines much of that. American Protestants regularly believe God takes frequent, direct personal action in their lives. They believe prayers are akin to spells that work miracles on demand and all kinds of things that really were not part of early Christianity or even Christianity aside from the weird vein of American Protestantism. Now, that's not to say Christians weren't stupid and superstitious before American Protestantism, but they tended instead to be easily convinced by deceptive monks and such that "miracles" were being worked and there was a framework for this concept of miracles. Further, periodically the higher up authorities in the Church would preach out against that sort of superstitious bullshit, so while it was happening it was never fully accepted doctrine. For many branches of American Protestantism it's basically widely understood and part of doctrine that prayers can work miracles and do pretty much constantly and that any random event in life is 100% ascribable to God's direct hand.
I think you need to qualify this a bit further. "American Protestantism" includes for example United Methodists, and I most certainly was not brought up to believe that prayers are akin to spells, etc. I don't think that the UMC would absolutely deny anything that you're saying, but they certainly do not stress it. It sounds like you're thinking of groups like the Southern Baptists, Pentecostals, etc. and yes, they certainly do have members who strongly believe the things you are claiming above. In my view mainline Protestants (Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians) aren't really that different than most Catholics in that they may go to church, but it's more of a social thing and there are many members of the congregation who in fact lead lives that don't revolve around magical thinking, as strange as that may sound to, for example, an atheist who grew up and is largely outside of the Protestant social circles (since by definition religion is based on some required degree of magical thinking).
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on May 23, 2013, 02:02:12 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 23, 2013, 12:57:57 PM
Here's a recent book on early Islam - interesting if somewhat disjointed reading:
http://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Sword-Birth-Global-Empire/dp/0307473651/ref=la_B000APEALK_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1369331774&sr=1-2
This http://www.amazon.com/Muhammad-Believers-At-Origins-Islam/dp/0674064143 (http://www.amazon.com/Muhammad-Believers-At-Origins-Islam/dp/0674064143) is another good one. It basically says that the early Muslims were a little hazy on whether they were a distinct religion or if Jews and Christians could also be Muslims.
Yup, seems basically a similar account.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 23, 2013, 02:12:39 PM
I agree with garbon in part, it isn't really surprising that something very small and obscure 2,000 years ago was the source for some stuff that's global and important today. That's just sort of how history works, and we can think of a lot of stuff like that and then usually pick out a lot of other things that have fallen to the wayside just by quirks of history. If the Persians had successfully invaded Greece for example it's hard to say if guys like Aristotle and others of the great philosophers would be celebrated in the West today. The Persians themselves were a highly educated/learned people and maybe the Renaissance (if we would have ever had a dark ages in this timeline) would celebrate rediscovery in the West of ancient Persian thinkers, who knows.
To my mind it is very remarkable that the god of an obscure nation should inspire not one, not two, but
three of the world's great religions. I know of no other example of something like that.
Quote from: Martinus on May 23, 2013, 01:52:38 PM
A thread about the Pope being cool gets derailed by Jews. Figures. <_<
It's a plot. :Joos
Quote from: Malthus on May 23, 2013, 05:13:10 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 23, 2013, 02:12:39 PM
I agree with garbon in part, it isn't really surprising that something very small and obscure 2,000 years ago was the source for some stuff that's global and important today. That's just sort of how history works, and we can think of a lot of stuff like that and then usually pick out a lot of other things that have fallen to the wayside just by quirks of history. If the Persians had successfully invaded Greece for example it's hard to say if guys like Aristotle and others of the great philosophers would be celebrated in the West today. The Persians themselves were a highly educated/learned people and maybe the Renaissance (if we would have ever had a dark ages in this timeline) would celebrate rediscovery in the West of ancient Persian thinkers, who knows.
To my mind it is very remarkable that the god of an obscure nation should inspire not one, not two, but three of the world's great religions. I know of no other example of something like that.
No offence, but does judaism really count as one of the world's great religions? Seems like there are around 13-14 million. Christianity, islam, buddhism and hindu have it well beat. Instead Judaism is down there with sikhism, jainism and bahia.
Judaism's only real claim to fame is that it inspired the other two religions. -_-
Quote from: Barrister on May 23, 2013, 05:22:22 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 23, 2013, 05:13:10 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 23, 2013, 02:12:39 PM
I agree with garbon in part, it isn't really surprising that something very small and obscure 2,000 years ago was the source for some stuff that's global and important today. That's just sort of how history works, and we can think of a lot of stuff like that and then usually pick out a lot of other things that have fallen to the wayside just by quirks of history. If the Persians had successfully invaded Greece for example it's hard to say if guys like Aristotle and others of the great philosophers would be celebrated in the West today. The Persians themselves were a highly educated/learned people and maybe the Renaissance (if we would have ever had a dark ages in this timeline) would celebrate rediscovery in the West of ancient Persian thinkers, who knows.
To my mind it is very remarkable that the god of an obscure nation should inspire not one, not two, but three of the world's great religions. I know of no other example of something like that.
No offence, but does judaism really count as one of the world's great religions? Seems like there are around 13-14 million. Christianity, islam, buddhism and hindu have it well beat. Instead Judaism is down there with sikhism, jainism and bahia.
Judaism's only real claim to fame is that it inspired the other two religions. -_-
Shrug. It is
always listed as such, when people bother to list the "world's great religions".
For example:
http://books.google.ca/books/about/The_World_s_Great_Religions.html?id=wEjIX4FldtkC
QuoteThis concise volume offers an introduction to the eleven "living" religions of the world: Hinduism, Shintoism, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Taoism, Confucianism, Jainism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, and Sikhism. Three of these (Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam) aspire to universality, and the others are confined to a special group of people or countries.
Another:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/discover-the-worlds-great-religions-844076.html
Another:
http://www.conted.ox.ac.uk/courses/details.php?id=L350-1
You wanna quibble, quibble to the world at large. You can start by pointing out to Oxford University their "error". ;)
Yeah, but Beeb, one Jew is worth like 10,000 Gentiles.
Quote from: Malthus on May 23, 2013, 05:30:41 PM
For example:
http://books.google.ca/books/about/The_World_s_Great_Religions.html?id=wEjIX4FldtkC
QuoteThis concise volume offers an introduction to the eleven "living" religions of the world: Hinduism, Shintoism, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Taoism, Confucianism, Jainism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, and Sikhism. Three of these (Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam) aspire to universality, and the others are confined to a special group of people or countries.
As a side note, I would observe that your reviewer is incorrect about Sikhism, as I understand it; Sikhism does aspire to universality, though it hasn't had much luck in that regard. There may be other religions there that aspire as well, but I am not sure about them.
I might also quibble about Shintoism being a "religion" (let alone a "great religion"). Almost all followers of Shinto are Buddhists as well. I won't, though, as the definition of religion is so plastic as to make the quibble meaningless except maybe to its followers.
Quote from: grumbler on May 23, 2013, 10:57:16 AM(confused or stupid association football fans often even mistakenly think that rugby and american football can't be football, because they allow the use of the hands).
That's pretty harsh on poor Jos.
Quote from: Barrister on May 23, 2013, 02:37:02 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 23, 2013, 02:12:39 PM
I agree with garbon in part, it isn't really surprising that something very small and obscure 2,000 years ago was the source for some stuff that's global and important today. That's just sort of how history works, and we can think of a lot of stuff like that and then usually pick out a lot of other things that have fallen to the wayside just by quirks of history. If the Persians had successfully invaded Greece for example it's hard to say if guys like Aristotle and others of the great philosophers would be celebrated in the West today. The Persians themselves were a highly educated/learned people and maybe the Renaissance (if we would have ever had a dark ages in this timeline) would celebrate rediscovery in the West of ancient Persian thinkers, who knows.
I do think the old religions that were replaced by Christianity and Islam were not well set up to succeed. I think one of the key reasons both Christianity and Islam "worked" so well is they are naturally evangelizing, and create an strong impetus in the believer to care about converting others, it becomes a mission. The religions themselves are also fundamentally "stronger" precisely because they are basically codes for being "good men" while promising only reward in the afterlife. The pagan religions promised rewards and gifts from random Gods in exchange for rituals and sacrifices and that stuff is easy to lose faith in when it doesn't work a few times and the guys with crosses are kicking your ass.
