Pope Francis says Atheists Can Be saved..

[Lifer]

Just because someone may think someone is wrong doesn't make them wrong. Someone could, in fact, be right. I stand by ************ and the Apostles.

The Catholic church is the only way to salvation. That being said, I detailed in this thread that are those who throuugh no fault of their own can be saved and not recognize the Catholic church.

As much as your UU friends will tell you otherwise, there is a heaven and a hell and even worse.....a God......who tells us what is right and wrong and judges us accordingly.

Even for a Catholic, to say the only way to Salvation is the Catholic Church is over the top. Jesus said He was the way. In defining church cults one of the commonly accepted criteria is the stated belief that that "our church is the only way". I know many Catholics, youre the first ive heard say that. The Catholic Church is by no means a cult. Whatever it is you belong to might be. Sometimes were so close to the mountain we cant see it. Step back a bit, get some perspective before you cast everyone into the pit.

 

[RI Patriots fan]

Could mean Sol Invictus, ya never know... Especially since Rome coopted Mithras from Persia (although early christians were somewhat vexed that the Persians also liked the communion scene with the bread and the cup and so on.)

Hey what are you guys doing for the Feast of Sol Invictus this Dec. 25?

That's also whaaa?

What are the chances!!!

We all borrow... and then our theologians go into paroxysms about how the other guy's stuff is a copy of ours... never mind that Gilgamesh pretty much did the Noah trip a few thousand years before the Torah!

As to God being a verb, don't take his word for it, but in the Torah when asked what he should be called, he answered "I am that I am." This is connected to the meaning of the tetragrammaton, with the third person masculine prefix yod preceding Heh-vav-heh, "Is." Alternately, the yod is sometimes construed as making the whole name the causative stem of the verb to be, making the name "causes to be" -- take your pick, whether you like all-encompassing omnipresence or creation as the verb in question.

But I forget who I'm talking to! You must know God and the Church very well, to answer so flippantly and so certainly that God must be a noun!

PFnV

Oh please, the feast of Sol Invictus???? That's your evidence to suggest that Jesus was a Roman creation? I expect a little better from you (ok, maybe not).


As for the Roman Mithras, all the information we have about Mithras is from the late 1st century and early 2nd century going forward. The Roman Mithras had little in common with the Persian Mithras outside of the name.


"It should be emphasized that none of the alleged similarities between Mithras and Jesus can be shown to apply to the Persian Mithra, but only to the Roman Mithraic tradition, which did not really flourish until after the time of the New Testament. That said, the alleged connections are quite dubious, as I explained above. In fact, no archeological evidence for this tradition can be argued to exist from any earlier than A.D. 90. This seems to suggest that the re-emergence of Mithras in the Roman context preserved the name of the Persian deity, yet adopted a new set of traditions more closely linked to the many mystery religions of the time. In any case, the overall Mithraic tradition should actually be thought of as two distinct movements, having little to do with one another beyond having a god of the same name."


Jesus is Not a Mithras Redux | The Invisible Things


As Catholics we believe that ************ is God. Was Jesus not a person? Is Jesus not a noun (proper noun as I remember)?

I do know God very well as we eat his flesh and drink his blood as Catholics.

 

[Lifer]

Oh please, the feast of Sol Invictus???? That's your evidence to suggest that Jesus was a Roman creation? I expect a little better from you (ok, maybe not).


As for the Roman Mithras, all the information we have about Mithras is from the late 1st century and early 2nd century going forward. The Roman Mithras had little in common with the Persian Mithras outside of the name.


"It should be emphasized that none of the alleged similarities between Mithras and Jesus can be shown to apply to the Persian Mithra, but only to the Roman Mithraic tradition, which did not really flourish until after the time of the New Testament. That said, the alleged connections are quite dubious, as I explained above. In fact, no archeological evidence for this tradition can be argued to exist from any earlier than A.D. 90. This seems to suggest that the re-emergence of Mithras in the Roman context preserved the name of the Persian deity, yet adopted a new set of traditions more closely linked to the many mystery religions of the time. In any case, the overall Mithraic tradition should actually be thought of as two distinct movements, having little to do with one another beyond having a god of the same name."


Jesus is Not a Mithras Redux | The Invisible Things


As Catholics we believe that ************ is God. Was Jesus not a person? Is Jesus not a noun (proper noun as I remember)?

I do know God very well as we eat his flesh and drink his blood as Catholics.

