See what happens when I try to diffuse a tense situation? Jeez, you guys are so intent on continuing to argue while arguing that there's nothing to argue about.
I consider myself a member of the pre-John Paul II Roman Catholic church. The one that officially considered all religions equally valid and didn't stick its hands into JFK's presidency. But then again, I think Papal Infallibility is way sketch and I don't buy 80% of what the Church's agenda pushes nowadays, the 20% I do buy being the awesome radical-left collective-socialist Catholic Worker Movement, which remains untainted by the hand of Pope Benedict XVI, who I view as a sort of Palpatine of religion.
Agree. I don't understand how we went from religion being a personal thing (which it was when JFK said that he wouldn't be influenced by the Pope) to something so public and on-your-sleeve all the time. The Catholic Worker Movement rocks. The Cardinals probably could have picked someone more to my liking than Pope Benedict.
True. Why make fun of one religious person when we're all equally able to be insulted?
I want to point out that at least 95% of the posts in the religious argument threads that you've been the center of haven't been any kind of insults or poking fun -- they've been exactly the sort of thing that Kate is saying here; pressing you to explain the things that we see as contradictions or uncritical thinking, and hoping that you'll think about it in ways that you haven't before.
I consider myself a member of the pre-John Paul II Roman Catholic church. The one that officially considered all religions equally valid and didn't stick its hands into JFK's presidency. But then again, I think Papal Infallibility is way sketch and I don't buy 80% of what the Church's agenda pushes nowadays, the 20% I do buy being the awesome radical-left collective-socialist Catholic Worker Movement, which remains untainted by the hand of Pope Benedict XVI, who I view as a sort of Palpatine of religion.
Agree. I don't understand how we went from religion being a personal thing (which it was when JFK said that he wouldn't be influenced by the Pope) to something so public and on-your-sleeve all the time. The Catholic Worker Movement rocks. The Cardinals probably could have picked someone more to my liking than Pope Benedict.
This is simply unfathomable to me. Why do people that overall do not believe in the dogma and doctrine of a Church join its ranks? I just don't get it. By signing up you are allowing them to have the power and authority that they wield. The followers are responsible for the actions the leaders take. While there may be some great messages and movements mixed in, why not just join a group that is 99 - 100% in line with you beliefs and values? Seriously, why not?
While there may be some great messages and movements mixed in, why not just join a group that is 99 - 100% in line with you beliefs and values?
Because I can't find one and am unwilling to start a religious movement. Instead, I join the good movements, deny the Papal authority my money (I neither give money nor attend church) and votes (I vote pro-choice and pro-marital rights), and use syncretic-yet-(roughly) compatible belief systems to work out my issues with the Church. I would best describe myself as a Worker Movement Catholic Discordian.
I think one of the problems people have is that their definition of church is too rigid. I feel that the Bible says church is quite simply a collection of likeminded individuals sharing in their faith together. If you want to be "officially part of a church" and go to a nice chapel, that's fine, but if they disagree with you and you dislike them, maybe you should start meeting with similar minded people? It doesn't have to be a "religious movement," so much as it's just you guys sharing your beliefs amongst yourselves on a regular basis, doing whatever it is you feel you should be doing.
While there may be some great messages and movements mixed in, why not just join a group that is 99 - 100% in line with you beliefs and values?
Because I can't find one and am unwilling to start a religious movement. Instead, I join the good movements, deny the Papal authority my money (I neither give money nor attend church) and votes (I vote pro-choice and pro-marital rights), and use syncretic-yet-(roughly) compatible belief systems to work out my issues with the Church. I would best describe myself as a Worker Movement Catholic Discordian.
Wait... so you disagree with catholics, don't give them any money, never attend church, and formed your own belief system separate from theirs, but you call yourself a Catholic? Also, there are so many religious movements that fall in line with what appear to be your beliefs that if you haven't found one, you simply haven't been looking.
On a lot of things, yes. Not on everything though.
don't give them any money, never attend church
I would never pledge money to the Catholic Appeal or Peter's Pence (which goes straight to the Vatican) and I haven't been to Church in several months (that could still change).
formed your own belief system separate from theirs
Not really. I only call myself a Discordian to mess with hardline Catholics and to have some fun with parody religions. The Catholic Worker Movement is, despite its crazy leftist leanings and borderline-anarchist ideologies, one of the most respected institutions of service to ever come out of the Church. Also, I know of clergymen who hold high positions and honors in the church with far crazier beliefs then my own, so it's not as black-and-white as it seems. There's one Christian Brother in Chicago who I read about who has met with the Dalai Lama numerous times, enjoys shrooms, and holds various honors from the archdiocese. Live and let live.