It's actually interesting to see the development of American Protestantism, which in many ways undermines much of that. American Protestants regularly believe God takes frequent, direct personal action in their lives. They believe prayers are akin to spells that work miracles on demand and all kinds of things that really were not part of early Christianity or even Christianity aside from the weird vein of American Protestantism. Now, that's not to say Christians weren't stupid and superstitious before American Protestantism, but they tended instead to be easily convinced by deceptive monks and such that "miracles" were being worked and there was a framework for this concept of miracles. Further, periodically the higher up authorities in the Church would preach out against that sort of superstitious bullshit, so while it was happening it was never fully accepted doctrine. For many branches of American Protestantism it's basically widely understood and part of doctrine that prayers can work miracles and do pretty much constantly and that any random event in life is 100% ascribable to God's direct hand.
A Catholic is claiming that Protestantism is flawed because it believes in prayer and miracles?
:rolleyes:
No, Protestantism is flawed, because it is a heresy of the one true Catholic Church. That's all.
Quote from: Martinus on May 24, 2013, 12:08:45 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 23, 2013, 02:37:02 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 23, 2013, 02:12:39 PM
I agree with garbon in part, it isn't really surprising that something very small and obscure 2,000 years ago was the source for some stuff that's global and important today. That's just sort of how history works, and we can think of a lot of stuff like that and then usually pick out a lot of other things that have fallen to the wayside just by quirks of history. If the Persians had successfully invaded Greece for example it's hard to say if guys like Aristotle and others of the great philosophers would be celebrated in the West today. The Persians themselves were a highly educated/learned people and maybe the Renaissance (if we would have ever had a dark ages in this timeline) would celebrate rediscovery in the West of ancient Persian thinkers, who knows.
I do think the old religions that were replaced by Christianity and Islam were not well set up to succeed. I think one of the key reasons both Christianity and Islam "worked" so well is they are naturally evangelizing, and create an strong impetus in the believer to care about converting others, it becomes a mission. The religions themselves are also fundamentally "stronger" precisely because they are basically codes for being "good men" while promising only reward in the afterlife. The pagan religions promised rewards and gifts from random Gods in exchange for rituals and sacrifices and that stuff is easy to lose faith in when it doesn't work a few times and the guys with crosses are kicking your ass.
It's actually interesting to see the development of American Protestantism, which in many ways undermines much of that. American Protestants regularly believe God takes frequent, direct personal action in their lives. They believe prayers are akin to spells that work miracles on demand and all kinds of things that really were not part of early Christianity or even Christianity aside from the weird vein of American Protestantism. Now, that's not to say Christians weren't stupid and superstitious before American Protestantism, but they tended instead to be easily convinced by deceptive monks and such that "miracles" were being worked and there was a framework for this concept of miracles. Further, periodically the higher up authorities in the Church would preach out against that sort of superstitious bullshit, so while it was happening it was never fully accepted doctrine. For many branches of American Protestantism it's basically widely understood and part of doctrine that prayers can work miracles and do pretty much constantly and that any random event in life is 100% ascribable to God's direct hand.
A Catholic is claiming that Protestantism is flawed because it believes in prayer and miracles?
:rolleyes:
No, Protestantism is flawed, because it is a heresy of the one true Catholic Church. That's all.
And Catholicism is flawed because it rejects, when convenient, Holy Scripture. Try to troll harder, Marty. :rolleyes:
But I still want Otto to answer for his ridiculous claims that it's the Protestants who believe in the magical power of prayer, and not catholics.
Well, it's easy to answer. One of the biggest advantages of the Catholic Church is that it is a centralized religion. This means that it can have an official response to a lot of stuff, and while folk regionalism happens, it is not besmirching the name of the religion as a whole, most of the time.
The situation in most protestant churches is much worse because actions of one crazy pastor very rarely can be censured by the central authority (Anglicans and the like are the obvious exception but then they are simply Catholics without a Pope).
And although the Catholic Church has its saints and miracles, these are subject to a very thorough scrutiny and, despite the impression, are not that common (and in fact the overwhelming majority of claims of miracles are rejected by the Church) - whereas in non-Catholic christian denonimations miracuolous cures, speaking in tongues etc. runs rampant. For example I have never heard of a Catholic priest handling a snake (except the one in an altar boy's pants).
Quote from: Tamas on May 23, 2013, 06:42:51 AM
BTW if we are on topic, before you start going to churches again on account of this dude, don't forget that your place in hell is guaranteed :contract:
No it's not. All I need to do is to confess on my deathbed and there I go to the pearly gates. That's what's great about Catholicism.
Quote from: Martinus on May 24, 2013, 02:06:49 AM
Quote from: Tamas on May 23, 2013, 06:42:51 AM
BTW if we are on topic, before you start going to churches again on account of this dude, don't forget that your place in hell is guaranteed :contract:
No it's not. All I need to do is to confess on my deathbed and there I go to the pearly gates. That's what's great about Catholicism.
Nice try, cocknibbler. Too bad all those spooge stains will give you away when Saint Peter busts you with his UV lamp.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 24, 2013, 02:17:54 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 24, 2013, 02:06:49 AM
Quote from: Tamas on May 23, 2013, 06:42:51 AM
BTW if we are on topic, before you start going to churches again on account of this dude, don't forget that your place in hell is guaranteed :contract:
No it's not. All I need to do is to confess on my deathbed and there I go to the pearly gates. That's what's great about Catholicism.
Nice try, cocknibbler. Too bad all those spooge stains will give you away when Saint Peter busts you with his UV lamp.
You, with your extramarital sex, are equally sinful.
Am not.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 24, 2013, 02:22:21 AM
Am not.
Yes, you are. Among the ten commandments, two cover your behaviour - i.e. coveting your neighbor's wife, and adultery (which the Catholic Church considers to be any sex between two people who are not married to each other), whereas mine only falls under adultery.
In fact, it's a question whether I even have sex at all - after all I'm doing what Pope does on the Holy Thursday, so I am just being Christ-like (while He never put His dick into a vagina). :P
Quote from: Martinus on May 24, 2013, 02:02:29 AM
And although the Catholic Church has its saints and miracles, these are subject to a very thorough scrutiny and, despite the impression, are not that common (and in fact the overwhelming majority of claims of miracles are rejected by the Church) - whereas in non-Catholic christian denonimations miracuolous cures, speaking in tongues etc. runs rampant. For example I have never heard of a Catholic priest handling a snake (except the one in an altar boy's pants).
Pretty funny to see an alleged intellectual argue that, while the Catholic church asks its followers to believe in the impossible, it is superior to some hillbilly churches because it asks its followers to believe in fewer impossible things than they do! :lol:
Two words for ya to think about for a second, before you say anything more that's so silly: ritual cannibalism.
Quote from: Martinus on May 24, 2013, 02:35:27 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 24, 2013, 02:22:21 AM
Am not.
Yes, you are. Among the ten commandments, two cover your behaviour - i.e. coveting your neighbor's wife, and adultery (which the Catholic Church considers to be any sex between two people who are not married to each other), whereas mine only falls under adultery.
I didn't say I wasn't sinful, just not as equally sinful as you.
It really does seem Marti is turning back to the faith :lol:
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 23, 2013, 06:58:04 AM
It's a fair question altho the real danger isn't the catholic church. It's all those evengelical anglicans.
:yes:
Except for spreading Aids and stopping abortion the catholics have always been pretty decent. Gotta love the whole do whatever you like then say sorry thing.
Quote from: Barrister on May 24, 2013, 01:05:57 AMAnd Catholicism is flawed because it rejects, when convenient, Holy Scripture. Try to troll harder, Marty. :rolleyes:
But I still want Otto to answer for his ridiculous claims that it's the Protestants who believe in the magical power of prayer, and not catholics.
I would argue we do not reject Holy Scripture "when convenient", but instead that as a Church shepherded by many generations of professional priests who devoted their life to learned study we can elucidate doctrine that strays from "literalism" because of the deeper understanding of our faith. We can view stories like the creation myth or Noah as works of ancient literature, and we do not have to view the Bible as an all-knowing "user's manual" for life as many Protestants insist that it is.
I understand where you're coming from on the "magical power of prayer" argument. Yes, my Church recognizes miracles and essentially supernatural intercession by Saints elicited sometimes by prayer. But this is very, very rare. We have a very structured and organized organ within the Church to officially recognize these miracles. The overwhelming majority of miracles are deemed superstitious nonsense and are never recognized. Further, the Church generally presents these miracles as rare, powerful events almost always associated with advancing some greater purpose. By and large I am correct when I say the Catholic Church doesn't believe you can "pray" to get a promotion at work or "pray" to cure illness [aside from a few very specific miraculous events], nor do we teach that in the random world we live in that if you survive a car wreck or a natural disaster that God took a direct hand. We generally believe those are just simple random chance in a world that runs on its own devices.