Taking communion doesnt mean you know God. I would think you would know that.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

I make no such contention, RI. I freely admit Christianity is a Jewish invention, by and large -- like it or not, there is a great deal of Judaism in the faith, increasingly so as you study the sayings material ascribed to Jesus. I think that he was radicalizing principles of Judaism to bring followers closer to what he thought of as ideal practice, in expectation of the imminent end times.

But he was dead and entombed before Paul began his mission. And Rome increasingly influenced the development of Christianity, particularly in the fourth century.

As I said, every religion borrows. It's okay with me that bringing the birthday of Jesus in line with that of the reborn sun was convenient for the Chirstianity of the time. Plenty of historical ironies in Judaism are fine with me as well; it is the moral core of a religion that can impart something of value to us.

PFnV

 

[RI Patriots fan]

I make no such contention, RI. I freely admit Christianity is a Jewish invention, by and large -- like it or not, there is a great deal of Judaism in the faith, increasingly so as you study the sayings material ascribed to Jesus. I think that he was radicalizing principles of Judaism to bring followers closer to what he thought of as ideal practice, in expectation of the imminent end times.

But he was dead and entombed before Paul began his mission. And Rome increasingly influenced the development of Christianity, particularly in the fourth century.

As I said, every religion borrows. It's okay with me that bringing the birthday of Jesus in line with that of the reborn sun was convenient for the Chirstianity of the time. Plenty of historical ironies in Judaism are fine with me as well; it is the moral core of a religion that can impart something of value to us.

PFnV

Christianity obviously has it's roots in Judism. When I hear that it was a "Roman invention" it always gives me a chuckle.

The person of Jesus is the fulfillment of God's promise to the Jewish people. I don't think that he was merely a mortal being radicalizing the Jewish faith.
I believe that he truly rose from the dead and I certainly believe that his disciples believed it as well.

Ok...Roman influence. Please do tell. I want specifics. How specifically did Rome influence Catholic doctrine? What doctrine and what is the evidence?


I don't believe that my religion "borrowed". I believe that my religion was revealed to us by God himself. I believe that God began to reveal himself to the Jewish people and then finally through his son Jesus. I believe there is a supernatural....do u? Is there any room in that Progressive heart for a divine being?

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Christianity obviously has it's roots in Judism. When I hear that it was a "Roman invention" it always gives me a chuckle.

Similarly, the Minnesota Twins and the Texas Rangers had their roots in Washington, D.C. Neither, however, is "really" the Washington Senators.

The person of Jesus is the fulfillment of God's promise to the Jewish people. I don't think that he was merely a mortal being radicalizing the Jewish faith.

I do think this. It is also the best conclusion you can make without putting one's thumb on the scale by invoking one or another supernatural claim. Don't be hurt by this: Judaism itself makes one very big supernatural claim, the existence of a single monotheistic God. So I certainly don't get my knickers in a twist that others posit a trinitarian godhead to replace that God. However, the point of view of the trinitarian only makes sense to the trinitarian (i.e., that if one God is good, this Trinitarian godhead is its "fulfillment."

I believe that he truly rose from the dead and I certainly believe that his disciples believed it as well.

You believe a lot of things.

Ok...Roman influence. Please do tell. I want specifics. How specifically did Rome influence Catholic doctrine? What doctrine and what is the evidence?

Let's start with two prime examples contained in my one just-for-laughs comment on the Feast of Sol Invictus:

1. What are Christians of any sect doing celebrating birthdays?

2. Why move the birthday in question to the date of the Feast of Sol Invictus, if not to better comport with contemporary expectations of Roman society, if not (as is more likely) of Roman authority?

I don't believe that my religion "borrowed". I believe that my religion was revealed to us by God himself. I believe that God began to reveal himself to the Jewish people and then finally through his son Jesus. I believe there is a supernatural....do u? Is there any room in that Progressive heart for a divine being?

If you say it hard enough does that make it true?

Of course your religion borrowed.

As to my belief in the supernatural, I have not yet seen the bounds of the natural; thus far, after all our inquiry, we still have questions to resolve. We stick in religion when the answers we know are unsatisfying, which is little more than rank superstition.

When I know the limits of nature, I can comment on the supernatural.

I do believe in God, as a choice; I am aware that I can choose to believe in a living presence that supercedes all of us and each of us, and in which we all partake by nature of our being -- there's that verb "to be" again.

