Originally Posted By Mr X Specifically, the Catholic religion. Lots of interesting posts on this thread... <a href="http://mb.laughingplace.com/MsgBoard-T-82960-P-4.asp?c=1" target="_blank">http://mb.laughingplace.com/Ms gBoard-T-82960-P-4.asp?c=1</a> But as it was getting very off-topic, and out of respect for the dearly departed butcher of Baghdad (who is certain to spend at LEAST some hard time in purgatory...I wonder if it's like that jail show "Oz", where he, Hitler and Jack the Ripper can form a gang and intimidate the other inmates?, but that's another story)...I figured I'd start a new thread. First of all, was Jesus around before his birth? I mean, he is part god right? If so, he's eternal. Which would make him more god than human right? So confusing! But anyway, I was thinking, assuming that Jesus is more of a half god/half human hybrid, the absolute holiest human ever to live would be...Mary. Right? Mother of God and all that. So, shouldn't all popes be female? I mean, what's up with that? They can't even be priests for pete's sake (saint pete, of course). I sure as heck think Mary would outrank a priest in any chain of command, no? Certainly outranks the pope too, she's right up there with the apostles! And some of them weren't even very nice to Jesus in his final days, doubting him and betraying him and all that (are THEY in heaven as long as they pulled the old "deathbed repentance" routine? what about pontious pilate? if so, they're surely done with their purgatory time by now, so Saddam will miss out on the pleasure I guess, til he's done with his 10 to 20 centuries with time off for good behavior). So anyway, well even if we assume Jesus was completely human, at least for his time on the planet, then sure the top dog ought to be a dude out of respect for the most holy guy and all that. But still, shouldn't the second most powerful priestly post in the Catholic church belong to a chick? Mary was the second most holy human after all, or first depending on how you look at it. And another thing, I was told that animals don't go to heaven because they have no souls. How can this be? My old, faithful dachshund Strudel, rest her soul, was one of my most beloved friends when I was a lad. If, after my stay in purgatory is finally over, following my deathbed confession, and I finally get to the pearly gates, how can it be "eternal happiness" for me if I can't be reunited with my old pal Strudel? Discuss.
Originally Posted By DAR <<And another thing, I was told that animals don't go to heaven because they have no souls.>> No All Dogs Go To Heaven.
Originally Posted By Mr X That's not what my Sunday School teacher told me. But, that's okay cause she also told me my Mom was in hell (suicide...the ultimate sin cause you can't repent!).
Originally Posted By FaMulan I believe the Catholic Church is male dominated because of the absolute early church's following of Jewish Law that, until the rabbis made a fresh interpretation, held women in a subservient position. Remember, Jesus wasn't Christian. He was a Jew who was out to reform the Jewish faith. When he died, his predominatley male followers kept the social order of the Jewish laws for their new church to worship their fallen rabbi (rabbi means teacher).
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< [From another thread, about people going to Hell:] Not to mention all those poor saps that ate meat on Friday before they changed the rule and are now stuck in hell on a technicality! >>> One thing I've always been puzzled about is this notion of "they" being able to change the rules. Why was it prohibited to eat meat on Fridays for hundreds of years, but then 20 or years ago the rule changed? Are we to believe that God wanted the rule to suddenly change some 198x years after His son was born, and that the church was just His messenger here on earth to do so? And I say this out of ignorance of the stated reason for the change by the church. Or what about one of my favorites: excommunication of Copernicus because he went against the church's teachings that the Earth was the center of the universe (as unequivocally stated in the Bible, at least as was believed at the time). If the church can get something as basic as whether the earth revolves around the sun or the other way around wrong, how can they be believed to be the dispenser of absolute truth and the one keeper of the one and only religion, and version of that religion, that is 100% correct today?
Originally Posted By SuperDry Never having sat down and studied Catholicism directly, I've certainly learned a lot and gain a lot of insight from reading cmpaley's many posts on the subject. One thing that's apparent is that there's a rich set of beliefs that actually provide answers to most questions one could have (although there does seem to be a lot of hand-waving that goes on, and the answers aren't necessarily convincing to someone not already pre-disposed to believe them). This brings up something I've found interesting about Christianity in general. If you go to any of the several kinds of Protestant Christianity that have their own developed set of beliefs outside of the Bible, you'll find something similar with each one: they all have drawn a lot of conclusions other than those that could be directly divined from the Bible, and all have this set of knowledge and explanations developed over the years as to why these are the correct beliefs. They have some sort of central governing body of clergy above the priest level that is in charge of deciding these things (or, discovering them under divine guidance if you will). There's all sort of discussion, internal strife, and back and forth within each of these Protestant religions to arrive at what eventually becomes their doctrine. So there's eventually a sense of consensus reached so that everyone feels comfortable with the results. But what this does not do is explain how all of these somewhat divergent belief systems are arrived at from the same source material (i.e. the Bible). Despite the enormous time and energy devoted to the task within each "flavor" of Christianity, there's almost no effort spent in reconciling between them. That is, it's not as if the Baptists and Presbyterians get together to hash out their different interpretations of the Bible. Each arrives at their own interpretation and set of extra-Biblical beliefs, and all seem to believe within their own group that they've arrived at the one true and correct set of beliefs without ever addressing what I would think is the obvious elephant in the room of only one of them can really be correct (well, at most one, and perhaps none). It would seem that a great opportunity to harness all of the various versions of Christianity in order to come at a much more enlightened understanding of the true meaning is being wasted. When one considers why this might be, one can come to some very interesting conclusions.