Protestants ascribe God's hand in every good fortune that comes their way, and ascribe God's hand in every misfortune and consider it a "test from God." Now, I will acknowledge what Caliga said, I am not generally talking about mainline American Protestants, but American fundamentalist Protestants. But unfortunately mainline Protestants are a dying breed, the biggest religious growth group by far are the fundamentalist Protestants. That is who I am talking about specifically. Unfortunately their influence on the religious in this country is so profound that it has even infected American Catholicism. Something like 30% of American Catholics self-identify as biblical literalists for example, without understanding the grave error and opposition to official Church doctrine such a stance represents.
FWIW, as an individual Catholic I disagree with the Church's stance on miracles. I do not believe in them and I expect perhaps within my life time the Church will reevaluate its view on them. A lot of the miracles now I think just serve as convenient political excuses to beatify a recently deceased Pope. See the miracles ascribed the Pope John Paul II in the afterlife for example, I honestly doubt even the officials involved in certifying those as miracles really believe it, they just see it as an exercise necessary to exalt a beloved Pope.
:lol: professional clergymen dedicated to study. And infant ass.
Quote from: grumbler on May 24, 2013, 06:08:13 AMPretty funny to see an alleged intellectual argue that, while the Catholic church asks its followers to believe in the impossible, it is superior to some hillbilly churches because it asks its followers to believe in fewer impossible things than they do! :lol:
Two words for ya to think about for a second, before you say anything more that's so silly: ritual cannibalism.
Not really that funny. I always find it interesting that atheists think their arguments are interesting to the faithful, anyone serious about their faith is well aware that to an atheist it's all just the same load of shit. But that has nothing to do with how the faithful would look at and interpret theological arguments. Protestantism, dating back to Luther, taught that individuals can read and interpret the bible on their own and that the Holy Spirit would protect them from error. Unfortunately once more than one person started doing that you had to reconcile individuals with widely different interpretations, and how could the Holy Spirit be protecting both believers and yet they conclude very different interpretations? This resulted for a long time in basically extreme fracturing in Protestantism and lots of Protestant groups emerging essentially overnight and many of them viciously hating one another. But it also ultimately lead in the last 150 years or so to a growing vein of literalism. That uniquely Protestant problem is really most logically solved by literalism, and that's the pitfall of Protestantism. Once you're sucked into the hole of biblical literalism you also by extension have to accept the concept of biblical supremacy, in which you believe the bible must be the truly infallible word of God and the begin and the end of all Christian thought and teachings. The Catholic Church's approach is far more reasoned and realistic, and based in large part on learned interpretation and an understanding that God created the world we live in so when a fable from the Bible contradicts a confirmed understanding of the world we need to recognize the Bible story as the fable that it is.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 24, 2013, 08:08:21 AM
I understand where you're coming from on the "magical power of prayer" argument. Yes, my Church recognizes miracles and essentially supernatural intercession by Saints elicited sometimes by prayer. But this is very, very rare.
Huh? Isn't it the Catholic Church's position that priests perform a miracle every time they consecrate the Eucharist?
QuoteProtestants ascribe God's hand in every good fortune that comes their way, and ascribe God's hand in every misfortune and consider it a "test from God."
Are you sure this isn't a straw man? Smells like straw to me. The Catholic Church does, as far as I know, believe that their god is both omniscient and omnipotent; therefor, everything that happens, good or bad, must logically happen with their god's knowledge and consent.
My own belief is that you Christians make far too much of tiny differences between your creeds. The difference between belief and disbelief in magic kinda dwarfs any differences between the various ways in which one believes in magic, at least to us who disbelieve.
Quote from: Tyr on May 24, 2013, 07:37:25 AM
It really does seem Marti is turning back to the faith :lol:
I am not turning back to the faith (at least not yet), it's just that (as I have always been saying), if I were to relapse back into Christianity, then I would almost certainly go Catholic, as Catholicism seems like the real deal and not a cheap copy.
Quote from: grumbler on May 24, 2013, 08:27:45 AM
Huh? Isn't it the Catholic Church's position that priests perform a miracle every time they consecrate the Eucharist?
Well, to be specific, transsubstantiation is only a miracle in a stricly theological sense, and not a "popular" sense - the Catholic Church does not believe the transformation is physical.
On the other hand, all claims of the Eucharist shedding blood and whatnot are met by the Catholic Church with a large dose of scepticism.
Quote from: Martinus on May 24, 2013, 08:28:53 AM
Quote from: Tyr on May 24, 2013, 07:37:25 AM
It really does seem Marti is turning back to the faith :lol:
I am not turning back to the faith (at least not yet), it's just that (as I have always been saying), if I were to relapse back into Christianity, then I would almost certainly go Catholic, as Catholicism seems like the real deal and not a cheap copy.
Eastern Orthodoxy is now appropriately outraged.
Quote from: Martinus on May 24, 2013, 08:28:53 AM
Quote from: Tyr on May 24, 2013, 07:37:25 AM
It really does seem Marti is turning back to the faith :lol:
I am not turning back to the faith (at least not yet), it's just that (as I have always been saying), if I were to relapse back into Christianity, then I would almost certainly go Catholic, as Catholicism seems like the real deal and not a cheap copy.
You would choose Catholicism because you are a Polack and even Polish household items go to Catholic churches.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 24, 2013, 08:15:41 AM
Not really that funny. I always find it interesting that atheists think their arguments are interesting to the faithful, anyone serious about their faith is well aware that to an atheist it's all just the same load of shit.
Atheists get a great deal of amusement out of the squirming attempts of "the faithful" to justify their insistence on the importance of the tiny differences between their various versions of magic. So, we discuss these magical beliefs with "the faithful" and "the faithful" dutifully charge at our red capes.
QuoteBut that has nothing to do with how the faithful would look at and interpret theological arguments. Protestantism, dating back to Luther, taught that individuals can read and interpret the bible on their own and that the Holy Spirit would protect them from error. Unfortunately once more than one person started doing that you had to reconcile individuals with widely different interpretations, and how could the Holy Spirit be protecting both believers and yet they conclude very different interpretations? This resulted for a long time in basically extreme fracturing in Protestantism and lots of Protestant groups emerging essentially overnight and many of them viciously hating one another. But it also ultimately lead in the last 150 years or so to a growing vein of literalism. That uniquely Protestant problem is really most logically solved by literalism, and that's the pitfall of Protestantism. Once you're sucked into the hole of biblical literalism you also by extension have to accept the concept of biblical supremacy, in which you believe the bible must be the truly infallible word of God and the begin and the end of all Christian thought and teachings. The Catholic Church's approach is far more reasoned and realistic, and based in large part on learned interpretation and an understanding that God created the world we live in so when a fable from the Bible contradicts a confirmed understanding of the world we need to recognize the Bible story as the fable that it is.
The problem with your argument is that it proceeds from ignorance. Not a protestant I know believes in literalism. There may be some Protestants who do, but you can't draw the line between Catholics and Protestants at literalism.
And it is amusing to hear someone claim that the Catholic church always discards evidence from the bible in favor of empirical evidence; Galileo Galilei would not agree.
Quote from: Martinus on May 24, 2013, 08:34:35 AM
Well, to be specific, transsubstantiation is only a miracle in a stricly theological sense, and not a "popular" sense - the Catholic Church does not believe the transformation is physical.
Are you sure that the Catholic Church's official position is that it "does not believe the transformation is physical" in the Eucharist? That contradicts what I have been told by priests and lay Catholics alike, and read in several sources. My sources could all be wrong, however. But I'd like more than your word for it.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 24, 2013, 08:08:21 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 24, 2013, 01:05:57 AMAnd Catholicism is flawed because it rejects, when convenient, Holy Scripture. Try to troll harder, Marty. :rolleyes:
But I still want Otto to answer for his ridiculous claims that it's the Protestants who believe in the magical power of prayer, and not catholics.
I would argue we do not reject Holy Scripture "when convenient", but instead that as a Church shepherded by many generations of professional priests who devoted their life to learned study we can elucidate doctrine that strays from "literalism" because of the deeper understanding of our faith.