I would say that God's existence is scientifically unproven. But I would add that it is not disproven; so, I'm conscious that I'm making the choice to believe, but it is fine with me if someone else doesn't, and it's fine by me if someone believes in a trinity instead of one God. Once again, those too are choices.

"I believe," however, that you should at least be conscious that you are making a choice.

Have you chosen to believe, RI, like I have?

PFnV

 

[DarrylS]

Just because someone may think someone is wrong doesn't make them wrong. Someone could, in fact, be right. I stand by ************ and the Apostles.

The Catholic church is the only way to salvation. That being said, I detailed in this thread that are those who throuugh no fault of their own can be saved and not recognize the Catholic church.

As much as your UU friends will tell you otherwise, there is a heaven and a hell and even worse.....a God......who tells us what is right and wrong and judges us accordingly.

It is always good/great to denigrate another persons religion while beating the drum for your own...

Do not judge lest you be judged..

 

[RI Patriots fan]

I do think this. It is also the best conclusion you can make without putting one's thumb on the scale by invoking one or another supernatural claim. Don't be hurt by this: Judaism itself makes one very big supernatural claim, the existence of a single monotheistic God. So I certainly don't get my knickers in a twist that others posit a trinitarian godhead to replace that God. However, the point of view of the trinitarian only makes sense to the trinitarian (i.e., that if one God is good, this Trinitarian godhead is its "fulfillment."



Let's start with two prime examples contained in my one just-for-laughs comment on the Feast of Sol Invictus:

1. What are Christians of any sect doing celebrating birthdays?

2. Why move the birthday in question to the date of the Feast of Sol Invictus, if not to better comport with contemporary expectations of Roman society, if not (as is more likely) of Roman authority?

As to my belief in the supernatural, I have not yet seen the bounds of the natural; thus far, after all our inquiry, we still have questions to resolve. We stick in religion when the answers we know are unsatisfying, which is little more than rank superstition.

When I know the limits of nature, I can comment on the supernatural.

I do believe in God, as a choice; I am aware that I can choose to believe in a living presence that supercedes all of us and each of us, and in which we all partake by nature of our being -- there's that verb "to be" again.

I would say that God's existence is scientifically unproven. But I would add that it is not disproven; so, I'm conscious that I'm making the choice to believe, but it is fine with me if someone else doesn't, and it's fine by me if someone believes in a trinity instead of one God. Once again, those too are choices.

"I believe," however, that you should at least be conscious that you are making a choice.

Have you chosen to believe, RI, like I have?

PFnV

We, as Catholics, do not see our Trinitarian God as a "replacement" for the God of Judiasm but rather a further revelation from God himself about his nature. We also believe that our Trinitarian God is, in fact, one God...not 3 Gods.

As for your example of a doctrine being influenced by the Romans......just as I thought

Celebrating the birthday of Jesus is not a doctrine. It is a practice or a devotion. The church is influenced in its practices and devotions (as well as disciplines) by empires, countries, other religions, movements, and even individuals all the time. The church is not going to contradict the deposit of faith (dogmas/defined doctrines) given to it by the Apostles.
So going forward, if you can't point to a specific doctrine that was contradicted by the church due to Roman influence then you might want to change what you say to the Roman Empire affected the church in its practices which is actually accurate and of no consequence to the defined doctrine and dogma taught by the church.


Yes, I have chosen to believe because God has revealed himself to me through his grace. So it is not simply an intellectual exercise but also a "pair bonding" where my God resides in my soul as long as I allow him to stay.

How have you come to your belief in God?

 

[Lifer]

RI Patriots fan is to Catholicism as Fred Phelps is to Protestants. I havent heard any Catholics claim the only way to Salvation is through the Catholic Church. Ive encountered many Evangelicals like this, that their church is the only way and all other denominations and Catholics are "not of God". All because it has been revealed to him. Yeah, thats how cults are born.
Hey, i believe ************ is the way. I will proclaim that. But i wont denegrate someone else beliefs. I respect Catholics. I dont go for this self proclaimed version of his. Or the arrogance behind it.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

RI Patriots fan is to Catholicism as Fred Phelps is to Protestants. I havent heard any Catholics claim the only way to Salvation is through the Catholic Church. Ive encountered many Evangelicals like this, that their church is the only way and all other denominations and Catholics are "not of God". All because it has been revealed to him. Yeah, thats how cults are born.
Hey, i believe ************ is the way. I will proclaim that. But i wont denegrate someone else beliefs. I respect Catholics. I dont go for this self proclaimed version of his. Or the arrogance behind it.