Also, there are so many religious movements that fall in line with what appear to be your beliefs that if you haven't found one, you simply haven't been looking.
Lumen Gentium (espouses truth to all religions) was never removed from the official doctrines of the Church, and the pope has only spoken infallibly twice, and only on issues central to ideas of faith and not stupid political agenda crap like abortion or marriage rights. When that power is abused as such, I will consider leaving the church. However, as it stands, I am saddened to see the Church deviating from the more compassion and personal approach it took in the 60s, along with the doctrines of Liberation Theology, which were making great strides in helping the Latin American developing nations, but were lost to absurd political interests with the advent of the past two reactionary popes. However, saddened as I may be, I still hope that the Church finds its way back to what it once was and should be, and I am happy where I stand.
Please do not attempt to discern my beliefs from two minor posts. Even I haven't figured myself out completely; no one else should assume that they have.
Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire: Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female, The likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air, The likeness of any thing that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth: And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the Lord thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven. (Deuteronomy 4:15-19)
You know, I pretty much agree with Steve on this one. Those could be construed to be graven images, under the definition from Deuteronomy that he posted. Not a big deal, Joe.
EDIT: Joe, you're the lawyer. If he wants to rules-lawyer the Bible, you should be first in line with it.
You know, I pretty much agree with Steve on this one. Those could be construed to be graven images, under the definition from Deuteronomy that he posted. Not a big deal, Joe.
Yes, Yosho, it is kind of a big deal. He said that the Church "does not understand what the Second Commandment means", and so is complicit in mortal sin when, actually it's more likely the case that he does not know what it means. It's not so much the big deal about the sin, though as much as it's a big deal (to me) that he's accusing highly educated people of not understanding something when it's so painfully clear that it's his misunderstanding, not theirs.
Read what he quoted and then read the Second Commandment. You can have all the images and figures you want. The sin comes about if you worship the images and figures. So when you say, "[t]hose could be construed to be graven images, under the definition from Deuteronomy that he posted", you're not getting it either, but at least you're not accusing people more highly educated than you of making the mistake that you made for yourself.
You can have all the images and figures you want. The sin comes about if you worship the images and figures.
So, the Prayer to Saint Michael is OK or not? Praying to the Virgin Mary is OK or not?
This discussion is shutting down right now because no one else is going to have any tolerance for it.
Short answer: "Praying to saints" =/= worshipping them. You're not really praying. You're asking for intercession, and intercession =/= worship. That's all I have to say about it. If you have anything else to say, whisper or email me.
Short answer: "Praying to saints" =/= worshipping them. You're not really praying. You're asking for intercession, and intercession =/= worship. That's all I have to say about it. If you have anything else to say, whisper or email me.
So you've been granted moderator privileges on these forms?
You're asking for intercession, and intercession =/= worship. That's all I have to say about it. If you have anything else to say, whisper or email me.
The problem is that you have the Catholic teaching entirely wrong. To think that Catholics pray to idols merely for intercession is absurd. There are numerous reasons why one might pray in the presence of a figure or statue, intercession being just one.
From the Catholic Catechism: The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, "the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype," and "whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it." The honor paid to sacred images is a "respectful veneration," not the adoration due to God alone:
Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate. The movement toward the image does not terminate in it as image, but tends toward that whose image it is.
You have made a major gaffe. Catholics have their interpretation of the 10 Commandments that they follow. The 2nd Commandment for Catholics is: "You shall not take the name of your Lord your God in vain." For Catholics, the issue of idols is really a matter of the 1st Commandment.
So major goof right there. If a lawyer is going to debate the law, they should read it first.
You know, I like Obama alright, but I do wish he had half the backbone of this fictitious president. "Fierce defender" my ass.
As for Catholicism...I am indeed disappointed. I have been for years. Like a good Cajun, I was raised Roman Catholic, and I went to 12 years of Catholic school before I went kinda athiest. My schooling was good. We were encouraged to analyze and think about both the Bible and moral issues for ourselves. When we did a moral issues project, we were supposed to research the issue and come to a conclusion for oursleves. When I was assigned the topic of homosexuality and my research brought me to the conclusion that it was not wrong--I still got an A. Thinking was too hard for many kids, however, and they were only indoctrinated...but there are such things as thinking Catholics. I can't quite consider myself Catholic anymore, but I know ones that I respect. The ones making threats in D.C. are not thinking Catholics.