Which is Theology speak for "we make it up as we go along". You are arguing that the best understanding of the nature of the world and morality and ethics is to listen to people who spent their entire life understanding a book you already say is full of un-truth.
You are not reaching a deeper understanding of faith. Catholicism has had less to contribute to knowledge, ethics and morality as time goes by. The progress that it has made has been done when it has been dragged kicking and screaming forwards while secular knowledge, ethics and morality has been there for a long time.
But, I am open to being proved wrong. What deeper understanding of faith has there been since 1657? (Spinozas excommunication)
If Luther had been a Languishista, it would have been 95 feces he nailed to the door of the Church of Wittenberg. :P
Quote from: grumbler on May 24, 2013, 08:41:57 AM
Atheists get a great deal of amusement out of the squirming attempts of "the faithful" to justify their insistence on the importance of the tiny differences between their various versions of magic. So, we discuss these magical beliefs with "the faithful" and "the faithful" dutifully charge at our red capes.
Um...yes that is what he just said.
QuoteAnd it is amusing to hear someone claim that the Catholic church always discards evidence from the bible in favor of empirical evidence; Galileo Galilei would not agree.
Really? I am amused that was the best example you could think of.
Quote from: grumbler on May 24, 2013, 08:44:47 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 24, 2013, 08:34:35 AM
Well, to be specific, transsubstantiation is only a miracle in a stricly theological sense, and not a "popular" sense - the Catholic Church does not believe the transformation is physical.
Are you sure that the Catholic Church's official position is that it "does not believe the transformation is physical" in the Eucharist? That contradicts what I have been told by priests and lay Catholics alike, and read in several sources. My sources could all be wrong, however. But I'd like more than your word for it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation
QuoteIn Roman Catholic theology, transubstantiation (in Latin, transsubstantiatio, in Greek μετουσίωσις metousiosis) is the doctrine that, in the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and the wine used in the sacrament is literally, not merely as by a sign or a figure, but in actual reality as well,[1][2] changed into the substance of the Body and the Blood of Jesus,[3] while all that is accessible to the senses (the physical[citation needed] appearances - species[4][5][6] in Latin) remains unchanged.[7][8] What remains unaltered is also referred to as the "accidents" of the bread and wine,[9] but this term is not used in the official definition of the doctrine by the Council of Trent.[10]
The Eastern Ort
It actually changes without seeming to change. Both physical and spiritual.
Quote from: Valmy on May 24, 2013, 08:49:05 AM
Um...yes that is what he just said.
Um, yes, it was.
QuoteReally? I am amused that was the best example you could think of.
Really? You've never heard of him? His case is probably the best-known case of the church rejecting empirical evidence.
The "essence" changes but to our senses (i.e. physically) it remains the same. It's really a highly abstract difference.
Quote from: Viking on May 24, 2013, 08:50:45 AM
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation
QuoteIn Roman Catholic theology, transubstantiation (in Latin, transsubstantiatio, in Greek μετουσίωσις metousiosis) is the doctrine that, in the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and the wine used in the sacrament is literally, not merely as by a sign or a figure, but in actual reality as well,[1][2] changed into the substance of the Body and the Blood of Jesus,[3] while all that is accessible to the senses (the physical[citation needed] appearances - species[4][5][6] in Latin) remains unchanged.[7][8] What remains unaltered is also referred to as the "accidents" of the bread and wine,[9] but this term is not used in the official definition of the doctrine by the Council of Trent.[10]
The Eastern Ort
It actually changes without seeming to change. Both physical and spiritual.
If the best source you can find is "some guy on the internet," like the author of a wikipedia article, best not to press the case.
How about the Aquinas?
QuoteI answer that, It is evident to sense that all the accidents of the bread and wine remain after the consecration. And this is reasonably done by Divine providence. First of all, because it is not customary, but horrible, for men to eat human flesh, and to drink blood. And therefore Christ's flesh and blood are set before us to be partaken of under the species of those things which are the more commonly used by men, namely, bread and wine. Secondly, lest this sacrament might be derided by unbelievers, if we were to eat our Lord under His own species. Thirdly, that while we receive our Lord's body and blood invisibly, this may redound to the merit of faith.
Or still not good enough for you?
Quote from: Martinus on May 24, 2013, 09:04:46 AM
The "essence" changes but to our senses (i.e. physically) it remains the same. It's really a highly abstract difference.
And this miraculous change to the "essence" comes as the result of the speaking of specific words by a designated and empowered priest, does it not? How does this differ from casting a spell, except by being a miracle?
I don't think Otto's position that the Catholic Church doesn't believe in commonly-occurring miracles is tenable, unless the Eucharist is changed by a magical spell cast by the priest.
Quote from: grumbler on May 24, 2013, 09:01:22 AM
Really? You've never heard of him? His case is probably the best-known case of the church rejecting empirical evidence.
Um yes I was amused you used an example because I know nothing about it :huh:
But I guess you just think I am easily amused and that is fair enough.
It was so wrapped up in the hilarious fun of renaissance Italian politics, essentially he was a big wheel whose enemies got control of the Papacy, and with the Church being so married to Aristotle I thought it was funny you used that as an example of the Church blindly persecuting based on the Bible.
Quote from: Martinus on May 24, 2013, 09:04:46 AM
The "essence" changes but to our senses (i.e. physically) it remains the same. It's really a highly abstract difference.
No it is not an abstract difference, unless one approaches the question from an empiricist philosophical framework, in which case the entire doctrine is at best gibberish. It is a very real and critical difference. It means the after the consecration, the bread and the wine are not there; they have really been replaced by the blood and body. It just does not appear that way to senses.
Quote from: Martinus on May 24, 2013, 09:15:39 AM
How about the Aquinas?
Read on further:
QuoteIt seems that the whole dimensive quantity of Christ's body is not in this sacrament. For it was said that Christ's entire body is contained under every part of the consecrated host. But no dimensive quantity is contained entirely in any whole, and in its every part. Therefore it is impossible for the entire dimensive quantity of Christ's body to be there. . . I answer that . . .the conversion which takes place in this sacrament is terminated directly at the substance of Christ's body, and not at its dimensions; which is evident from the fact that the dimensive quantity of the bread remains after the consecration, while only the substance of the bread passes away. Nevertheless, since the substance of Christ's body is not really deprived of its dimensive quantity and its other accidents, hence it comes that by reason of real concomitance the whole dimensive quantity of Christ's body and all its other accidents are in this sacrament. . . . Since, then, the substance of Christ's body is present on the altar by the power of this sacrament, while its dimensive quantity is there concomitantly and as it were accidentally, therefore the dimensive quantity of Christ's body is in this sacrament, not according to its proper manner (namely, that the whole is in the whole, and the individual parts in individual parts), but after the manner of substance, whose nature is for the whole to be in the whole, and the whole in every part.
Christ's body is really there in all of its parts and dimensions but it is not perceived as being there.
Which is consistent with the other passage.
Next topic of discussion: Big Foot's digestive system
Basically something very important and significant happens to the cracker, but... nothing you can do to observe or measure it will show this and no effect of this will be measured nor will it have any observable or measurable effect until, in keynes speak, the long run has passed and we are all dead.
During transubstantiation the Church teaches that the substance of the bread and the wine are converted into the body and blood of Christ, but not the physical form and appearance. It's akin to if a block of lead was turned to gold but in a way that no human could detect it was anything other than lead. Transubstantiation is often talked about too much by non-theists who lack appropriate theological understanding of the issue, the real importance of the Eucharist is the presence of Christ himself during the ritual, which is what allows it to happen.
This core religious ritual is very different from what I'm talking about from Protestants, who instead believe that any person for any reason can basically summon magical powers from God to achieve worldly concerns. The Eucharist is a strictly spiritual thing, whereas many American Protestants believe you can use the power of God to protect you from the venom of a snake, or if you pray enough you can expect God to solve major life problems for you.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.silverfishlongboarding.com%2Fforum%2Fattachment.php%3Fattachmentid%3D76684%26amp%3Bd%3D1332192183&hash=27c631b74ef1548efe1a6376476f0a5dbc597921)
I actually wonder how many here have sat in on a American Protestant religious service. A grandmother on my father's side was Presbyterian, a mainline Protestant denomination and their services are very normal and non-crazy to me. But I've heard Southern Baptist and Pentecostal sermons and in between the mixture of craziness, speaking in tongues and other insanity the core message of all of their sermons I've ever heard have been either of two possible things: 1) if you do not do exactly what the Bible says you will burn forever in Hell and can most likely expect horrible things to happen to you in the material world as well, 2) any problem in life can be and should be first resolved by devotion to God and prayer, you should pray for anyone who is having a problem because God will answer those prayers and solve those problems for you, any concern at all with matters of the world is innately sinful and wrong.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 24, 2013, 09:41:38 AM
During transubstantiation the Church teaches that the substance of the bread and the wine are converted into the body and blood of Christ, but not the physical form and appearance.