Hey, just to be clear, I'm interested in the doctrinal ins and outs of various faiths, and interested in how individuals express those different faiths, whether I agree or disagree. Obviously you and I will disagree, but I'll gladly own that my own religious views/experience are as suspect as anybody else's -- particularly when we share objective observations.

My view is that spirituality, as distinct from but informed by doctrinal religions, is beyond conversation and objective critique or proof, because it is inherently subjective. We can talk about these side phenomena like rules of behavior and doctrine, but we cannot talk about the thing itself without, inherently, lying. That said, our lie can be closer to or further out from the truth, as each of us experience it. The more honest we are and the less defensive of our dogma, the closer to our truth we can get.

So while discussion of the various dogmas is a great pastime, for me it's not a discussion of the thing in itself, Kant's noumenon. Rather, the rules and rituals and dogma are all phenomena.

The spiritual experience, to me, has this in common with the so-called "object" of worship, that is (for monotheists) God.

So in slightly teasing the likes of RI by adopting the viewpoint his "opposite number" might employ in some antagonistic branch of Judaism, I certainly hope I don't give offense to those Christians who approach faith in such a way as to embrace its heart.

Certainly I understand that from a Christian doctrinal point of view, there's a "mystery" that makes the Trinity a form of monotheism. From a Jewish doctrinal point of view, trinitarianism simply isn't monotheism. I believe that from an Islamic point of view the same or something very similar is true: trinitarianism is at the very least a corruption of true monotheism, however Mohammad himself saw Christians of his time as spiritually more like Muslims than anybody else (likely because he found commonality with Jesus in that Jews rejected both. It's also been postulated that he was counseled/influenced by Nestorian Christianity.)

I'd also point out that Jewish mystics themselves (and in many cases mystics of other faiths) point out that the God we worship is in every case an approximation made by humans to be accessed by human devotion and reason. That's why they're mystics - they're not trying to learn the "name" of God that humans come up with, they're trying to directly experience the godhead/communion with the godhead. This is a good deal more challenging than a few fasts and periods of penance, or a weekly ritual involving bread and wine.

I do not think our rituals bring us any closer to the divinity.

I do think that those who try to live their faiths, whatever their faiths, to the good of others, have my "blessing" -- although they have no need of it. Those who twist it into hatred and violence have no sense of what the core of faith is. And those who cling to its earthly shell have my pity.

PFnV

 

[PatsFanInVa]

We, as Catholics, do not see our Trinitarian God as a "replacement" for the God of Judiasm but rather a further revelation from God himself about his nature. We also believe that our Trinitarian God is, in fact, one God...not 3 Gods.

This is again a demonstration of the objective division between what you believe and what others believe. See my response to Lifer. By tweaking you on trinitarianism, I'm merely pointing out that your doctrine, while valid to you, is indefensible outside your faith -- you may paste bits of a catechism, and if I were of a mind to, I could paste learned opinions from other faiths about monotheism and trinitarianism. Within Judaism, there is one God. Not three-in-one. One. God's not gathering himself up into one human form, begetting special "sons" (except in the sense that we are all children of God,) etc.

Shema Yisroel, Adonoi Elohanu, Adonoi Ehud. Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One. See? All I have to do is forthrightly state my faith, and yours goes "poof!" Yay! I can do it too.

I understand that you believe that you are a monotheist. In my faith, you're a trinitarian, but very close to monotheism.

And guess what? We're both clinging to our distinctions, vocabulary, and schedule of characterizations. Like Francis, I believe that if your heart is loving and your actions show that truth of the heart, you're doing something right, and that our arguments about our divisions, while entertaining, mean very little if anything.

As for your example of a doctrine being influenced by the Romans......just as I thought

Celebrating the birthday of Jesus is not a doctrine. It is a practice or a devotion. The church is influenced in its practices and devotions (as well as disciplines) by empires, countries, other religions, movements, and even individuals all the time. The church is not going to contradict the deposit of faith (dogmas/defined doctrines) given to it by the Apostles.
So going forward, if you can't point to a specific doctrine that was contradicted by the church due to Roman influence then you might want to change what you say to the Roman Empire affected the church in its practices which is actually accurate and of no consequence to the defined doctrine and dogma taught by the church.