If a Catholic is well-educated, and decides to do something with that education, he or she will understand a lot of what Catholicism was originally supposed to mean before 2000 years of paraphrasing and cultural warping changed it. I consider Jesus as a (historical and mortal) social and moral revolutionary. He was simply a Jewish guy trying to get rid of the more archaic rules in his religion. He saw that times had changed, and many old rules were pointless. He never said anything about homosexuality. He did say that refusing to help a sick man on the Sabbath was stupid, though. He did say to love, and not to judge.
I am just so snarky, with my off-topic macro.
On the graven images thing...I admit that a lot of less-educated Catholics slip into worshiping them, or at least something close to it. If you're well educated, you see the saints as admirable figures you might ask advice of and then imagine what they'd say... or seek inspiration from to do better for yourself. You look at a statue for what it is-- artwork intended to give you the benefit of a mental image. What if a scientist really admires Einstein, and keeps a picture of him for inspiration? Perhaps he occasionally looks at it and thinks, "What would he do?" Is that wrong? That's all I'll say, in respect for HJ's efforts to keep the board clear of it.
I'm going even further off-topic for the sake of a personal vendetta. PWND.
The argument here about idols/icons/graven images is basically the same as an argument about whether the +3 flaming sword should or should not do damage against the fire ghost, of if the dragon really could carry 10,000 platinum pieces all the way to Evereska in a single day.
of if the dragon really could carry 10,000 platinum pieces all the way to Evereska in a single day.
We don't have nearly enough information to answer that question. Chromatic, metallic, gem, or other? Age category? Where is the starting point? These are serious questions here.
Comments
Just a thought.
Also, there are so many religious movements that fall in line with what appear to be your beliefs that if you haven't found one, you simply haven't been looking.
Please do not attempt to discern my beliefs from two minor posts. Even I haven't figured myself out completely; no one else should assume that they have.
EDIT: Joe, you're the lawyer. If he wants to rules-lawyer the Bible, you should be first in line with it.
EDIT AGAIN: I apparently can't spell "lawer."
Read what he quoted and then read the Second Commandment. You can have all the images and figures you want. The sin comes about if you worship the images and figures. So when you say, "[t]hose could be construed to be graven images, under the definition from Deuteronomy that he posted", you're not getting it either, but at least you're not accusing people more highly educated than you of making the mistake that you made for yourself.
Short answer: "Praying to saints" =/= worshipping them. You're not really praying. You're asking for intercession, and intercession =/= worship. That's all I have to say about it. If you have anything else to say, whisper or email me.
From the Catholic Catechism:
The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, "the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype," and "whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it." The honor paid to sacred images is a "respectful veneration," not the adoration due to God alone:
Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate. The movement toward the image does not terminate in it as image, but tends toward that whose image it is.
You have made a major gaffe. Catholics have their interpretation of the 10 Commandments that they follow. The 2nd Commandment for Catholics is: "You shall not take the name of your Lord your God in vain." For Catholics, the issue of idols is really a matter of the 1st Commandment.
So major goof right there. If a lawyer is going to debate the law, they should read it first.
As for Catholicism...I am indeed disappointed. I have been for years. Like a good Cajun, I was raised Roman Catholic, and I went to 12 years of Catholic school before I went kinda athiest. My schooling was good. We were encouraged to analyze and think about both the Bible and moral issues for ourselves. When we did a moral issues project, we were supposed to research the issue and come to a conclusion for oursleves. When I was assigned the topic of homosexuality and my research brought me to the conclusion that it was not wrong--I still got an A.
Thinking was too hard for many kids, however, and they were only indoctrinated...but there are such things as thinking Catholics. I can't quite consider myself Catholic anymore, but I know ones that I respect. The ones making threats in D.C. are not thinking Catholics.
If a Catholic is well-educated, and decides to do something with that education, he or she will understand a lot of what Catholicism was originally supposed to mean before 2000 years of paraphrasing and cultural warping changed it. I consider Jesus as a (historical and mortal) social and moral revolutionary. He was simply a Jewish guy trying to get rid of the more archaic rules in his religion. He saw that times had changed, and many old rules were pointless. He never said anything about homosexuality. He did say that refusing to help a sick man on the Sabbath was stupid, though. He did say to love, and not to judge. On the graven images thing...I admit that a lot of less-educated Catholics slip into worshiping them, or at least something close to it. If you're well educated, you see the saints as admirable figures you might ask advice of and then imagine what they'd say... or seek inspiration from to do better for yourself. You look at a statue for what it is-- artwork intended to give you the benefit of a mental image.
What if a scientist really admires Einstein, and keeps a picture of him for inspiration? Perhaps he occasionally looks at it and thinks, "What would he do?" Is that wrong?
That's all I'll say, in respect for HJ's efforts to keep the board clear of it. Oh my God, shut up. You sound like an idiot.