The form does change, but not the appearance.
QuoteTransubstantiation is often talked about too much by non-theists who lack appropriate theological understanding of the issue . . . The Eucharist is a strictly spiritual thing
It's not a question of purely theological understanding; there is a clear philosophical underpinning using the categories and elements of classic Greek philosophy. It is not "strictly spiritual" - that is what "Real Presence" means. Strictly spiritual would be closer to Lutheran doctrine.
Quote from: Valmy on May 24, 2013, 09:25:23 AM
Um yes I was amused you used an example because I know nothing about it :huh:
But I guess you just think I am easily amused and that is fair enough.
It was so wrapped up in the hilarious fun of renaissance Italian politics, essentially he was a big wheel whose enemies got control of the Papacy, and with the Church being so married to Aristotle I thought it was funny you used that as an example of the Church blindly persecuting based on the Bible.
Interesting. So, you think that the whole heliocentric debate was a cover for Italian Renaissance politics, and the Church just maintained the Index's ban on heliocentric works until the Eighteenth century as an oversight? I think this looks like as amusing a case of rejecting empiricism in favor of doctrine as what the church pulled. Giordano Bruno would be amused.
Quote from: Viking on May 24, 2013, 09:37:46 AM
Basically something very important and significant happens to the cracker, but... nothing you can do to observe or measure it will show this and no effect of this will be measured nor will it have any observable or measurable effect until, in keynes speak, the long run has passed and we are all dead.
From an empiricist perspective, it is quite literally gibberish, like saying 0=1 or "The red thing is not red"
It depends on having a concept of substance or essence that can be separated from its perceptible manifestations, so e.g. you could have a horse that doesn't have any of the particulars that we associate with a horse (and perhaps has other particulars like those of a dog or a motorboat), or alternatively you could have something that appears to be a horse and actually has all of the particulars or accidents of a horse but in fact is something else entirely.
The theological component is postulating the existence of an omnipotent God who could cause this separation to occur through a miracle.
But before you get to the theology, you have to have a philosophical underpinning that makes the very notion coherent and possible, even for a omnipotent Being. In the empiricist framework, the entire concept is incoherent and so the theology is irrelevant.
OVB
- arguing that American Protestants are worse is a Red Herring, I'm happy to condemn them too, but in this case saying they are worse does not support your case
- arguing that only that only believers can understand it is special pleading atheist theologians as well as atheist former catholics do understand the issue
the thing about bible believing protestants (we have them in scandinavia as well) is that they actually do have a rational internally consistent view based on the assumption that the bible is the word of god. This is what makes them seem crazy. They actually believe what they say they believe.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 24, 2013, 09:46:46 AM
I actually wonder how many here have sat in on a American Protestant religious service.
I think many people here have. I just don't think that others here have your inclination to take a tiny sample and make sweeping generalizations based on it.
I agree that much of the magical thinking of some Protestant groups is kinda crazy and creepy. I just note that the magical ritual cannibalism thing that your church does seems to me to be, in most ways, just as crazy and creepy. Your arguments here are the classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 24, 2013, 10:00:30 AM
Quote from: Viking on May 24, 2013, 09:37:46 AM
Basically something very important and significant happens to the cracker, but... nothing you can do to observe or measure it will show this and no effect of this will be measured nor will it have any observable or measurable effect until, in keynes speak, the long run has passed and we are all dead.
From an empiricist perspective, it is quite literally gibberish, like saying 0=1 or "The red thing is not red"
It depends on having a concept of substance or essence that can be separated from its perceptible manifestations, so e.g. you could have a horse that doesn't have any of the particulars that we associate with a horse (and perhaps has other particulars like those of a dog or a motorboat), or alternatively you could have something that appears to be a horse and actually has all of the particulars or accidents of a horse but in fact is something else entirely.
The theological component is postulating the existence of an omnipotent God who could cause this separation to occur through a miracle.
But before you get to the theology, you have to have a philosophical underpinning that makes the very notion coherent and possible, even for a omnipotent Being. In the empiricist framework, the entire concept is incoherent and so the theology is irrelevant.
Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate
adding God here doesn't explain anything or really make any difference except with regards to God. But that is an aside here. The argument here is that something significant happens to the cracker but you can't test this, you just have to accept "our" word for it. This is a case where Religion should be testable. The doctrine originated at time when the consequences could not be tested. When the consequences could be tested and sceptics started running scientific tests on crackers pilfered from communion (pocketing them rather than eating them after they were concecrated) and they found out that they are indistinguishable from regular crackers in every conceivable way.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 24, 2013, 09:50:29 AMThe form does change, but not the appearance.
I don't think so, the substance changes which is the innate properties of it, but not the form, which is synonymous to the word "appearance" to me since it's meant as the physical appearance and shape of the object. In Aristotleian terms the substance but not the accidents have changed. As Aquinas would list the nine accidents the physical arrangement of something is one of those accidents, so the substance of bread can change to the body of Christ but that doesn't mean that the disposition of the bread has to change nor is that what Catholics believe.
QuoteIt's not a question of purely theological understanding; there is a clear philosophical underpinning using the categories and elements of classic Greek philosophy. It is not "strictly spiritual" - that is what "Real Presence" means. Strictly spiritual would be closer to Lutheran doctrine.
You misunderstand my point, the Eucharist is a religious ritual as opposed to a Protestant prayer to advance a purely secular purpose (i.e. winning a football game.)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 24, 2013, 09:34:08 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 24, 2013, 09:15:39 AM
How about the Aquinas?
Read on further:
QuoteIt seems that the whole dimensive quantity of Christ's body is not in this sacrament. For it was said that Christ's entire body is contained under every part of the consecrated host. But no dimensive quantity is contained entirely in any whole, and in its every part. Therefore it is impossible for the entire dimensive quantity of Christ's body to be there. . . I answer that . . .the conversion which takes place in this sacrament is terminated directly at the substance of Christ's body, and not at its dimensions; which is evident from the fact that the dimensive quantity of the bread remains after the consecration, while only the substance of the bread passes away. Nevertheless, since the substance of Christ's body is not really deprived of its dimensive quantity and its other accidents, hence it comes that by reason of real concomitance the whole dimensive quantity of Christ's body and all its other accidents are in this sacrament. . . . Since, then, the substance of Christ's body is present on the altar by the power of this sacrament, while its dimensive quantity is there concomitantly and as it were accidentally, therefore the dimensive quantity of Christ's body is in this sacrament, not according to its proper manner (namely, that the whole is in the whole, and the individual parts in individual parts), but after the manner of substance, whose nature is for the whole to be in the whole, and the whole in every part.
Christ's body is really there in all of its parts and dimensions but it is not perceived as being there.
Which is consistent with the other passage.
Yes, but this is esoterics. What matters is that in a popular term of the word, this is not a miracle (as opposed to situations where the holy host starts to bleed, for example).
Quote from: grumbler on May 24, 2013, 09:51:05 AM
Interesting. So, you think that the whole heliocentric debate was a cover for Italian Renaissance politics, and the Church just maintained the Index's ban on heliocentric works until the Eighteenth century as an oversight? I think this looks like as amusing a case of rejecting empiricism in favor of doctrine as what the church pulled. Giordano Bruno would be amused.
It was a debate inside the church and Galileo's team lost, and why they lost had more to do with Politics than anything else. Galileo had actually done a pretty good job publishing all his findings with the Church's blessing (though obviously he had lots of enemies) and when the Florentines lost control of the Papacy it was curtains for him. The whole thing was profoundly personal and he took it as such. Further you said 'Bible' not 'Doctrine' and the Bible does not have much directly to say here which was why Galileo had no problem getting his stuff printed in Protestant countries.