Oh don't roll your eyes, RI. Your Christmas has been demonstrated for the nth time to be in great part a pagan celebration. Shall I go after some other aspect of Christianity borrowed from paganism? Hell, I could go after Judaism, and kill two birds with one stone (three counting Islam.) After all, if Christianity is "fulfilling" Judaism and Judaism is borrowing, Christianity is transitively "fulfilling" paganism. I could run this play every day of the week and twice on Sunday, whether regarding the fractional body of knowledge/doctrine that's original since first century Judaism, or the larger body of knowledge/doctrine that preceded Christianity. I honestly have no desire to, but let me know if you insist. Your religion's like all other religions. It borrows from the cultures around it, and it's influenced by the political powers of the day.

Yes, I have chosen to believe because God has revealed himself to me through his grace. So it is not simply an intellectual exercise but also a "pair bonding" where my God resides in my soul as long as I allow him to stay.

How have you come to your belief in God?

When I was a child, I believed what those who came before me believed. Then I became a man, and I put away childish things. I began to study other religions as well, but not as "rivals" to my own or to "test the waters." More because I wanted to understand the claims that they made -- most vociferously, the claims of Christians around me, but also the others. I found something to admire in just about every religion I looked at. I'm not some encyclopedia of religion or anything. But the more I studied them, the more I found that they had commonalities as well as differences. I found more and more that the differences tended to align with the petty needs of a human bureaucracy. The commonalities tended, to my point of view, to partake of spiritual truth.

The trouble with such observations is that it opens two paths: One is intellectual vanity, which I enjoy very much. It is the understanding of what isn't, and it has a culling effect. It becomes simpler to see errors -- both one's own and others -- but does not help one in embracing what one does feel moved to embrace.

Embracing and engaging in the core spirituality of religion, to me, comes by choice. It can be as concentrated as a state of ongoing meditation -- whatever your meditational practice -- and it can be as simple as embodying as best one can one's religious principles.

I came by these viewpoints through study and practice. I still engage in study, and no longer pursue any spiritual practice other than attempting to live life so as not to do unto the other what is hateful to myself, and loving God -- not the mountains of words or the name of God but what I've realized God to be, in my own personal and admittedly subjective exploration.

You have your lie. I have mine.

I say it this way because when we talk of God we by nature diminish him to an object of discussion and of language. We by nature lie. That includes the lies of your catechism and the lies of the Torah, the lies of the Quran and the lies of the tent revival meeting, the lies of the shema and the lies of the apostles' creed.

If it is spoken in language and it is about God, it is less than the "object" which it purports to discuss. It is insufficient and it by nature leads to the diminishing of God himself.

In moments of another sort of "grace," I believe myself to have directly experienced God.

In states of mind where I ask myself if my own experience could be described using some other reasoning or vocabulary -- for example, phenomenology of mind -- I must admit that I can.

In that sense, I choose to believe: I choose to embrace that my faith is an expression of a spiritual reality.

And I find that this purely subjective realization cannot be gainsaid by any skeptic, and has no need to gainsay any skeptic.

I believe this spirit is available to all whose hearts seek it in truth - one of the most beautiful and compelling lies about it (in the sense I discuss above) is in Corinithians -

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
​

While not part of "my" canon, it seems obvious that it's written by someone who's spiritually close to my own understanding -- this is a good approximation of what we'd expect to see of ourselves, if we're indeed steeped in the thing itself, rather than the words and the dogma surrounding it. I don't say that I constantly dwell in consciousness and communion to the godhead or that I'm anywhere close to perfect in my understanding or my own demeanor. I only say that what one subjectively encounters in true pursuit of spiritual truth, as the quote above maintains, has no need to "boast," to disprove the other, to categorize, or to belittle.

Another who may have been dwelling in a similar state of "grace" wrote this

Yes, my guard stood hard when abstract threats
Too noble to neglect
Deceived me into thinking
I had something to protect
Good and bad, I define these terms
Quite clear, no doubt, somehow
Ah, but I was so much older then
I’m younger than that now​

And here we are, tediously exchanging quotes and proofs and catechisms. You know your spirit and your dogma and your practice; I know mine. If they have any value at all, "objectively," it is that it would bring us all closer in the spirit Francis has so eloquently propounded.

I hope you have enjoyed my lies; I have enjoyed yours.