Originally Posted By Mr X **It would seem that a great opportunity to harness all of the various versions of Christianity in order to come at a much more enlightened understanding of the true meaning is being wasted.** Who said religion was logical? Besides, the SouthPark creators already revealed the answer to THE BIG QUESTION... The Mormons are right. Everyone else goes to hell. Except, and this is funny AND relevant, Saddam Hussein...who, having spent time in hell as Satan's lover, is cast up to heaven through a secret backdoor deal made between Satan and God, to spend eternity with the mormons. Later, while building a ladder to heaven, United States military sources discover secret installations with weapons of mass destruction being constructed by Hussein in Heaven, and plan a pre-emptive strike on heaven in retaliation.
Originally Posted By Mr X Unfortunately SouthPark is no longer factually accurate, since Saddam Hussein was in fact hanged rather than killed by a pack of wild boars. They'll have to fix it in the special edition, I guess.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Once upon a time we were polytheistic, whether Celt, African, Aboriginal, Native American, Roman, Viking, Greek etc. But we now refer to those people's teachings as folk lore and mythology. In my view, so is christianity. Great teachings, and Jesus (if indeed he was one man) was a great teacher. The bible is a riviting read. But Mohammed, and Buddha had great teachings. My theory is that the old testement had sound teachings that we now use science for. Don't eat dairy and meat products at the same time - well in dessert conditions with no air conditioning and less water - this now seems common sense. The New Testament also has great teachings and parables. But some of the behaviours and traditions were created by political leaders under the auspices of the church. Remember the Norman Conquest of England was seen as a Crusade sanctioned by the Pope. Organised religion corrupts. It may give a sense of community and that's great. But if you have been to the vatican and seen the wealth, or whitnessed the fundamentalism of the Baptist Bible belt, it does make one question the piousness of the organisations. Is not the greatest celebration of faith spending time in nature and demonstrating love? I'd like to think so.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>First of all, was Jesus around before his birth? I mean, he is part god right? If so, he's eternal. Which would make him more god than human right?<< Ah, Christology and the Trinity (they are inherently related). The Blessed Trinity has always existed from eternity past and will always exist to eternity future. The best explanation I've heard about the trinity was actually most recent. There is one true God in three divine Persons. They are all eternal, omnipresent and omnipotent. They are referred to by their relationship to each other: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Father eternally begets the Son who reflects the Father's perfect love by which the Holy Spirit proceeds. Yeah, tough to understand, I know. The Athanasian Creed really goes into it in detail. It can be read here: <a href="http://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html" target="_blank">http://www.ccel.org/creeds/ath anasian.creed.html</a> At any rate, God the Son became a Man in order to redeem humanity. As He is God, He needed a pure human person through which He can come into the world, so by a singular grace, He worked in a special way when Anna and Joachim conceived their baby in order to preserve her from the stain and effects of Original Sin. This baby's name is Mary. As Jesus is both God and Man but only one PERSON, we call Mary the Mother of God. Not because Jesus is "more God than man" but because Jesus is one person with two natures (divinity and humanity). After all, a mother doesn't give birth to a nature but a person. >>So, shouldn't all popes be female?<< No, because the first Pope was a man by the name of Peter. And to this ridiculous charge about why there is a male priesthood, it's for one reason and one reason only. Jesus Christ came as a MAN and the role of the ordained ministry is to image Christ and act on His behalf in confecting the Sacraments, especially the Eucharist. When a priest stands at the altar and offers Mass, he stands in a Christ. When a priest hears confessions, he is there as Christ. When a Bishop or priest confirms a person, he is there as Christ. A Bishop stands in as Christ in the Sacrament or Orders and a Deacon, Priest or Bishop stands in as Christ in the Sacraments of Matrimony and Baptism. Yes, women can baptize under certain circumstances (actually, ANYONE can baptize under certain circumstances, even a non-believer!), but the ordinary minister of Baptism is a Priest. On the other hand, women have an amazing amount of power in the Church and always have. Look at the list of Saints and you'll see many women who were very powerful in the Church. The Blessed Virgin Mary is a very good example, but there's also Bl. Teresa of Calcutta or St. Faustina Kawalska (through whom the devotion to the Divine Mercy and Mercy Sunday was made known). Also, when nuns taught in schools, they exercised a great amount of power because knowledge is power. That's who taught children (the mean nasty nuns notwithstanding!). >>I sure as heck think Mary would outrank a priest in any chain of