Before this incident the Catholic Church was ok with publishing heliocentric stuff, so long as you paid lip service to the fact it is only a theory...which puts them on a level with modern Kansas. Besides OvB did not say how long it took them to accept empiricism over doctrine :P
Anyone that would take my point as "the Catholic Church always embraces empirical thought" would be stupid, the Catholic Church is a religious organization so at its core it is always going to have a basis in faith that is no empirically testable. But the Catholic Church takes a view that the bible cannot be inerrant nor should we interpret individual passages as literal. If we find clear evidence of something in the physical world that conflicts with a fable in the bible, our Church approaches it with, in my opinion, a pretty rational view. The Church accepts the Big Bang, we accept evolution. There are parts of scripture that have inspired doctrinal core beliefs that we do not compromise on, but we don't nail ourselves to the cross on issues like a 6,000 year old Earth and other things we clearly recognize as fables, allegory, parables etc.
Plus, the whole heliocentric debate in itself involved a debate about two scientific theories neither of which was really rooted in anything in the bible. So even back then the Church, as it has for a very long time, showed that the basis for what it accepts is a higher level theological framework that incorporates the bible but also incorporates other ideas.
Quote from: Viking on May 24, 2013, 08:47:59 AMWhich is Theology speak for "we make it up as we go along". You are arguing that the best understanding of the nature of the world and morality and ethics is to listen to people who spent their entire life understanding a book you already say is full of un-truth.
I did not say Catholic priests or theologians spend their lives studying the bible. They spend their lives studying certainly in part biblical passages but general theological thought and that is a greater field than just biblical study.
Man, I remember going through these same apologetic gyrations. Seems like decades ago.
We already got you on the books for splitting with the flock, fhdz.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 24, 2013, 09:46:46 AM
I actually wonder how many here have sat in on a American Protestant religious service. A grandmother on my father's side was Presbyterian, a mainline Protestant denomination and their services are very normal and non-crazy to me. But I've heard Southern Baptist and Pentecostal sermons and in between the mixture of craziness, speaking in tongues and other insanity the core message of all of their sermons I've ever heard have been either of two possible things: 1) if you do not do exactly what the Bible says you will burn forever in Hell and can most likely expect horrible things to happen to you in the material world as well, 2) any problem in life can be and should be first resolved by devotion to God and prayer, you should pray for anyone who is having a problem because God will answer those prayers and solve those problems for you, any concern at all with matters of the world is innately sinful and wrong.
I've attended Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist, Quaker, Unitarian, and Episcopalian services... and I have attended Southern Baptist services and yes, the sermons are pretty much what you're describing, with one addition: 3) Why [insert group we hate here] are wrong in their beliefs and/or practices. Qualifying groups include: Catholics, Mormons, Muslims, Jews, gays, mainline Protestants that accept gays, atheists, scientists, etc. They seemed to have an especially strong amout of ire for Mormons and gays, probably because both groups are very actively evangelizing (figuratively for the gays, of course) right now.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 24, 2013, 10:37:46 AM
We already got you on the books for splitting with the flock, fhdz.
The flock split with me.
Quote from: fahdiz on May 24, 2013, 10:30:27 AM
Man, I remember going through these same apologetic gyrations. Seems like decades ago.
The difference between you and I is you were a fanatical devout Catholic. I've always bordered on heresy and would probably have been run out of the Church in ages past. I believe in revealed truth from a divine source through the Christ figure. I believe that the Catholic Church best shepherds the understanding of that truth in this world, but I think it does so imperfectly and I deviate from accepted (and acceptable) Catholic stances in several points. But for various reasons I do not think that requires me to break with the Church or even really confront those areas of collision. We actually had a group splinter off of my local parish church awhile back to form their own Independent Catholic Church (but of a different bent than me personally.) I don't feel that is a necessary step.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 24, 2013, 10:38:57 AM
Quote from: fahdiz on May 24, 2013, 10:30:27 AM
Man, I remember going through these same apologetic gyrations. Seems like decades ago.
The difference between you and I is you were a fanatical devout Catholic. I've always bordered on heresy and would probably have been run out of the Church in ages past. I believe in revealed truth from a divine source through the Christ figure. I believe that the Catholic Church best shepherds the understanding of that truth in this world, but I think it does so imperfectly and I deviate from accepted (and acceptable) Catholic stances in several points. But for various reasons I do not think that requires me to break with the Church or even really confront those areas of collision. We actually had a group splinter off of my local parish church awhile back to form their own Independent Catholic Church (but of a different bent than me personally.) I don't feel that is a necessary step.
I hovered pretty close to the Lefebvrists, for sure. I never joined or went to one of those splinter churches, though. I found a Latin Mass approved by the archdiocese and went there almost exclusively.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 24, 2013, 10:18:47 AM
I don't think so, the substance changes which is the innate properties of it, but not the form, which is synonymous to the word "appearance" to me since it's meant as the physical appearance and shape of the object.
Aristotle equates form with substance so the form does change (it is "trans-formed").
The confusion exists because appearance is determined both by form and its accidents (matter), but for Aristotle form (substance) does not change, but persists.
Aquinas and the Christian Aristoteleans get around this by arguing that transformation of substance does not entail contradiction notwithstanding the persistance of the accidents of the prior substance, and can be achieved via miraculous intervention.
QuoteIn Aristotleian terms the substance but not the accidents have changed.
Just so, but going strictly by Aristotle this is backwards.
Minsky, Otto - do you have any thoughts now on how many angels might fit on the head of a pin?
Quote from: fahdiz on May 24, 2013, 11:01:22 AM
Minsky, Otto - do you have any thoughts now on how many angels might fit on the head of a pin?
Presumably an infinite number because they have no corporeality unless they choose to manifest to us.
Excellent. I am glad to see someone around here cares about the pressing issues of the day.
Quote from: Viking on May 24, 2013, 10:12:05 AM
Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate
Okham IIRC postulated that the substance of the bread and wine also remains so both substances (the victuals and JC) are present. That is more consistent with a strictly spiritual view but as with other things Okham said and did, skirts heresy.
Quote from: Martinus on May 24, 2013, 10:19:42 AM
Yes, but this is esoterics. What matters is that in a popular term of the word, this is not a miracle (as opposed to situations where the holy host starts to bleed, for example).
Tell this catholic priest that it is not a miracle: http://www.fatherjames.org/2012/07/25/the-miracle-of-the-eucharist/
QuoteAt every Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, we participate in a marvelous miracle, the miracle called Transubstantiation.
I am sure he will correct his mistaken assumptions once you explain it to him.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 24, 2013, 10:30:14 AM
Quote from: Viking on May 24, 2013, 08:47:59 AMWhich is Theology speak for "we make it up as we go along". You are arguing that the best understanding of the nature of the world and morality and ethics is to listen to people who spent their entire life understanding a book you already say is full of un-truth.
I did not say Catholic priests or theologians spend their lives studying the bible. They spend their lives studying certainly in part biblical passages but general theological thought and that is a greater field than just biblical study.
I did not say studying. I used the word "understanding". Catholics get their dogma from the Holy Ghost not the Holy Bible. The problem I have here is they start with an unverifiable and untestible premise. That makes any dogma or argument they make likewise unverifiable and untestible. Their dogma are unsinkable rubber ducks, mere assertions as opposed to relevant and useful knowledge.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 24, 2013, 11:13:54 AM
Quote from: fahdiz on May 24, 2013, 11:01:22 AM
Minsky, Otto - do you have any thoughts now on how many angels might fit on the head of a pin?
Presumably an infinite number because they have no corporeality unless they choose to manifest to us.
You think there is an infinite number of angels?
Quote from: The Brain on May 24, 2013, 01:40:33 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 24, 2013, 11:13:54 AM
Quote from: fahdiz on May 24, 2013, 11:01:22 AM
Minsky, Otto - do you have any thoughts now on how many angels might fit on the head of a pin?
Presumably an infinite number because they have no corporeality unless they choose to manifest to us.
You think there is an infinite number of angels?
No.
That inference doesn't follow.
Quote from: The Brain on May 24, 2013, 01:40:33 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 24, 2013, 11:13:54 AM
Quote from: fahdiz on May 24, 2013, 11:01:22 AM
Minsky, Otto - do you have any thoughts now on how many angels might fit on the head of a pin?
Presumably an infinite number because they have no corporeality unless they choose to manifest to us.
You think there is an infinite number of angels?
Clearly. In hyperbolic space. :hmm:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnSIWe_o15g
Quote from: Malthus on May 24, 2013, 08:48:25 AM
If Luther had been a Languishista, it would have been 95 feces he nailed to the door of the Church of Wittenberg. :P
How do you nail feces to the door? Even if they've been dried out before that, they would still crumble once you drive nails through them.