PFnV

 

[RI Patriots fan]

I rolled my eyes because the birth of Jesus on December 25th is not a doctrinal issue. As Catholics, we are not required to believe that Jesus was born on Dcember 25th. The bottom line is that you have no proof to show that Rome had any affect whatsoever on Catholic doctrine nor the Catholic canon. But again, I challenge you to show me the proof. Show me the doctrine that the Romans changed.

My "Christmas" wasn't even celebrated in the very early church. As it started to gain hold in the church it was celebrated at different times and in different ways and in different places in the church.


"The first evidence of the feast is from Egypt. About A.D. 200, Clement of Alexandria (Stromata I.21) says that certain Egyptian theologians "over curiously" assign, not the year alone, but the day of Christ's birth, placing it on 25 Pachon (20 May) in the twenty-eighth year of Augustus."


"In 385, therefore, 25 December was not observed at Jerusalem."


CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Christmas


Obviously, the date of Christ's birth was celebrated on December 25th in response to the pagan holidays. It was very common for the Catholic church to "baptize" pagan symbols and celebrations in an attempt to appeal to pagans. This didn't mean that the Catholic church was suddenly changing it's doctrines and dogmas to integrate pagan beliefs but rather changing devotions and practices to appeal to these pagans. Again devotions/practices are not the same as doctrines and dogmas.

You can go after anything you like (in particular Catholic practices). Do you really think this is my first rodeo and you'd be showing me anything I haven't seen and answered already?

Again, I've freely admitted that Catholic practices and devotions change for all sorts of reasons. Heck, this weekend in the feast of Corpus Christi in the USA. It was a feast inspired by the actions of one man and is celebrated by the universal church for almost 800 years. So show me where a Catholic doctrine....actual doctrine......has been lifted from paganism and doesn't have its roots in the Apostles.

One more thing....just because something is similar doesn't mean that it's the same or sourced from something. People have tried to link Jesus to Mithras, Horus, Dionysus, etc. because supposed similarities existed between Jesus and these fictional beings. The problem is that they never looked at the differences. That's the rub.
If similarities were the only thing that mattered, historians thousands of years from now could look at Lincoln and Kennedy and conclude that Kennedy is a fictional character based upon Lincoln. Look at the striking similarities:


"1. Both Lincoln and Kennedy were elected to Congress in '46 (1846 in Lincoln's case, 1946 in Kennedy's). Both became President in '60.
2. Both had lazy eye muscles which would cause one eye to wander.
3. Both had been skippers on boats (Lincoln on the Mississippi river boat 'Talisman' and Kennedy on the PT-109)
4. Both were the second sons in their families. Each lost a sister to death before becoming President. Both married 24-year-old brunettes who had been previously engaged to other men, and who spoke French fluently.
5. Both had a child die while living in the White House.
6. Both were related to U.S. Senators, U.S. Attorney Generals who graduated from Harvard, and ambassadors to the Court of St. James.
7. Both were acquaintances of a man named Adlai E. Stevenson who ran for either Vice-President or President, a doctor named Charles Taft and a man named William Graham.
8. Both were advised not to go to the place where they died.
9. Both Lincoln's theater box and Kennedy's car were altered for their benefit (Lincoln's theater box had a partition removed to accomodate his party, Kennedy's car had a raised rear seat)
10. Both were slain on a Friday before a major Holiday (Lincoln on the Friday before Easter, Kennedy on the Friday before Thanksgiving). Both were shot while sitting next to their wives and in the presence of another couple. Of the other couple, the man was also wounded by the assassin, but neither wife was wounded.
11. Both were shot from behind and in the head. Both of their wives cradled their husband's heads after they were shot.
12. John Wilkes Booth shot Lincoln from inside a theater, and fled to a warehouse. Lee Harvey Oswald shot Kennedy from inside a warehouse and fled to a theater.
13. Lincoln was shot while inside the Ford theater, in box 7. Kennedy was shot while inside a Ford automobile, in car 7 in the motorcade.
14. Both were pronounced dead in places with the initials P.H. (Lincoln in the Peterson House, and Kennedy in Parkland Hospital)
15. Both of their assassins escaped, and were killed before going to trial.
16. Both of their assassins were privates in the military. Each was detained after the shooting by a policeman named Baker. Both were eventually killed by a Colt revolver.
17. Both Lincoln and Kennedy were succeeded by southern ex-senators named Johnson who were born in '08. Both Johnsons were in their mid-fifties when they took the office and both suffered from urethral stones (the only presidents to have them). Both Johnsons could have run for re-election in '68, but chose not to."