command, no? Certainly outranks the pope too, she's right up there with the apostles! << Actually, the Blessed Virgin Mary outranks everyone except God. The old Confiteor prayer gives the order in the ranks of saints: I confess to Almighty God to Blessed Mary, every virgin, to Blessed Michael, the Archangel, to Blessed John the Baptist, to the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul and to all the saints... As the Mother of Jesus Christ, Mary becomes the Queen Mother, thus Queen of the domain of her Son (the pattern in found in the Old Testament: who was Solomon's queen? It was his mother, Bathsheeba), therefore, Queen of Heaven. Everyone else is under her. Of course, she doesn't lord it over others. Consider, after the Annunciation, she could have told Joseph to bring her bon-bons and sit on the couch as she was going to be Mother of the Messiah. Did she do that? No! She "made haste to the hill country" to visit her cousin Elizabeth in her pregnancy. This shows that Mary is a humble and loving mother, not a nasty bossy queen.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >><<< [From another thread, about people going to Hell:] Not to mention all those poor saps that ate meat on Friday before they changed the rule and are now stuck in hell on a technicality! >>> One thing I've always been puzzled about is this notion of "they" being able to change the rules. Why was it prohibited to eat meat on Fridays for hundreds of years, but then 20 or years ago the rule changed? Are we to believe that God wanted the rule to suddenly change some 198x years after His son was born, and that the church was just His messenger here on earth to do so? And I say this out of ignorance of the stated reason for the change by the church.<< First, people didn't go to hell because the act of eating meat on Fridays is inherently evil in itself. In and of itself, it's morally neutral. It was the willful act of disobedience to the established ecclesial authority that is problematic. The same holds true for not going to Mass every Sunday and Holy Day of Obligation. As to the no meat on Fridays thing, something is actually missing in the discussion. The PURPOSE of Friday abstinence is to perform an act of penance on Fridays in honor of the Lord's sacrifice. What actually was done is that a Catholic can now choose what that act of penance will be. For some, abstaining from meat is one way. For others, praying an extra Rosary or spending additional time reading Sacred Scripture or other Spiritual Reading or even fasting for one meal is a means of penance. Friday penance is still in full force, it's just not being explained in most Churches.
Originally Posted By jdub <<In and of itself, (the act of eating meat on Fridays is)morally neutral>> You sure never would have known that by the look on the Catholic School Lunchladies' faces when you dast ask for a burger on Friday.
Originally Posted By Mr X >>>First, people didn't go to hell because the act of eating meat on Fridays is inherently evil in itself. In and of itself, it's morally neutral. It was the willful act of disobedience to the established ecclesial authority that is problematic.<<< Ah, I see. Kind of like how Clinton didn't get impeached because of all the SEX, it was just the fact that he LIED about it. But still, you're saying those people went to hell (your words) for bucking the church's will or whatever. I thought you could only go to hell by rejecting god? Eating meat on Friday would only be rejecting the will of MEN, right? I mean, if the Pope ordered me to kill someone (don't say it couldn't happen...there are plenty of instances of corrupt and sinful Popes throughout history), and I refused to do it... Woudl I have commited a willful act of disobedience to the established ecclesial authority? Yes, of course I would. Guess that act of contempt would land me in hell then. Boy, talk about being a martyr!
Originally Posted By Schmitty Good Vibes All animals are souls. not, HAVE souls but ARE souls. When god blew the breath of life into Adam, he "came to be" or "became" a living soul. With regard to the point about animals, see this, and look at footnote 20 at the bottom of page two. The word properly used here is the Hebrew word nephish (I think more commonly and correctly spelled nephesh) which translates as soul. There is a lot of confusion about soul and spirit and I think that footnote helps a little, but it requires a lot of study and I'd take this whole thing way off track and couldn't possibly begin to cover it all. Just know that according to what the Bible says, whether you believe it or not or whether you want to put a spin on it or not, it says that all animals (including man) ARE souls. Last point: As opposed to spirit, which is kind of an intangible thing souls are mortal and can die. "The soul(nephesh)that is sinning — it itself will die." Ezekiel 18:4 (and many other similar verses) Again, separate out what a soul is and what a spirit is, etc. etc.
Originally Posted By Schmitty Good Vibes Mr X, I think you are dead on with post 16 (which went up while I was composing post 17. I also think you are going to drive yourself nuts if you continue to discuss it online. Good luck to you, I'm outta here.
Originally Posted By Mr X >>>oh man...none of this makes a lick of sense...<<< No sir, this is the RELIGION conference. You want the logic and reason conference. Straight down the hallway, second door to your left.