Quote from: DGuller on May 24, 2013, 02:19:26 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 24, 2013, 08:48:25 AM
If Luther had been a Languishista, it would have been 95 feces he nailed to the door of the Church of Wittenberg. :P
How do you nail feces to the door? Even if they've been dried out before that, they would still crumble once you drive nails through them.
Feces come in all sorts of consistencies - just ask Ed. :D I'm sure some of them are nailable. Though I'll admit, I've never tried.
Anyway, that's what I call a wide-ranging Languish discussion - from Angels on a pin, to shit on a nail.
Quote from: The Brain on May 24, 2013, 01:40:33 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 24, 2013, 11:13:54 AM
Quote from: fahdiz on May 24, 2013, 11:01:22 AM
Minsky, Otto - do you have any thoughts now on how many angels might fit on the head of a pin?
Presumably an infinite number because they have no corporeality unless they choose to manifest to us.
You think there is an infinite number of angels?
It just struck me that Languish would make a hell of an inquisition tribunal. Heretics would prefer iron maiden to questioning by grumbler.
Quote from: DGuller on May 24, 2013, 02:19:26 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 24, 2013, 08:48:25 AM
If Luther had been a Languishista, it would have been 95 feces he nailed to the door of the Church of Wittenberg. :P
How do you nail feces to the door? Even if they've been dried out before that, they would still crumble once you drive nails through them.
Cow Pies. If you had been following the german beer fracking thread you would know that there are 13 million cows in germany. Plenty of cow pies.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 24, 2013, 09:46:46 AM
I actually wonder how many here have sat in on a American Protestant religious service. A grandmother on my father's side was Presbyterian, a mainline Protestant denomination and their services are very normal and non-crazy to me. But I've heard Southern Baptist and Pentecostal sermons and in between the mixture of craziness, speaking in tongues and other insanity the core message of all of their sermons I've ever heard have been either of two possible things: 1) if you do not do exactly what the Bible says you will burn forever in Hell and can most likely expect horrible things to happen to you in the material world as well, 2) any problem in life can be and should be first resolved by devotion to God and prayer, you should pray for anyone who is having a problem because God will answer those prayers and solve those problems for you, any concern at all with matters of the world is innately sinful and wrong.
It seems like you're climbing down from your earlier post:
Quote from: OttoVonBismarckIt's actually interesting to see the development of American Protestantism, which in many ways undermines much of that. American Protestants regularly believe God takes frequent, direct personal action in their lives. They believe prayers are akin to spells that work miracles on demand and all kinds of things that really were not part of early Christianity or even Christianity aside from the weird vein of American Protestantism. Now, that's not to say Christians weren't stupid and superstitious before American Protestantism, but they tended instead to be easily convinced by deceptive monks and such that "miracles" were being worked and there was a framework for this concept of miracles. Further, periodically the higher up authorities in the Church would preach out against that sort of superstitious bullshit, so while it was happening it was never fully accepted doctrine. For many branches of American Protestantism it's basically widely understood and part of doctrine that prayers can work miracles and do pretty much constantly and that any random event in life is 100% ascribable to God's direct hand.
You now seem to agree with me that mainstream protestant denominations don't do any of that stuff.
If you want to go pick on the evangelicals, go right ahead. I have no horse in that race.
But I still don't get the argument that Catholics
don't do stuff like that. Putting aside transubstantiation, it is a part of Catholic faith that one can pray to the Saints for their intercession in human affairs. In fact I can't think of any Christian denomination that doesn't believe that prayer has some value and may be helpful.
Quote from: Malthus on May 24, 2013, 02:28:22 PM
Anyway, that's what I call a wide-ranging Languish discussion - from Angels on a pin, to shit on a nail.
Yes, perfectly fitting.
Quote from: Barrister on May 24, 2013, 03:01:32 PMYou now seem to agree with me that mainstream protestant denominations don't do any of that stuff.
I agree
mainline Protestants in America are not like that. But based on demography, they are not really the mainstream in American Protestantism any longer, evangelical Protestants outnumber other types of Protestants in America and that trend will only accelerate. Mainline Protestantism breeds younger generations that are mostly apathetic to religion, whereas evangelicals breed even young people that buck the trend and are straight up crazy. They've got a very good system in place to avoid the traditional liberalizing from one generation to the next. First, these kids if they go to public school are in a State where most dangerous ideas have been prohibited from the class room via fundamentalist school boards or etc, if not they're likely to be home schooled or in private schools with a decidedly evangelical bent. Many of them go to bible colleges when they graduate High School, many of which are not even regionally accredited (so for example a teaching degree from one of these schools would not be sufficient for a teaching certification in many States), so their children are fully protected from ever being exposed to different ways of thinking. After 22 years or so of that they're fully indoctrinated adults and are ready to start creating a fresh generation of like minded people. They also tend to have more children than less religious Protestants. So in all reality the fundies
are the face of American Protestantism, outnumber the mainline types, and are continuing to grow while other denominations shrink.
QuoteIf you want to go pick on the evangelicals, go right ahead. I have no horse in that race.
But I still don't get the argument that Catholics don't do stuff like that. Putting aside transubstantiation, it is a part of Catholic faith that one can pray to the Saints for their intercession in human affairs. In fact I can't think of any Christian denomination that doesn't believe that prayer has some value and may be helpful.
There is petitionary prayer, sure, but I think you're intentionally conflating Catholic practices with American Protestant practices where they genuinely believe prayer of that sort is supposed to be the fabric of every day life. Any problem you have, you should pray for God to solve it. Kid sick? Pray for him to get better. Boss an asshole? Pray for things to get better at work. Short on cash? Pray for money. That's honestly out of sync with how any Catholics I know operate.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 24, 2013, 04:17:10 PM
There is petitionary prayer, sure, but I think you're intentionally conflating Catholic practices with American Protestant practices where they genuinely believe prayer of that sort is supposed to be the fabric of every day life. Any problem you have, you should pray for God to solve it. Kid sick? Pray for him to get better. Boss an asshole? Pray for things to get better at work. Short on cash? Pray for money. That's honestly out of sync with how any Catholics I know operate.
Sounds like a difference in degree, not a difference of kind.
And even mainstream, or liberal, protestants believe in the power of prayer, and that God can make his will known on earth. I think it is more the notion that you shouldn't pray for such, well, crass interventions. Prayers to heal the sick and bring peace to the world are fine, but prayers to win the lottery... are just in bad taste.
The first hit I got on Google for "Catholic Prayer" was this book from the Loyola University Press http://www.loyolapress.com/raising-our-hearts-and-minds-to-god-petition.htm
It notes that
QuoteA prayer of petition is a request to God that asks him to fulfill a need. When we share in God's saving love, we understand that through petition we can ask for God's help with every need no matter how great or small.
I don't have a horse in the "which religion is the best" contest here, and don't have a problem with people who think religious/magical thinking helps them in their lives (I have plenty of relative who are Catholics, Mormons, Methodists, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc) but I think that, if one is to engage in that debate, then one should at least provide some authority for their claims about the "inferior" religions instead of just making up straw men, Otto.
Some religions certainly seem more restrained about things like prayer, as Beeb notes for Protestants, and Otto notes for Catholics. Some are not, I am sure. I personally don't see any qualitative difference between the two positions. It seems to me just a matter of faith, and that can't be argued, really.
Can't the leaders of the different big religions settle this like men, in manly fisticular combat? Man against man.
Quote from: grumbler on May 24, 2013, 05:05:46 PM
The first hit I got on Google for "Catholic Prayer" was this book from the Loyola University Press http://www.loyolapress.com/raising-our-hearts-and-minds-to-god-petition.htm
It notes that
QuoteA prayer of petition is a request to God that asks him to fulfill a need. When we share in God's saving love, we understand that through petition we can ask for God's help with every need no matter how great or small.
I don't have a horse in the "which religion is the best" contest here, and don't have a problem with people who think religious/magical thinking helps them in their lives (I have plenty of relative who are Catholics, Mormons, Methodists, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc) but I think that, if one is to engage in that debate, then one should at least provide some authority for their claims about the "inferior" religions instead of just making up straw men, Otto.
Some religions certainly seem more restrained about things like prayer, as Beeb notes for Protestants, and Otto notes for Catholics. Some are not, I am sure. I personally don't see any qualitative difference between the two positions. It seems to me just a matter of faith, and that can't be argued, really.