King David 8 .com


You say that you came to your belief through study. What does that mean exactly? Does that mean at one point you didn't believe in God and then you studied and found something that made you believe in God? What in your studies made you believe in God? Why do you call it a "lie"?

I don't consider what I have to be a lie. If anything, for me to consider it a lie would, in fact, be a lie.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

We've already dispensed with the fraudulence of the Christmas birthday celebration, so thanks for the assist.

Now, since you know there's no such thing as Ezekialmas, Mosesmas, Isaiahmas, or any other "mas" for Jewish figures, perhaps you can deduce that Jews do not celebrate the birthdays of famous men or religious figures.

Why did Christians adopt this pagan ritual, if not through Roman influence?

As you point out, the parallels between Mithraism and Christianity are well documented and not the only ones. The Lincoln/Kennedy stuff is all well and good, and as you say, similarity does not prove the phenomenon of borrowing from one cultural system to another. However, in the evolution of belief systems and cultures that know of one another, developing in a vacuum would be the exception rather than the rule. You've already admitted that the birthday (!) of Jesus was taken from Pagan religion. The celebration of the birthday itself is actually that much more "damning" if you believe that borrowing from other cultures is some kind of sin from which your chosen faith can't recover.

Tropes like this were traded around culture to culture all the time in the ancient world. There was no "cup" involved in Jesus' crucifixion. Why then "take this cup away from me"? The answer of course is that the Greek-speaking world would know the parallel being drawn to Socrates.

As to my characterization of our respective talk about God as lying:

I described both our descriptions as lies, which, if you believe that God cannot be limited by something so petty as our words, you could hardly disagree with.

I did not describe my own experience to be a lie. But, by necessity, to the extent I try to describe God to you, I will be lying. The same is true of you, unless you believe God to submit to your categorizations, even if you use your most puffed up words beginning with "omni."

I laid out early teaching, experience, and study as all components of my relationship with God. You chose to reply about "study." Re-read my post if you like.



PFnV

 

[RI Patriots fan]

We've already dispensed with the fraudulence of the Christmas birthday celebration, so thanks for the assist.

Now, since you know there's no such thing as Ezekialmas, Mosesmas, Isaiahmas, or any other "mas" for Jewish figures, perhaps you can deduce that Jews do not celebrate the birthdays of famous men or religious figures.

Why did Christians adopt this pagan ritual, if not through Roman influence?

As you point out, the parallels between Mithraism and Christianity are well documented and not the only ones. The Lincoln/Kennedy stuff is all well and good, and as you say, similarity does not prove the phenomenon of borrowing from one cultural system to another. However, in the evolution of belief systems and cultures that know of one another, developing in a vacuum would be the exception rather than the rule. You've already admitted that the birthday (!) of Jesus was taken from Pagan religion. The celebration of the birthday itself is actually that much more "damning" if you believe that borrowing from other cultures is some kind of sin from which your chosen faith can't recover.

Tropes like this were traded around culture to culture all the time in the ancient world. There was no "cup" involved in Jesus' crucifixion. Why then "take this cup away from me"? The answer of course is that the Greek-speaking world would know the parallel being drawn to Socrates.

As to my characterization of our respective talk about God as lying:

I described both our descriptions as lies, which, if you believe that God cannot be limited by something so petty as our words, you could hardly disagree with.

I did not describe my own experience to be a lie. But, by necessity, to the extent I try to describe God to you, I will be lying. The same is true of you, unless you believe God to submit to your categorizations, even if you use your most puffed up words beginning with "omni."

I laid out early teaching, experience, and study as all components of my relationship with God. You chose to reply about "study." Re-read my post if you like.



PFnV

Again....another strawman. I didn't say that the Birthday of Jesus was "taken" from Pagan religions. I said that the church had celebrated the fest of Christmas at different times and different ways in different places before it was celebrated on the December 25th.

Then the church made the decision to celebrate the fest of Christmas on December 25th to conincide with the Pagan holidays, in essence, to "baptize" them. There was no doctrinal change....there was change in "practice". The date of Jesus's birth was never a matter of doctrine.

I've said it how many times now....in regards to practice and devotion, the church has been influenced by countries, groups, other religions, and even individuals. No one in the Catholic church has an issue with this and, if anything, we have benefited by it.

Again....practice and devotion are not the same as doctrine and dogma. Practice and devotion will change....always. Doctrine and dogma will never be contradicted.

So again I'll ask.....show me a doctrine that the Romans forced the Catholic church to change so it contradicted the deposit of faith. Just one. That's all I'm looking for....just one. An actual doctrine...not another practice or devotion. Either that or admit that you were wrong. The Romans had no influence over the deposit of faith.


Can you please tell me about your "experiences" with God? I understand if it is too personal to reveal on an internet chat board. But if it means anything, I am intrigued.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Regarding direct experience, I both prefer not to, and believe it's lacking to attempt it... I certainly think the capacity's universal, in the real sense of the word.

Regarding your need to defend your dogma and doctrine as sui generis and un-influenced by Roman sources, I'll get to it tomorrow.

We've established that Catholic practice is influenced by other cultures. We'll examine external influences on Catholic dogma/doctrine in the morning (or afternoon, or evening... when I'm less tired).

PFnV

 

[RI Patriots fan]

Regarding direct experience, I both prefer not to, and believe it's lacking to attempt it... I certainly think the capacity's universal, in the real sense of the word.

Regarding your need to defend your dogma and doctrine as sui generis and un-influenced by Roman sources, I'll get to it tomorrow.

We've established that Catholic practice is influenced by other cultures. We'll examine external influences on Catholic dogma/doctrine in the morning (or afternoon, or evening... when I'm less tired).

PFnV

King strawman strikes yet again.

I didn't say that all Catholic dogma/doctrine was unique. I said that Catholic doctrine and dogma were given to us by the Apostles as divine revelation. I asked you to show me where Rome has influenced the Catholic Church to contradict what it received from the Apostles.

So an example would be....the church has defined as true doctrine (that it received from the Apostles) that Jesus is a falcon but then Rome gets its clutches on the church and the church contradicts this defined teaching and says that Jesus is actually an eagle.


As to Catholic practice, we haven't "established" anything...lol. It is well known that Catholic practice and devotion are influenced by a multitude of things. We see it in the liturgy. We see it in devotions to saints. We see it in "movements" in the church. We see it everywhere in the church. We see it in the church even today. Girl Altar servers are a good example.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Was there never doctrine supporting male-only altar servers?

Or did the Church never issue any such statement, proclaiming a reason that only males were altar servers prior to this innovation?

In other words, you have pointed out that culture has influenced the allowable gender of altar servers. Agreed.

Was there never doctrinal support -- that is, a theologically based explanation -- as to why altar servers were previously only males?

By the way, yes, we've established that Catholic practice has been influenced externally. You can't just agree with it in one breath and say we've done no such thing in the next breath.

 

[RI Patriots fan]

Was there never doctrine supporting male-only altar servers?

Or did the Church never issue any such statement, proclaiming a reason that only males were altar servers prior to this innovation?

In other words, you have pointed out that culture has influenced the allowable gender of altar servers. Agreed.

Was there never doctrinal support -- that is, a theologically based explanation -- as to why altar servers were previously only males?

By the way, yes, we've established that Catholic practice has been influenced externally. You can't just agree with it in one breath and say we've done no such thing in the next breath.

Altar servers are not a doctrinal teaching. Altar servers are clearly a practice of the church. Of course, there were theological reasons for male only servers just as there are theological reasons for female altar servers. There are many things that we do in the church for "theological reasons". That doesn't mean that these rubrics are doctrine. In fact, the rubrics of the mass have changed for various reasons. The rubrics of the mass are not doctrinal teachings and therefore can change and do change.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Rubrics


http://www.stthomasvoluntown.org/rubricguide.htm

As I mentioned earlier, dogma/doctrine are different from practice and devotion. Doctrine is concerned with matters of faith and morals revealed to the church by the Apostles and then explained by the church.

An example of a doctrinal teaching would be the divinity of Jesus. This is something that the church has clearly received from the Apostles and has been defined by the church infallibly.

Again, we haven't established anything. It wasn't like you uncovered something that most Catholics didn't know already. You certainly didn't get any argument from me. What next? Are we going to "establish" that the church has a Pope?

 

[Lifer]

Such a pleasant fellow. You can just feel the love of Jesus, cant you?

 

[DarrylS]

Such a pleasant fellow. You can just feel the love of Jesus, cant you?

You can really feel the warmth, caring and message of Jesus...

The "golden rule" just oozes into every fabric of these posts..