I think I have to agree with grumbles. :o
As much as I'd like to re-fight the 30 Years War in this thread, Otto's being mostly reasonable and not giving me enough ammunition to do so. I don't think you can make any claim as to which denomination is "better" based on how often people pray. Both have a wide range of opinion on the topic.
Quote from: Malthus on May 23, 2013, 08:27:16 AM
Thus, being a Jew conveys no religious benefit whatsoever
Other than taking the normal stat holidays AND all the Jewish religious holidays nobody else gets.
... and just when we atheists feared we'd be getting some of that papal lovin'
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/05/24/vatican-representative-just-to-be-clear-atheists-are-still-going-to-hell/
QuoteVatican Representative: Just to Be Clear, Atheists Are Still Going to Hell
May 24, 2013 By Hemant Mehta Leave a Comment
Yesterday, I posted about something interesting Pope Francis said in a recent homily — namely, that even atheists could be "redeemed" if they were good people:
Quote"The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! 'Father, the atheists?' Even the atheists. Everyone! And this Blood makes us children of God of the first class! We are created children in the likeness of God and the Blood of Christ has redeemed us all! And we all have a duty to do good. And this commandment for everyone to do good, I think, is a beautiful path towards peace. If we, each doing our own part, if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter: we need that so much. We must meet one another doing good. 'But I don't believe, Father, I am an atheist!' But do good: we will meet one another there."
Many atheists thought it was pretty damn nice of the Pope to say that... even if the idea of being "saved" or "redeemed" thanks to Christ's death is all made up.
We all knew that sense of one-ness and actions-speak-louder-than-prayers wasn't going to last very long. As the Pope's words made their way around the world, a Vatican spokesman had to do some damage control and remind everybody that atheists, in fact, are going to hell unless they accept Jesus:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FbK4hFwO.jpg&hash=7d1d54302efb48a8a826ddb3fe23086ba64a2e5b)
Rev. Thomas Rosica
QuoteOn Thursday, the Vatican issued an "explanatory note on the meaning to 'salvation.'"
The Rev. Thomas Rosica, a Vatican spokesman, said that people who know about the Catholic church "cannot be saved" if they "refuse to enter her or remain in her."
(That's what she said.)
Okay, okay, so that's what we were expecting all along. Atheists, according to Christians, are going to hell unless we accept Christ's divinity. We already knew that. It was still an unusual and welcome gesture from the Pope to recognize that everyone, regardless of beliefs, can do good and "be saved" — at least it was a step up from what we're used to hearing.
why blowin' so hot and cold pope? first some heavenly lovin' now rejection? am I not altarboyish enough for you?
Is he talking about IRL atheists or Internet atheists? 'Cause the latter are mostly like so:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi176.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fw200%2Fstem01%2Fatheism1.jpg&hash=ba4e950405e7be46c386dd7e62de2e03248a627a)
;)
Well, the clarification is consistent with Catholic doctrine and as I said in the first post, HuffPo and some people interpreted too much out of the Pope's sermon. He said atheists can be good people and that Catholics should work with atheists to do good work.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 24, 2013, 04:17:10 PM
whereas evangelicals breed even young people that buck the trend and are straight up crazy.
My parents clearly failed, only 1 of 4 kids goes to church more than once a year.
Quote from: Barrister on May 24, 2013, 04:42:40 PMSounds like a difference in degree, not a difference of kind.
And even mainstream, or liberal, protestants believe in the power of prayer, and that God can make his will known on earth. I think it is more the notion that you shouldn't pray for such, well, crass interventions. Prayers to heal the sick and bring peace to the world are fine, but prayers to win the lottery... are just in bad taste.
It may seem that way to you, I suspect that you and grumbler, who I really don't disagree with in terms of the substance of your arguments, just maybe are not familiar with ordinary Catholic practice or ordinary fundamentalist Protestant practice. Or, in grumbler's case as an atheist he may simply not see any real difference between different forms of illogical belief.
There is a key difference between how non-fundamentalist Christians in America live their lives and how fundamentalist Christians live their lives. I'd say all non-fundamentalists (including mainline Protestants and most Catholics) believe that it's certainly
possible for God to take a direct hand in human affairs but that it is not how things are ordinarily done. The overwhelming
focus of our religion is much more spiritual and much less concerned with what happens day to day. We have lowered to non-existent expectations of anything other than perhaps being better individuals if we follow the decent code of ethics found in the New Testament, the ultimate rewards of faith are spiritual, not temporal.
Fundie Americans have a much more "all-encompassing" view. They think that there is no difference between the spiritual and the temporal. God is personally involved in
everything that happens. I imagine any Christian be they Catholic or Pentecostal who finds themselves on an airline that's going down and has to make an emergency landing in a field is going to be praying, either for strength, for their family to be taken care of if they die, or for their lives to be spared. That's normal and to be expected. But once it's all over the reactions will be a lot different. Most Catholics and mainline Protestants, if they survive the incident, will ascribe it to whatever mechanical fault or maintenance lapse or pilot error actually lead to the incident. A fundamentalist will believe that they lived because God wanted them to remain on the earth for various reasons. If they die, their family will believe "God decided it was his time." Their is an immense amount of egoism in these thoughts, as they will have little regard or concern for the non-fundamentalists on the plane and will barely consider them as relevant in God's decision making.
If a Catholic's wife is seriously injured in a car accident, yes we will pray, but whether she lives or dies at the end of the day we're going to ascribe what happened mostly to human beings. If she lost control of her car, it was a driving error. If she lives, it was luck and the work of surgeons and modern medicine. If she dies, it was a horrible tragedy but one that God did not cause or influence. A fundie will believe if the car crash survivor was spared by God, or was taken by God. I knew an older fundie couple, the wife's brother and her sister-in-law were in visiting. Her husband had a major heart attack in the middle of the night and died. One of the first things said to the widow at the wake I was at, by another fundie, was, "Well, you just know God planned this so your brother would be there for you when this happened." A Catholic would never believe that, for one we would not believe that God caused the man to have a heart attack. Secondly, we would not believe that God somehow planned it so this would happen when her brother and his wife were in visiting just so she had ready-made emotional support the night she lost her husband.
Once you believe God is directly deciding and involved in every action in everyone's lives, a petitionary prayer is changed from something you mostly only hear about in the direst of conditions to something you think is necessary basically multiple times a day just to get through daily life. Pray for safety on your way to work, pray for wisdom before you presentation at work, pray for safety on the way back, pray that your family is safe during the night while you sleep etc. Catholics don't do that, and it may just seem a difference of degree to some, but to me it's a fundamental difference in how we look at the world and what we believe is derived from our faith.
Another major thing I see with fundies, is "broken people" who believe God basically existed and came into their lives to "save them." A lot of alcoholics and other addicts go into fundamentalism and believe God is personally seeing to their recovery. There was a famous recovering alcoholic Priest that used to go around the country giving speeches about alcoholism and recovery, and he heavily emphasized AA (with its higher power stuff) and the Catholic Church in general is pro-AA. However, by and large even that Priest was not arguing that God basically swooped down from on high and decided to save you. He taught the decision to go to AA and get sober is a human one that individuals have to make for themselves while relying on faith in God's strength to help them down the path. Again, there is just to me a fundamental difference on worldview that maybe you do not see, but being heavily exposed to fundamentalist I can't help but notice.
Quote from: Martinus on May 25, 2013, 02:26:54 AM
Well, the clarification is consistent with Catholic doctrine and as I said in the first post, HuffPo and some people interpreted too much out of the Pope's sermon. He said atheists can be good people and that Catholics should work with atheists to do good work.
Yeah, he's not going to free wheel away from doctrine.
I also liked his line that 'in a world that talks a lot about rights it seems the only thing that has them is money' about human trafficking :)
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on May 23, 2013, 02:02:12 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 23, 2013, 12:57:57 PM
Here's a recent book on early Islam - interesting if somewhat disjointed reading:
http://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Sword-Birth-Global-Empire/dp/0307473651/ref=la_B000APEALK_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1369331774&sr=1-2
This http://www.amazon.com/Muhammad-Believers-At-Origins-Islam/dp/0674064143 (http://www.amazon.com/Muhammad-Believers-At-Origins-Islam/dp/0674064143) is another good one. It basically says that the early Muslims were a little hazy on whether they were a distinct religion or if Jews and Christians could also be Muslims.
Well the reviews on that one make me skeptical.
What a fag...